PALINDROME /pal-in-drohm/ n.
(Sarah Palin)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: mir-oz
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Lord Vader | Empty Chair Next »
PALINDROME
» 321 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Jaaayyyyyy on I Don’t See It…… Geary on Money Shot Geary on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… John in OK on Money Shot John in OK on Out Like a Trout itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… itsybit on Paint By Poll Numbers itsybit on Out Like a Trout Lllll. on Paint By Poll Numbers JP on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Daily Squee: Who? Who Said That?
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
to the owner of the meowing car
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Just b kewl
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Hurry, This One Won't Last Long
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Dill Pickles the Dwarf Kitten
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Oh, Look, A Chimp. AH, LOOK AT THE CHIMP.
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
You Don't Say!
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
That Parrot is Hammered
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Never Chew Again!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Teabaggin'
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Katy Perry With/Without Makeup
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
James Harden Totally Looks Like Mr T
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Panda Bling
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: Killer Whale, Dude
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Winchester Mystery House
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
First
I think it would be a little better as “PALINDROME – responses make about the same amount of sense forward as backward.”
top spot
fail
Haha, cracking.
Oh, and in before the waaaahmbulance. Here’s a tip crybabies, if you don’t want your party to be the butt of the manjority of jokes then stop selecting people like Bush and Palin, satirists wetdreams, to represent you.
“manjority”? “wetdreams”?
Oh, you mean “MAJORITY” and “WET DREAMS”
proofreading/spelling/intelligence – FAIL
Oh no, I made a typo – on the plus side it gave you something to post in lieu of an actual response.
You sir, WIN…
By a MANjority vote.
OMG sexist!
STFU
Palin fails as a woman anyway.
Every time i hear her voice, it makes me want to gouge my ears out with a rusty spoon.
Pesty, if you’re going to be a douche, you could at least point out the grammatical errors as well. Unless you’re not as smart as you think you are, and didn’t see them. However, I’m thrilled you know “wet dreams” is actually two words. BRILLIANT.
Must you take away the joy of pointing out mistakes? Like wet dreams, it is all he has!!!
When pointing out the errors of others for the sole purpose of soliciting a response; use as little ammo as needed as it leaves you with more to use later.
Besides, in a forum such as this, unless it’s engrish is grammar really that important? I think not.
But thanks for playing.
Huh. Still a douche.
Pesty iz so funny!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Dont U know that “When pointing out the errors of others for the sole
purpose of soliciting a response” is a dependent clause? U have to follow
this with a comma, not a semi-colon.
LOLOLOLOLOL!
Here’s a newsflash tar-tar, if you want 2 use a semi-colon U have to have
2 independent clauses.
YOU “Professor Grammar Know-it All” FAIL
Good Lord – why don’t you take this argument over to the cheezburger… I can’t even ReAD the comments over there half the time…
LOL!!
Grammar isn’t important but spelling is? I tend to think in a forum such as this responses that show a modicum of original and coherent thought are more important than playing English teacher in lieu of any actual effort on your part.
THANK YOU!
I make typos all the time, it’s not cause I can’t spell or properly use grammar. it’s because I SUCK AT TYPING….
mine usually are because the word I am typing is outside of the visible range in this little posting block … no red squiggles to see = no spelling correction for me
Yay! for splitting hairs and making no real point at all. Pesty, it seems YOU win.
Yes, we should pick more communist America hating liberals to lead the nation. That would be fantastic, right?
Nothing better than bashing a candidate with conservative views because you have to have a job and work for a living.
Are you saying that people are bashing Palin because she doesn’t have to work for a living?
Or are you just making a general assumption that anyone who’s got enough brains to come up with a specific answer to a question as simple as “What periodicals do you read?” must be a radical left communist who hates “UHM-eric-UHhhhh”?
are you saying leftists don’t read? I beg to differ sir, I beg to differ.
In bed with a book.
No, that’s the opposite of what x-bert said, actually.
Commies? Aren’t they the guys who are into big government buying up corporations and controlling the financial system? Don’t we have a commie, oh, what’s his name again? Bush? Yeah, that commie Bush doesn’t want his friends to have to work for a living, he wants to put them all on welfare.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence…
And a similar amount as the one he was replying to.
I don’t see how hating work and hating Palin are linked to be honest. I hate airheaded nutjobs.
I don’t see why every forum on the web has to wind up being a political flame-fest. If you want to bash each others’ chosen political beliefs go over to sodahead.com. They love this sort of thing
I am PLENTY friggin’ proud to work for a living and do my share, I have never supported the idea that the government should bail you out of every mess you get yourself into. I hate Palin because she’s a backwards-thinking misogynist who has let an invisible man in the sky determine how she runs other people’s lives through her seat of power.
Assumption fail.
Actually, no, she has not let God determine how she runs anything, because if she did, she wouldn’t have done many of the things she’s done in her job.
. . . She PRAYED with her pastor/priest/whatever to gain her office, and she has sad that everything she does is guided by the hand of god. Wtf, my friend. Wtf.
She is a Christian, and most Christians believe they are guided by God one way or the other, just like Obama who also says he is a Christian. Right? He is a Christian, right?
No, he’s muslin
And I’m polar fleece.
*cuddles Jackie*
mmmm warm ….
I’m a poly-cotton blend
*the crowd roars*
“STONE HIM! LEVITICUS SAYS WE HAVE TO!”
No, those who are political and in the same breath claim they are Christian believe that they are the select and that they know better than God and can select who is blessed and who isn’t.
When did I say otherwise? o.o The conversation had nothing to do with Obama. Someone claimed Palin wasn’t influenced by God, when she has said she is. Relevance fail?
Wow. Either you know nothing of Palin’s track record, or your username is missing the word “short.”
WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!!!
Obviously, you’ve never studied history. It’s the DEMOCRAPS who have taken us backwards since the 1970′s. Sure, they were great before then, but something happened about the time Tip O’Neil became Speaker…
wage equality (between sexes) comes closer together under democrats than republicans.
More like, mens goes up and womens goes up by more.
Sorry, but the way I see it… really the only people who see a wage increase are those making minimum wage.
Ya know, Democrat pre 1970s would often equate to “racist Southern hick,” so I wouldn’t say they were really all that wonderful. It was around the late 60s/early they started getting better.
Really? You might want to look at some statistics, because everyone sure seems to do better when Democrats are in power, then Republicans come along and ruin it. Republicans think government doesn’t work, and when they get in power, they prove it. Republicans ‘trickle down’ voodoo economics has been proven over and over again to fail horribly.
–
That being said, there’s a grain of truth to what you say, but it applies equally to Republicans. Cash rules both parties now, evidently. I’m pretty pissed at the Democratic leadership right about now, supporting this whole ‘megatons of cash for rich failures’ so-called bailout plan. Dennis Kucinich is one of the last true Democrats, and he called the plan immoral and criminal.
Amen to that! Both parties are failing but I don’t know what we can do about it
If more people had the gumption to vote for a third party instead of picking the “lesser of two evils,” the Dems and Reps would both be forced to get their act together or dwindle to nothing. A third party won in 1860 and ended up driving the Whigs to extinction.
The problem with voting for third party candidates is that most Americans want to have their vote count toward the winner. If you know that someone is going to lose, it makes it tougher to vote for them. Another problem is that a disproportionate number of third party candidates are whackjobs.
Instant runoff voting!!!
There are more parties then those 2
I always wonder what happens if the media would pay just as much attention to say Independents or any other non-Demo/Repu party. Just vote for whatever candidate you think would run the country the best, no matter from wich party they are.
Actually, more recessions can be traced back to Democrat policies and high taxes and increased “regulation.” For instance, the laws that allowed home loans to go to people who couldn’t afford them were passed under Carter and Clinton, and over the last 8 years the Bush administration has warned that this could happen no fewer that 30 times, 17 in the last year. In 2004, hearings were held to try to fix some of the problems, but Democrats (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorrellic, specifically) insisted everything was fine, praised Frank Raines (then the chairman, who managed to get $90 million out of the deal, now Obama’s chief economic advisor), and accused Republicans of racism for daring to point out the danger. Finally, in 2005, John McCain co-authored a bill to help fix some of the problems, and was shouted down by Democrats to the point that it never made it to the floor. Finally, whenever a Republican cuts taxes, employment goes up, wages go up, GDP goes up, revenue goes up, unemployment goes down.
But yeah, things are always better under Democrats. That’s cuz they ride the wave of whatever Republican they replace.
So your saying that it takes almost a decade for the president to get anything done?
Bull-crap. Revenue goes down, jobs are lost, and so do wages. ever since Reagan started Trickle down economics, things have been steadily been getting worse.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/09/mike-pence/mike-pence-says-raising-taxes-lowers-tax-revenues/
That is why I just refer to the ‘two party system’ as the republocrats. They are they same people taking the same money.
Democraps? Wow, that’s classy. Are you going to be calling people doodooheads next?
Agreed. Ad hominem weakens your argument.
Ummmm…Joe Biden and Barack Obama are both easily satirized dolts. Barry can’t finish a single sentence without using three or four “uhhh”s, and Joe Biden has been known to plagiarize ENTIRE SPEECHES, not to mention saying genius things like “paying taxes is patriotic” and telling men in wheelchairs to stand up. Sarah Palin may be new to the national stage, but Joe Biden is a putz.
Not to mention last night he said the $5000 insurance tax credit proposal “will go straight to the insurance company”. No shit, Joe.
lol
and
wow
Nobody saw my palindromes
Aww. PiMan, I just got here.
YAY YOU!!!
*kiss on the cheek*
Owned.
Oh for Heaven’s sake, enough with the Palin-bashing. It’s getting old…and frankly, it’s just too easy. Go kick some puppies or shoot some fish in a barrel or something. Sheesh.
Shoot fish in a barrel? Most of us can’t do that. Only Biden is allowed to debate her tonight.
LOL. I thought someone would respond to this with a hunting joke, but I like where you took it better.
But how are we supposed to shoot fish in a barrel when the Democrats take away our guns?
BTW, that was a great comeback about the debate. BUT… The only thing I can see Biden shooting tonight is his own foot.
Assuming you aren’t being sarcastic, I actually ‘agree’ with this. I realize it was a joke response to a joke comment, but yeah. One of the (MANY) areas I’m torn in this upcoming election is gun control. I have a rifle, I plan to get another, I’ve never been inspired to pluck dozens of people off in a single sitting. It’s for home defense, and I’m not f*ckin’ giving it up.
You’re going to snipe intruders?
I prefer a 12 gauge or .45 for home defense, sense they are more used for up-close work. And, the added benefit of the 12 gauge is that you won’t kill your neighbor by accident if you let fly.
I guess I’m still sleepy or something, but the spelling of “gauge” doesn’t look right to me. If it’s not, appologies. *yawn*
Ugh, I can’t believe I made this retarded mistake in a political debate, of all places. The area you’d most prefer not to come off looking like an ignoramus. I did not mean to type ‘get another.’ I meant to type ‘get a shotgun.’ Rifle belongs to husband, shotgun will be for wife who might not have time to aim and would prefer a bit of ‘spray.’
(Although, sniping intruders from the banister of the second floor? Totally not a bad idea.
)
Only a bad idea in Cali. Isn’t there a back door law that states if you can leave your house during an invasion, you are legally obligated to?
If things start going south, I’m headin south. I’m sure Texas would rather secede than give up their guns.
HAH, we’ve said something along the same lines. If it all goes to Hell, we’re going to Texas. We’re in NC now, though, so I think we’re probably alright. Most of the pawn shops around here have a big flashing sign that says “GUNS,” and there has only been one gun-related death in the town we live in . . . in the past 10 years, I think it was.
I always love those stats. I may dislike a lot of other viewpoints in TX but I love their gun laws. I would actually feel safe in rural TX. Just let my neighbors know what I am up if I go for a nightly walk and they will kill jackasses invading my home if I don’t first. God I would love neighbors I could count on. T_T
I live within a block of the Crips/Bloods dividing line (how they decide what the dividing line is is beyond me). I don’t have to worry about anyone purposely shooting me since they’re too busy shooting each other. We’ve had 8 shootings in the past week and this is Omaha, Nebraska for God’s sake!
Best to wear neutral colors I take it. My neighbors are just idiots trying to be into gang bullshit.
Yeah, Omaha is a little rough.
That’s why I have a 12 gauge in my bedroom.
Lovely, stay safe.
That law about leaving during a home invasion was recently (within the last couple of years) struck down in Texas. There is now what’s called a “Castle Doctrine” that says you can defend yourself in any way necessary to an actual or supposed threat. In other words, if you can’t see if they have a gun, but they are on your property and you see them as a definable threat, you can shoot them. Yay Texas!
I love Castle Doctrine states… I should move there and just avoid anybody too crazy. Which will be like living here. Except with more Texans.
I never really got the idea about gun ownership. Criminals aren’t stupid, if they know people can have guns, they’re not going on the roll without them as well. Fact is that gun ownership increases the risk of human lives getting destroyed (in any possible way, not just death). I never understood why people would feel the need to “defend” themselfs with devices designed to kill people. Yes, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But guns make it a WHOLE lot easier for people to, again, destroy other people’s lives and even there own lives.
youre right about criminals not being stupid,
and if a criminal knows that breaking into someones
house also carries the risk of being shot in the face, he will
probably think twice about doing it.
What I ment is that I think criminals rather start arming themselfs better instead of thinking twice. If he can get shot in the face, he can shoot the resident in the face as well.
Um, have you even been reading what we have been saying. Responsible gun ownership actually lowers crime rates.
Here is my favorite example. Check out gun ownership in Sweden. If memory serves, it is 100%. Now check out their crime rates. Go ahead, tis fun stuff.
And what proves that the Swedish gun ownership and the low crime-rate there are actually connected? Also, is the gun ownership in America (and other country’s) actually responsible and also just as usefull (in both cases on the broad perspective, and the latter assuming that the Swedish low crime rate is indeed connected to the low criminality).
Excuse me? Are you serious? I’m swedish and I can tell you
that gun ownership here is far from 100%. Presently we have
635 000 licenced gun owners in a population of 9 million (I
have no idea how many adults etc.) In the northern parts
there’s quite a few hunters who have several rifles and
that gives us a higher percentage but those people use it for
hunting, not for self defence. We have laws saying that it is
illegal to keep your gun and the trigger/cartridge for ammo
in the same place which means you can never store a fully
assembled gun at home. We also have a lot more strict law
then the US both for getting a permit and for what type of gun
you are allowed. E.g. it’s almost only possible to buy a
handgun if you compete in shooting or a rifle if you’re a hunter.
Also it’s near impossible to get any kind of semi- or fully
automatic guns unless you’re in a profession that would call
for it. And if you do get a license you only get it for a maximum
of 5 years, then you have to get it renewed.
In my opinion I’d say that’s a reason to why we have so few
incidences related to guns here
USA has at or near the highest rates of gun ownership, and one of the highest rates of crime (and gun related death) in the OECD. I see a correlation.
But conversely, Italy has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership and the just slightly lower rates of crime and homicide than the US (but still a decent margin lower than the US).
Most other countries have lower ownership rates and lower crime rates.
.
This led me to the honest(ish) conclusion that, guns don’t kill people. Americans and Italians kill people.
Maybe you’ve never been 5’6″ and 120 lb. (not that I am anymore, lol)
thank you!
you gun-toting fools make me laugh. it’s not the legal guns that kill people, it’s the availability of ANY guns that get in the hands of miscreants that kill and mame. the constitution has the right to bear arms clause because of the possible need for an ad-hoc militia, not to allow the average dumbass citizen to carry a semi-automatic to defend his or her dvd collection. quit playing such victims!
and as far as i’m concerned, let texas secede… and take the bush family with it!
sweden has a similar gun ownership rate to the u.s. and a lower death-by-gun rate. they are also a monarchy that requires all citizens to enlist in the military for two years giving them FAR superior training to own the gun and has a total population less than the island of manhattan. not really a fair comparison…
If one teacher had been able to carry a gun at Virginia Tech, the gunman might have killed one or two people, but it wouldnt’ have been the bloodbath it became.
I’ve looked up some more stuff about the gun argument, and it seems that horror stories are a re-accuring argument/thing. I came up with 1 myself. It’s in the middle of the night, you’re in bed, when you hear stuff downstairs, glass breaking. You get your gun, you slowly walk downstairs, you see someone scurrying around, noticing you and then starts walking towards you. Out of a pure reaction you shoot: you just killed your own son, who came home late from a party half-drunk (wich you didn’t think off because you were still half asleep, combined with fear and an adrenaline rush), couldn’t find the light switch and bumped over a vase.
It’s just an example. But my main point against guns, is that they make destroying people’s lives (in all sorts of ways), either by accident or on purpose, so easy. It’s not about home-defence, it’s about wielding so much power, the power to decide about life and death so easely.
Forgot to add:
@ frou frou:
Or the gunman just killed the teacher first (he has the element of surprise afterall), or a shoot-out between the 2 commences where lots of stray bullets from both kill fleeing students. You really can’t say what would’ve happend if the teacher carried a gun.
Just sayin’, if I’m in a mindset that I want to take a bunch of people out, my first stop would be a place where I know beyond a shadow of a doubt there are no guns that could potentially kill me. Notice there are no shootouts at gun shows….
Not that I disagree, but you have to remember most parents
feel icky about letting other people teach their kids a majority,
of their adult knowledge base. Add in the fact that the teachers
could carry a WEAPON, and prepare to see riots at the school
administration building.
Not in Texas
There is a small school near Dallas that is letting licensed teachers carry guns.
@froofrou
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm:
Yes that would be YOUR mindset
Perhaps not the mindset of a completly crazy guy who wants nothing but sweet sweet revenge. You can’t speak for everyone.
As for your killing your own son scenario. If my kid out of the house that late, I will be waiting for them when they get home. I don’t gamble and people who are that jumpy shouldn’t be Ramboing down the stairs anyway.
.357 Magnum has better stopping power than a .45. But 12 gauge’s are fun.
I love my husband’s .45. Stopping power or not, it’s a BIG ASS GUN and looks really scary, especially in my relatively small hand
The Democrats aren’t going to take away your guns. No one is. Remember that historical Supreme Court decision that happened, oh, about 5 months ago. I reallly think that guns are a non-issue this election.
I’m waiting for a bill to pass in my state making us an open-carry state. Dirty Harry “R” us
Oh, I remember it. But the fact that it was up for debate in the first place means that a little paranoia isn’t all that . . . paranoid.
Up for debate with a vote that was way too close. Also, just because we keep our guns this time does not mean that they won’t try again.
Well they’ll need a reason then won’t they?
It was never up for debate. DC passed a law and the Supreme Court said “Oh no you didn’t.” There was no debate, and there likely won’t be another one about the issue because they were pretty clear with the ruling. Also, looking at history, I haven’t seen a Democratic president really institute such extreme gun control that you wouldn’t be allowed to have a rifle. Rifles are rarely if ever part of the debate. Most of the debate circles around handguns because those are most often used to kill people, and I’ve never heard of one used for hunting. Oh, and assault weapons too.
But again, following the stump speeches, I really feel like gun control has been a non-issue this election season. It’s been boiling down to economy and the conflict in Iraq (which by proxy is foreign relations.) Maybe a little bit of abortion-rights because of Palin, but I haven’t heard much of anything about gun control and I was at the DNC.
Just to answer part of your post, we carry a handgun every time we go hunting. It’s not legal to shoot deer with them, but they are a heck of a lot more handy for killing the errant hog that is charging you for invading its territory. And you really don’t want to mess with wild hogs. Seen “Hannibal”? Most people don’t realize that pigs are very happy eating meat, and if you get in between a pig and her babies……well, bears are slightly less scary.
As far as banning handguns because they are used to kill people, people are savages at heart and there are always some people who will try to kill other people, with or without a gun. We are demonizing the wrong thing here. Guns are only as dangerous as the person holding them. Same thing goes with a sharpened stick.
100% agreed. In fact, in the UK they’re said to have more ‘sophisticated’ gun control (I kid you not, this is the phrase), yet just this summer alone, I’ve heard of nearly ten knife murders grizzly enough to make the news, especially in or around London. Two of these involved children under 17, one of them was a recreation of the gasoline torture scene in Reservoir Dogs. So, yeah. The idea that guns are the reason for increases in murder. . . not so strong. People kill.
The knife laws in the UK are also ridiculous. You are not allowed to have a locking blade on a pocket knife without a very good (work related) reason.
And I’m… Stuck in the middle with you… *sings*
I’m just saying that that is what the debate is usually about, having had to listen to it more times that I care to count. But like I said, I think that the Supreme Court was pretty clear about saying, you can’t ban handguns.
And I have heard of them used against wild pigs, but not specifically used for hunting. For the whole thing about guns are only as dangerous as the person holding them, what about kids that get a hold of them. They really aren’t that dangerous, until they get the gun and accidentally fire it. I’m not saying that’s a reason to ban them,, butI don’t think that is a fair argument because there are too many handgun related deaths that are accident related. Also, using a gun to kill a person is really impersonal. It doesn’t take a savage to use one to kill people. It’s much more savage to use a stick and much more personal. Also less accidents with a stick.
All this is just devil’s advocate by the way. Again, I’ve heard the debate enough to know what each side comes back with. I am all for protecting the Second Amendment. Keep and bear your arms all you want. I just would like to see more education about guns and how they are used.
I 100% agree about more education with guns. There are a lot more things out there that are more dangerous and cause more deaths than handguns (such as arson, drownings, and car accidents, to name a few), yet handguns are considered the end all evil of the world. It’s irritating. As far as children and guns, that goes back to proper education. You teach a kid that it’s hands off and then keep that gun out of reach. Teach them that if they see a gun over at a friend’s house they are to stay away, and if they really want to mess with a gun they can come back home and we’ll look at the (unloaded and safe) gun with Mommy and Daddy). And probably play with it to the point that the kid is sick of it, like letting a kid smoke a whole carton of cigarettes to turn them off on it. May not work in every case, but that’s why you actually have to pay attention to what your kids are doing.
Exactly why I want more education. I was just providing the stock response that is used against “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It’s like watching a tennis match.
This is true. But the amount of mis-information on both sides is staggering. I want to see the statistics of kids raised in rural areas, hunting and fishing, dealing with guns on a daily basis, who go on shooting rampages in schools. If memory serves (and it probably doesn’t), all of the kids who have done this either had to steal the guns from relatives or other places because they weren’t actually raised around guns and were never taught the proper respect for them.
The kids at Columbine got their guns at K-Mart. And a lot of people in that community worked for Lockheed Martin. I think they should know and respect guns. The Virginia Tech kid bought his own guns as well. So the stealing the guns to get them I don’t think is necessarily true.
I’m talking about having guns actually in their houses from the time they were kids, going hunting, that sort of thing. If the Virginia Tech kid is the only one who owned a gun before the fact, then I was right.
Well my understanding is that he bought it after he was crazy. It was a flaw in the system that didn’t indicate he was crazy before he was cleared to own guns. As for the Columbine kids, well, they were six people who thought they were alone… But there were six of them or whatever number greater than four, it was a while back. So they were also crazy.
Crazy shouldn’t be armed to begin with and I thought they had gotten the guns from their parents or grandparents. Stupid memory. I mostly remember being indignant because parental sphincters clenched hard onto the dick of Violent Games = Root of Murder and stayed there for a while. I remember emailing Jack Thompson and getting back emails loaded with crazy and telling me I was brainwashed.
Yet I don’t recall a single murder I committed…
@
Christine
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am:
That’s an old mantra, and it’s nonsense. It’s not about the fact that people kill people, it’s about the fact that guns make it really easy for people to destroy people’s lives.
Compare gun related deaths to car related deaths. Cars make it easier to kill people. We should ban cars. Object does not equal intent.
Er, there was a debate. The very fact that a law was passed, then examined and eventually overturned means that a conflict went on; these people thought one way, these people thought another. I remember the day the decision was made, and people being interviewed with their banners and pickets that had been outside for hours while the decision was finalized. It wasn’t an immediate, “Oh, that’s unconstitutional, oops. Revoked.”
While I agree/understand that shotguns are rarely involved, the fact that gun control hasn’t been widely talked about doesn’t mean that each candidate doesn’t have their own ideas/agenda about gun control, you know? Things are focused on what’s ‘more important’ at the time, and people get tunnel vision when things are looking so desperate and severe. It not coming up often isn’t that surprising, but doesn’t exempt it from presidential influence.
Bottom line, no candidate has the power to take away your guns. If they did, I think would have seen that happen a lot longer ago. And I personally feel that there are more important things to be deciding your vote on. And public discourse doesn’t not equal debate. And passing a law and ruling it unconstitutional is also, not a debate. And I’m not saying that they don’t have their ideas.
Obama has said that he supports local communities decided what kind of gun control applies to their own community.
McCain opposes any restrictions on assault weapons but also said that he is open to voting on a ban of assault weapons, doesn’t own guns, but also wanted to tighten a loophole regarding gun shows.
Sauce in the name.
They would have the power to change the laws if they can get the House, the Senate, and a majority of the Supreme Court Judges on their side.
Again, that’s only if they want to. It doesn’t seem like either side does. Obama wants to leave it as a local issue, not a federal one. McCain wants to punish criminals, not the citizens. I see nothing there about passing any law at the federal levl to outlaw any kind of guns.
Ah, Information is a good thing.
I just want to point out that I never said either candidate was going to take away my guns. I said it was an area where I was torn. I never meant to imply that I believe if he was voted in, all guns would magically become impossible to get a hold of. Just like I had to point out down below, my disagreeing with what someone’s belief seems to be doesn’t equal my thinking that they can make these beliefs law. It’s just an obvious stance he has, that he’s made clear he has, that I react to with a bit of suspicion, especially considering that it took a Supreme Court intervention to -reverse- one area’s decision to do something unconstitutional. Not prevent it. Undo it.
And just as a side-note, I think that gun ownership/freedom and where those things are taken in the future is VERY important. The second amendment is the only one that gives you the power to take BACK your other amendments, should the absolute worst happen.
He being Obama, sorry. Reaction based on the NRA guys’ mention of Democrats.
Again.
Obama wants to leave it as a local issue.
McCain wants to prosecute criminals not citizens (implying not outlawing any guns.)
I don’t know which “he” you were referring to, but I don’t see either stance severely affecting the future of gun rights.
Sorry. Time fail.
Where do people get this idea that all democrats are anti-gun? My immediate family are all democrats, but they are also all pro-gun rights. We just also believe those who own guns should be RESPONSIBLE.
From the same place that they get the idea that all Republicans are pro-life, gun-toting, Bible-clinging, religion junkies who want to impose their rules on everyone else.
Good retort, love.
Indeed.
Though to me it seems that Dems are getting more liberal with each passing year, and it’s the liberal candidates that want the gun control.
I guess I shouldn’t be quite so stereotypical, I’m a Consertavite, and mostly republican, but I am not very religious, nor do I argue over abortion (in the end, it will never be my choice).
Eh what now? Dems are getting more conservative every year. Read your history, “New Deal” ring any bells? Yeah, we used to do stuff like that.
YOU’RE NOT?!?!
i kid…
I don’t believe that all Democrats are anti-gun, as I hope I made clear a post or two up. The only reason I even leaned that way with Obama was his “need to stop clinging to guns and religion” comment. I’m not personally religious, I’m very defensive of my right to bear arms, but I never suggested that he would try to strip guns away from Americans or any of that other stuff. It just made me a little suspicious. I mean, I think we can all agree that NOTHING a candidate says when he’s campaigning can be taken for the absolute truth, whether he’s saying he will do something or he won’t.
*sigh*
The “clinging to guns and religion” comment is not indicative of his stance on gun rights.
Uh….right!
It is a sentence that clearly criticizes (clinging suggests a needy, dependent action) people who use these two things as a means of feeling safe. If you don’t want to admit that, it makes no difference to me, but AGAIN, I never said, oh my friggin’ crap, that he would try to strip guns away or make them illegal. What I said was, twice now, that it simply made me suspicious. I have that right, I’m allowed to see such an insulting sentence and go, “. . . Huh.” for a couple of seconds without people turning it into my primary reason for voting one way or the other.
Well, I do worry about a time where people have to cling to a gun to feel safe. I am not opposed to guns but I hate to think that I “need” a gun to sleep at night. But yea, I am rambling and my hands are very cold. *blinks*
Yeah, but whether or not you personally feel safe enough at night not to wn a gun shouldn’t be any of a presidential candidate’s concern, unless he plans on figuring out a way to bring criminals to justice without stripping citizens of the protection they need in the meanwhile. I think it should be more widely known that police officers aren’t there to -prevent- crimes, they come in, most often, to solve them. Prevention would require being able to see into the future. And in the several minutes it would take for a police officer to arrive, it’s only natural for people to want a method of prevention.
But, again, not saying Obama is trying to take guns away. Just that his wording made me defensive on the issue, and I’ll be sure to pay as close attention as I can to anything he says about it in the future.
I do feel like I need my gun. I’ve been attacked, harrased, propositioned, etc, etc., I’ve had the house I lived in broken into and have thankfully walked away from a half-dozen other ridiculously scary situations. The powerlessness I felt in these situations isn’t something I ever wish to repeat. I would LOVE not to feel like I needed a gun to be safe, but . . . even if the threat wasn’t from other people, the other purpose of the citizens being armed is to prevent their government from taking them over. It may sound extreme, but it’s an important right to have!
Okay, your ramble inspired a ramble in me. My hands, however, are not cold.
No worries, love. By all means, have a gun. I am also speaking from the standpoint of a 6′ 3″ man with long hair and perpetual scowl on my bearded face. I don’t get threatened pretty much ever.
You are right, it is nobody’s business if you own a gun. Personally I think we should all be allowed to carry and that criminals know very bluntly that if we are attacked, we are allowed to use lethal force. I want scared criminals who can expect a bullet for their troubles. I have no sympathy for them. I work for a living and am a father. I protect my family, period.
Only reason I don’t own a gun is safety reasons in the apartment. I do have a scimitar by my bed in case me coming down the stairs mad and naked isn’t scary enough.
You have every right to look at a statement and go “huh.” But to make broad assumptions based on that statement, without doing the research as to his actual position makes me go “huh.” If you don’t want to admit that, then fine with me. But I have repeatedly stated both candidates positions on the issue and the statement f clinging to guns really does not relate to leave the decision to the local municipalities. Nor does it say anything about controlling guns, banning guns, not banning guns giving everyone a weapon, or prosecuting a gun manufacturer. (I’m not saying that you said this. And for the record, I have never attributed any kind of those statements that you keep getting so defensive about to you either.) And your interpretation of :clearly criticizing” is not the way that everyone else interpreted it, it’s just the way it was reported. I’m not denying that it could be interpreted that way, but I’m also admitting that it could be seen in other lights.
Oh, they’ll try. They’ll impose restrictions on the caliber, capacity, and type of firearm. They already do it in California. Often, certain guns are illegal here because they literally have a different color scheme or body shape than another comparable firearm, because California requires a rather large fee to be paid by distributors to the state to put each model on the market. There are also restrictions on the size of the magazine, as if criminals will obey those laws. Finally, every time they pass an onerous law (outlawing the .50 cal sniper rifle or requiring microstamping on casings-also a useless gesture) manufacturers just refuse to work on California law enforcement’s firearms. The end result will be that criminals will be able to get whatever gun, caliber, capacity, ammo type, and action (fully auto) and police will be forced to use wheel guns. That will increase the already terrible crime problem in this state, as criminals will overpower citizens and the police. Generally speaking, all gun laws are ridiculous (exception: minors, felons, and mentally infirm) because they make the assumption criminals follow laws. Case in poing: there was recently a shooting in Chico. Guy trying steal someone’s “medicinal” marijuana shot the homeowner with a gun registered to the San Francisco PD. Illustration of what’s wrong with gun laws-even if you disarm the populace, criminals will still get firearms.
I’m passionate about this, can you tell.
How about shooting Moose in a barrel?
Shooting wolves from a plane?
I’m tired of shooting these Mother F*$in wolves from this Mother F*$in plane!!
LOL
zldkgesg. LOL. WIN.
Palindrome–two people enter, one man leave!
Of course, cause the other is a WOman!
(speaking of the VP debate tonite….)
DOH… I was resisting saying that line and you did anyway!!!
“Master Blaster!”
Yeah, the reason you can hunt wolves from a plane in Alaska is because otherwise they overwhelm the herbivores and destroy the natural populations.
also makes it easier to drop snakes on them
She’s the one out shooting creatures and bashing candidates is the American way – been going on for a long time, if she can’t handle it get out of the race.
I don’t know about the accuracy of this one. When she was put forward, she made many things go upward.
I know I totally got a stiffie.
Only til she opened her mouth and people could she her lack of anything inside her head.
All the better to…
Never mind, I’m saving that for the Failblog angel
Actually, there’s plenty inside her head. Just because it’s not socialist prattle doesn’t make it nothing.
You betcha it doesn’t!
She’ll make gas prices go down!
Well, if you did this to any picture it would retain it’s clever humor. just because it’s done to Palin doesn’t mean it can’t be done to any other of the candidates (it most certainly can).
Uh… How would you make a pun on the word palindrome with any other candidate?
Just not Ralph Nader.
But, this place wouldn’t post it, unless it bashed or lied about a conservative politician.
At first, it was funny because everybody got a lick in. Now it’s nothing but a liberal love-fest.
Well, if it was evenly shared at first, maybe the problem is that conservative joke-makers just aren’t being funny lately.
or maybe we simply don’t feel the need to sink to the level of liberal mudslinging. Or maybe we don’t make jokes because we don’t have to, micheal moore and barack obama do it all for us.
Michael Moore may do it for YOU, but he certainly does nothing for me.
Oh god… Now I am going to be ill.
LOL – good, now stop looking at pron unless you have a good excuse!
X_X NOoOOooOOOooOoOoOoooOooOOooooo!!!
*flees into the wall* Ow… My morals… *slumps*
Ow, my morals! My doctor says I’m not supposed to get PunditKitchen on them!
The goggles! They do nothing!!!
Lol. If you honestly believe that conservatives don’t mudsling or ‘sink’ to the liberal level, you are blind as a bat in a blanket to your own party.
Yes, there are 5 B’s… would you like to spin or solve the puzzle?
I’d like to use one of my life lines…
Sucks when the actual concept of democracy bites in you in the ass eh?
Not true. I’ve seen some good ones bashing Dems as well. Remember the “matter and anti-matter” one with Obama and Clinton?
Not really. PALIN-drome is what makes it funny. See, it’s a pun on her name and her views!
A palindrome is the same forwards and backwards, like “race car.” If you’re gonna bust on someone do it right.
dud
That’s a pah-lin-drome. This is a pay-lin-drome.
Regardless, the intended play on words doesn’t work. To say that Sarah Palin is the same forwards as she is backwards makes no sense, as that is the true definition of palindrome, so the creator of the image made up a new definition to suit his purposes. In short, he’s a moron. But, then again, the people who pick the pictures for this site are too, so it makes sense that this one’s on the main page.
It’s called “humor.” You should try it sometime.
Same to you, since that line is long overused.
Palin was put forward, Palin makes everything go backwards.
Yup. Total English fail.
Haha, awesome. I, for one, I’m shocked that people would stand up for somebody like this. “Oh, come on. So she forced rape victims to pay out of pocket for evidence against their attackers, wants to ban sex education in schools so that ALL of our daughters can be uneducated about safe sex, and bans harmless books from libraries. She’s HOT! We can’t insult her!”
for one am*
That’s a bunch of blatant lies. Do some research instead of just listening to and regurgitating liberal garbage.
Lol, you’re right, forgive me. TRIES to ban harmless books. Wants to ban INFORMATIVE sex-education in schools. Sure, we can split hairs.
Rape victims being charged for evidence gathering came into practice while she was in office.
“CNN’s Jessica Yellin claimed to have found no evidence in city records that Sarah Palin was aware that sexual assault victims were being billed for forensic testing. However, recently released budget documents show that Sarah Palin directly shifted the cost of the rape kits from the police department to the victims in her budget for fiscal year 2000. If what a former city council member told CNN is true, that “Palin would review each department’s budget line by line,” then she either knew about the funding shift and approved it or was negligent in her role as state executive.” Her spokespeople are simply saying, now, that she never intended it, or had no idea. So . . . we have a liar, or someone incompetent enough to overlook this information? I don’t think I’m the one spewing garbage, bud.
Oh, and for the other point –
In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire , Palin gave this response to the following question: “Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?” Palin: “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
Regardless of the fact that she spotlighted the second part of the question explicitly, her answer was still yes. Abstinence until marriage. No explicit sex education. Seeing as pron isn’t what’s taught in standard sex ed, there’s only one thing she can mean by ‘explicit.’
I want pron in my sex ed but then again I am almost thirty so I might just be fishing for excuses to look at pron and pretending it is valid research…
You’re supposed to have an excuse?!?!
LOL! Aw, why not? I think Ginger Lynn could really spice up those banana condom presentations.
An excuse would make me slightly less of a pervert. >_>
And now I am thinking of women eating bananas, lolipops, etc. I am going to have to avoid looking at women today, I hope you’re happy…
I meant no harm.
-. . . slyly suggests whipped cream and jello into that mix. Vanishes undetected.-
… T_T
I am so gonna get fired now!!!
I really don’t need my 10 year old to know more about sex than I do. And I know a lot. Explicit sex-ed isn’t a good idea for many reasons, the least of which being that it will give horny teenagers ideas to try. Internet pron or not, it isn’t a good idea for the authority figures at an institution of learning (put loosely) to condone something like that.
To condone understanding your body and the potential dangers if you plan to use it? I don’t know if you’ve come to this realization yet as a parent, but sex is a natural part of life. Attractions to bodies and sensations begin even before you understand the basics. Your kid is going to want to explore with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever whether or NOT a teacher ‘condones it.’
Meanwhile, have you ever seen some of these pictures/videos/classes? They’re the most unsexy, unappealing, unpretty visualizations you can possibly give. They’re delivered in a very sterile way, because sex education isn’t about getting people horny. It’s about make sure that you understand what’s happening to your body as it changes, and not make you feel like some sick freak because of your natural desires, and help you realize that these strange occurrences happen to everybody. I went through sex ed. Didn’t make me horny in the slightest. I can guarantee the same for EVERYONE in that class. There were more than a couple collective, “EWW!”s and “OW!”s.
Er, it’s TO make sure, not it’s ‘about’ make sure.
Ya, I pretty much remember more about the disease reels than I did about anything else in that class. You do have a point. Kids will have urges no matter who condones anything. Education is their job, let them do their job. Teach morals at home. Teachers are already having to do too much parenting as is.
Oh, man. Total and complete agreement. You want your child to have the morals you pre-approve? Spend some time on the issue with them. Then again. Then again. Make it so that, if your kid turns out a scheming junkie with no virtue or morality, you can’t blame a tv show or video game, but your own parenting. For most people, this is too scary a concept.
My four year old is already singing Apocalyptica and Finger Eleven while loving Batman and Godzilla… I am trying to decide if I need to do something or is that just a win already. *ponders*
HAH. Score. Sounds like my sister’s kid. I love that boy like I can’t even say, and he’s such a little bad*ass. Even takes after his momma’s love of Wolverine. We’re all way proud.
Ah and there is balance in the force. XD
I don’t think the class is going to teach them sexual technique. I would just like them to know how to keep themselves safe. Which is all learning to put on a condone really is.
Besides, think of it this way. Would you rather your child learn how to put on a condom and not need to know it or need to put a condom on a guy and not know how?
I would prefer to teach them that myself. And as far as not teaching sexual technique, my daughter’s babysitter’s 13 year old daughter (whew!) came home the other day describing anal sex and said that the teacher was advocating it in place of “regular” sex. When asked what the teacher had said were the downfalls, she said the teacher didn’t give any.
Then it is a flaw with the teacher not the program. I’ve had teachers mess up and not tell me things in other classes too but I never saw people advocate to remove their programs.
Besides, if you are teaching your kid about sex then the teacher’s information won’t be that harmful now will it? Unless you are saying that you are going leave out important details.
I’m afraid my child will ask questions in class that will warp other children who haven’t had the freaky up-bringing my child is going to have, lol. I’ll just go ahead and stop you from trying to change my mind, I’m pretty well against explicit sex-ed and probably always will be
Narrow minded and all that, I’ll admit it in this case!
Life needs to be a bit more freaky, best to let the kids know that before they find out the hard way.
Hmmm I had a dirty comment about how I wasn’t trying to change your mind just distract you but that would be inappropriate. My imagination is too active in the morning. My woman better be in the mood when I get home tonight…
Since when has inappropriate been banned here??????? hehehe. And it irritates me that you get it every night. The hours we both work keeps us limited to the weekends. But on the weekends, DAMN
I don’t get it every night but I do get it at least five times a week. She is a homemaker right since Orion is still so young so we have a bit of time leeway. As for inappropriate, well I have to think of my ladies too. Don’t want to be too bad of a pervert. Keeps me honest to them.
I’d rather my kids hear about sex ed from me than their friends. The very idea that kids aren’t going to have ideas about sex because we don’t talk to them about it is insane.
People forget we are animals and thus have drives and instinct. However, unlike animals we don’t know subconsciously what all does what, there is where education comes in. So yes, please educate your child or they could lose an eye.
I never said or implied that my child would not be talking about sex with her friends. Or anyone else. Or that she wouldn’t have ideas about it on her own. I would just rather the nasty scary science reels be left for school and the explicit part left to me. Having said that, I realize that more children than not don’t have parents who will take the time to really explain things right, and there needs to be an alternative for them to get information. I just don’t want my child getting it from school. That’s one of the main reasons I’m going to do my best to keep my child out of public school.
Eh, I am conflicted about public school. I want my kid to socialize and demonstrate good behavior in a more open environment. However, I can definitely understand wanting to keep them out of public school too. I tend to hate other people’s kids more often than I like them. -_-
What about private school instead?
Depends on religious private school or regular private school (do those exist?). A lot of kids get just as pregnant with that type of education as they do with public school education. *sigh* There aren’t a whole lot of alternatives that make me happy.
Well school doesn’t equal pregnant, hun. I think you are more worried about pregnancy than anything else. That is entirely up to your daughter, choices, and possibly fate. No school is going to guarantee that. Only locking her up is any kind of guarantee and that is just a guarantee of stunting her or making her hate you.
Raise her right and then let her make those decisions. It is all you can do really. I promise if my boys meet her, they will treat her right or we can take turns kicking their asses.
Pregnant was just one concern. I can’t stop her from doing what she’s going to do, I can just try to be supportive and not kick her ass too hard when she comes home with the Clap. I would just rather that her sex ed be left up to me. Christine said that I would have the option of removing her from sex ed class. There is a really good chance I will end up doing that based off what the curriculum is at the time she goes to school. My husband and I have already decided that our sex lives and all matters sexual are going to be an open book for her (to a certain degree…..I don’t need a five year old knowing what sex actually is, just that Mommy and Daddy wrestle a lot
), and we intend to keep her informed about whatever will keep her safe and help her make an informed decision. I just think that’s my responsibility and not the school’s. But, as I said before, a lot of parents don’t think that way. (damn, I’m running-on sentences left and right today! I’m sorry guys!)
Nah, I can dig it. You’re too awesome for me to hold grammar mistakes againt.
*hugs* Luv you!
Back at ya, hun.
The whole thing about that option to remove your child is my point really. Some parents are open and talk about things with their kids, and if they don’t want a teacher to teacher their kids about it they have the option to pull their kid. If the parents aren’t open about what’s going on, but want their kids to know, they can let them stay. And if the parents aren’t open and don’t want their kids knowing anything, they also have the option to pull their kids. Most parents don’t realize that they ultimately have some kind of control over what their kid is learning. Just make sure there is some kind of communication with the teachers.
They are going to hear about it from their friends. BE SURE OF THAT.
Also be sure that what YOU teach them is first, best, most honest (even if it hurts your sensibilities), and most open to questions. If your relationship with your kids is at all important to you, be first and realize you will have a lot of competition.
My kids are going to be embarrassed. My husband and I are practically nudists on the weekends. *sigh* My child is going to be so weird. If she doesn’t already have a decent understanding by the time she needs to, then she hasn’t been paying attention
I can see her first boyfriend watching you and your husband run by naked.
“What was that?”
“What was what? Oh them, they’re just strange. Now let’s go upstairs so I can kick your butt on (insert video game here).”
As she enters her room that has no door on it, lol. No boys in the bedroom for my little hoochie
Well, have a general gaming room with no doors. Only worry if she goes for the bedroom. That way you can game as a family!!!
My god, I’m a dork…
Not a dork. Not more than my husband and I are, anyway. I bought him a 64″ flat screen TV for his birthday just so he can play the PS3 in high def. I thought he was doing to crap a brick when he walked in the door and saw it
You, my dear, are why men love women and don’t ever deny that or forget it. You rock.
I am thinking of writing down what I want them to know and going from there. Perhaps jotting down an outline will help keep you from stumbling… too much.
Yes, I will definitely check out her “blog.” I will check it long time. >_>
You are never going to get any work done today judging by this thread.
Tis a lite day in my department. Srsly. <_<
If you get the right kinds of pron it will teach you how to put on a condom with your mouth, lol.
Talking about sex in the context of a relationship is one thing, teaching them other ways to do it (such as anal) is another. I’ve said before that I want those things taught to my child by me, not by some teacher who is dealing with 20 or more other students and who does this all day and can’t give my child the kind of one-on-one care that is necessary for her to form a good understanding. I guess the main reason I’m against it is because I feel it’s a parent’s job to be a parent and teach their kids the important things, not the underpaid teacher’s job.
Good reason to give teacher’s a pay raise and get more of them trained and out there. I am tired of huge classrooms that go nowhere.
I lol’d. Class should be more fun with presentations and essays!!!
But no diagrams, you know the ones with the cross section of “here’s your insides!”. Those always killed my mood.
Essays as dirty narratives and presentations as live performances. ORGY!!!
Hmm, I wonder if I could just take partial credit and get head in the back of the class.
Only if she gets extra credit for providing the knee pads and chapstick. And bringing a a carton of cigarettes for the whole class to have afterward.
Nah, no cigs go with backrubs instead. Less cancer and encourages guys to give more pleasure back. I give my woman neck rubs from time to time to let her know I appreciate all her effort. Then again, she refers to me as her nighttime medicine so I wonder who is conning whom…
WTF? “Explicit” sex ed? Do you REALLY think that they teach fellatio in safe sex classes? Jesus H. Christ, no wonder Palin appeals to the morons of this country…
Have fun in 3 years when your kid gets knocked up/knocks someone up (or turns up with the clap) because they didn’t know enough about safe sex to protect themselves adequately.
… Why the hell are you attacking Froofrou? Reading, that thing you didn’t fully do, would have told you that she will be advising her child personally and with her sexual openness, her child should be adequately prepared. We already went over this, at length.
I may have had my disagreements with her but she defintely does not deserve to be called a moron by the likes of you or anybody else here. She is pretty damn reasonable if you approach her with reason and sensibility.
*blush* Luv you lots, DW! *hugs* (p.s. I’m not sure how my 4 month old daughter is going to get knocked up in 3 years…….I may let her if that’s humanly possible
)
*hugs* Just taking care of those worth looking out for.
Um… they’re not. Comprehensive sex education, IN HIGH SCHOOL, generally follows the following pattern:
1. This is how, biologically, reproduction works.
2. These are the most common STD’s, their effects, and their infection rates in America.
3. Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to ensure that babies and STD’s don’t happen to you.
4. This is how to put on a condom. Condoms fail to prevent pregnancy 3% of the time when properly applied. Condoms are not a 100% germ-proof barrier, and cannot eliminate STD transmission risk, but they do reduce that risk. If these odds are too risky for you, don’t have sex.
Before middle school, they only tell you that if a grownup touches your privates or tries to make you take off your clothes, you should report it. I strongly believe that teaching children that adults are not supposed to touch them in certain ways & places will help cut down on rates of child molestation in this country.
There is a difference between “making them pay for the rape kit” and having their insurance company foot part of the bill while the police department was covering the rest. Which, by the way, is common practice. This whole issue was made up and *is* a lie.
She also didn’t *try* to ban “harmless books”. Asking if something is possible and attempting to do it are two separate things. And no one can even say what the “harmless books” in question are. Some books are not, in fact, harmless. For instance, ones that give step by step details on how you can build your own bombs probably shouldn’t be in the hands of your average moron, child, or mal-adjusted deviant.
She has said she supports the use of condoms. I don’t know why people refuse to get it through their thick skulls. Oh, because they’ve made up their mind about her already. That’s right. Supporting ‘abstinence until marriage’ is no more exclusive to that than Creationism is to Evolution. Abstinence *is* the better idea. If you choose to not follow good advice, use the condom. Most people just get outraged at the first sentence and don’t listen to the second.
Cite proof of common practice or how you know so much about rape procedure. I would prefer both as I have never heard of people or their insurance being charged for rape kits. I shouldn’t be charged for the crime I am a victim of. Police should be funded for the equipment they will need to do their job. Period. If I have to explain how a rape kit is important to a police officer’s function, I might as well just not bother talking to you.
Also books are harmless. It is people who are dangerous. A basic book on engineering and chemistry can teach you have to make a bomb if you actually understand it all. However, I don’t see you clambering to get those removed now do I?
Information is simply information. It is how it is used that defines what will happen. There is no Devil Made Me syndrome.
I never said she didn’t support education about condoms. (Her exact words were, “That doesn’t scare me,” wtf?)
Meanwhile – asking if a librarian would remove certain books if asked, librarian saying under NO circumstances, librarian well-liked of 7 years suddenly being handed a Mayoral letter informing her of her termination? You’re right. That was ALL coincidence. Clearly, you’ve made up your mind about her, too. Who is more dangerous? The person who believes in their candidate despite ALL cause for suspicion? Or the person who immediately distrusts that candidate because of rumor?
Meanwhile, it wasn’t JUST the insurance company. It was the insurance company OR the patient, depending on -several- factors, including levels of coverage and insurance company policy. So, wrong, sorry.
Also, abstaining from sex to avoid disease and pregnancy, yes, is the only SURE FIRE way to avoid both of those things. However, not everyone -agrees- that marriage is the only thing that allows a person to experiment with their bodies. Notice that these teachings don’t want to educate you about what happens when you BECOME sexually active, married or not. Notice that these teachings don’t say, “Abstain from sex until married, and only have sex with that one person you are married to.” They never tell you explicitly to only have sex with one person, which is how to best prevent disease after you BECOME sexually active, they tell you to wait until marriage, because that is less -sinful.- I’m not going to have some woman-hating psycho with a personal crutch imposing morals that don’t work for everybody onto my child. Call me crazy. I believe that a person’s sex life is their own business, and not up for government supervision.
You’re assuming that even if McCain drops dead two days into his term that she will actually be able to implement thse far right wing views you are attributing to her. Last time I checked the president only has the power the congress allows him (or her) to have, and vice versa, and if she does become president she will be countered by a Democrat-controlled congress. I’m not sure why people keep acting like she will abolish congress and become queen of America if she does assume office. Personally, although I dislike the current congress immensely, I think it should stay in place if we get a Republican president to keep the system of checks and balances in place. Conversely, if we get a Democrat president the congress should shift to Republican for the same reason.
Correction, we would need a competent Congress of Republicans or Democrats. Our current crop seem to be a bunch of jackasses.
Do they really have to be one or the other? Can’t we import some competent independent Congressmen too?
I am open to that suggestion.
Outsource them to India ?
To be fair and honest, I don’t think that at all. I never actually said that she would become president or even that she’d impose her views on all of America. I said I wouldn’t have her imposing morals onto MY child. For the record, I don’t even have a child. It was just a figure of speech.
Now, the fact that she and McCain agree on abstinence only concerns me, but I’m out of school, childfree by choice and will not be personally affected by the decision, should it come somehow to pass. I simply disagree with it strongly enough that, despite my safety from it, I debate it when I have the chance. As for the other things she’s done/said/believes that make me terrified, those are gut-level reactions to someone who flies in the face of my most cherished beliefs, not the assumptions of a person who sees her in place of McCain within a few days of his presidency.
Glad to have your back up. My woman wants a daughter and if we have one, I want her freedoms guaranteed not up for debate. I am just hoping I can stop the instinct to get a shotgun and a rocking chair for the porch.
Must be more open minded… Must be more open minded… Must be more open minded…
Glad to give it! I think this is part of patriotism. Even if it won’t affect you, if you know in your heart that it’s wrong, you need to stand up against it.
LOL, btw. I really pity fathers of daughters, especially fathers who understand that sex education is important and pretending it away because sex is ‘sinful’ if you aren’t shackled to someone doesn’t work. On one hand, you want an intelligent, well-informed daughter with the strength to make her own decisions. . . on the other, you won’t to knucklef*ck every baggy-pantsed doofus who lifts an eyebrow at her. The conflict would drive me nuts.
(posting this again, not sure if it came through the first time.)
I made my fiancee’ promise to stop me from killing any boyfriends. She plans to distract me with me sex while the boy gets away, unless he is a dumbass then I am allowed to kill him or sic my sons on him.
Want. . . not won’t. WTF is with me today?! And, haha. I don’t know, man. That daddy’s instinct might usurp the wifely boobies.
You may have a point but the things that my girl can do with her mouth… I should be charged for such enjoyment. My horny hubby instincts might win out as it cuts off blood to the brain. I like to believe I can be negotiated with.
Slate has throughly debunked the rape-kit myth. Click on my name to read the article. The gist being that they would attempt to charge the insurance company for the cost of the kit, but doesnt say what would happen if the company refused. However it does go on to quote the current mayor as saying that there is no record of any victim being charged for a rape-kit.
As for the banning of books, so it is now illegal to ask about the process for banning books? Were these books ever banned? if the librarian was fired for refusing to ban the books did the following librarian ban them or was he/she fired as we?
fired as well*
typing FAIL
heh well click on my name now for the slate article.
Sooooo Mr. Blah, is she a liar or incompentent?
Neither. She’s intentionally misunderstood and misrepresented.
I will wait for you to prove that charging victims for their rape kit is common practice before I believe that.
See above. She didn’t charge them. The department billed the insurance company.
And if they didn’t have insurance? Charging their insurance is still charging them since they have to pay for the insurance.
If my home is robbed, I shouldn’t be charged for the dust they use for fingerprinting. That is the point. It is a crime, they should be properly funded to fight crime with the taxes already paid.
Palin stated before the she meticulously looked over the budget for each department. Ergo she was part of the decision to charge the patient/insurance. Or she is too incompentent to really do what she said she did.
So again, is she a liar or incompetent?
Sheesh. you guys certainly have swallowed the liberal anti-palin Kool-aid, hanv’te you.
For your edification and perusal, re: rape kits, the propensity of other towns (apparently only in Alaska) to charge insurance, and the actual number of rap victims that fell subject to this ideology while Palin was mayor.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/24/old-media-pushes-false-rape-kit-charge-against-gov-palin
It would be nice if others, who so vehemently spout talking points, would provide us with their sources.
*sigh*
“The story mentions that Fannon claimed that at the time Wasilla did have a policy that rape victims’ insurance would be charged for the kits being performed but there was no mention that victims themselves were charged and no claim that any ever were.”
By charging the victim’s insurance, you are charging the victim since they pay for the insurance. Also that assumes the victim has insurance.
“Additionally, Geraghty found that it was the hospitals in Alaska, not the police agencies, that were passing the bills on to the victims’ insurance companies. And the idea that only Wasilla had such a policy is blasted out of the water by Geraghty who notes that Juneau also had the same policy of charging rape victims for their rape kits.”
Meaning the police didn’t pick up the tab for their own evidence gathering supplies. Also if all of Alaska was doing this, wasn’t she governor?
Those stood out to me but for the rest, fair enough.
See above yourself. It wasn’t just the insurance companies, it was allowed to fall on the patient depending on insurance status, level of coverage and other factors. Meanwhile, isn’t insurance something you . . . PAY FOR? So how is that not still paying for the rape kit yourself? As the DeathWyrm says, a kit that collects EVIDENCE should be a police tool, and not charged to the public OR their insurance, which they pay for, in most cases, under any circumstances.
Technically they should be charged and by charged, I mean tax money. That is nitpicking though.
Here is my big issue with this situation. Wasilla is the rape CAPITAL of Alaska which already has high amount of rape. Ergo, as Mayor of such a fine place, wouldn’t you know the problems and thus work on cracking down on the problem? As such, when she was doing all that fine print reading of the budget, wouldn’t she have noticed key words like Rape in rape kit?
As Noel and I have stated, there should not be a direct charge for investigation by public protection. That would be privatization of a public service which is hypocritical. If I am going to pay somebody directly, I would assume I would be able to pick the representative of my case directly to do said investigation since it would be my proverbial and literal dollar. Then I could see the justification of charging me for collecting evidence.
However, since it would be a public establishment run from my tax money as well as others, I do not see why I should be charged Extra when they are just doing their normal job. Especially when they should be cracking down on rapes in the first place, not punishing me or any other victim for the crime by charging me…
Now, is that in anyway unclear?
Sorry, I went from correcting you like a prick to yelling at Blah without specifying. I apologize for any confusion.
Yeah, you’re totally right. I misspoke/overlooked in the heat of debate. Haha, understandably, women’s rights this severe get me a little GRRCHARGE. But yes, it SHOULD be something paid for out of taxes, as part of a taxes-to-police-forces whole. And, don’t worry, I knew who the real snark was aimed at!
Yay, understanding!
Ya, it always gets on my nerves fast when I see things like that too. Seriously now, women get this biological “assignment” and society tries to make it a divine mandate, then instead of cherishing them like citizens should be, they are put through this irritating ringer of quirks, mores, laws, and limitations.
Hell, as a group, these people carried us about and endured the pain of bringing us here. How about a little courtesy and gratitude, people! Even if they are going to be childfree, still citizens so I just don’t understand the disconnect.
That and as a victim of child rape, I tend to get very pissed when I see rape victims getting the shaft.
I’m so sorry you had to go through that.
In my opinion, it’s an amazing personal triumph for you that you’ve come out the other side open-minded and comfortable with your sex life, and that you advocate sensible things relating even when most people would not be able to keep from getting emotional and fearful about.
I just try to leave it as my problem and not infuse it into somebody else’s issue. If I am wrong about something, fine, I will read it and either apologize or retort.
I see more reason to move forward than recoil in the face of such a predicament happening to others. Better to try to bring reason elsewhere then worry about myself.
Last night I did CPR on a three year old whose head was smashed by crack-ho mommas boyfriend. Yes, I am an ER doctor. Which is why I get pissy over people making fun of children here. I have to do the exams on most of the rape and child abuse cases and it makes one very conservative and in favor of the death sentence. And you know why.
I bid adieu permanently, as I have enough stalkers here.
This was a way to kill time at 3 AM waiting on drunks to sober up and finish their Xrays.
I find that I don’t have to be conservative to be in favor of the death sentence. I just have to be pragmatic enough to realize that some people honestly don’t belong here. I am not the one saying this, they are. They’re actions speak louder than my words ever will.
If you see a rabid dog, you put him down. If you see a child killer, you put him down. I have argued til I feel the blood pulse in my head over this. The death penalty is not barbaric, what the killers did to be put there is barbaric.
Abstinence-only “sex-ed” teaches children nothing about the actual risks and consequences of unprotected sex. It simply says, over and over, “Sex is bad!” It pretends that condoms have no effect on the rates of teen pregnancy and STD transmission.
And let’s not forget about Palin’s lovely, “abstinent” daughter. Apparently, Palin thinks that all parents should pass off any unwanted teen pregnancies as their own (like she attempted to do herself), and that this will “solve” the teen pregnancy problem. That, or she’s mighty hypocritical about this whole teen sex thing.
Reference for that “passing off a pregnancy as her own” thing please. There was some nasty rumor that her youngest son was actually Bristol’s kid. That’s why she came out with Bristol being pregnant instead of keeping it under wraps. I think you’re confusing two things.
You guys are under the assumption that all people who hold Palin’s beliefs think that because of those beliefs they are perfect people who never do any wrong. Stereotyping gone wild!
Christians, as a whole, may think they know a better way, but they in no way portray themselves as non-sinners. The ones who do are not Christian and are trying to sell you something. If I had come up pregnant before I got married, my parents would have freaked, but they in no way would have removed their support from me.
Actually, that policy requiring rape victims to pay for the rape kit was in place BEFORE she became mayor, and was common at the time. She actually helped undo that policy. She also has never even tried to ban sex education, and what’s with this apparent assumption that contraception always works? It doesn’t. Finally, the list of books she supposedly tried to ban had several that weren’t even out when she was elected. Hard to ban those, isn’t it? It’s also leftists who are constantly trying to ban half of the books on that list (note-it was a list of “commonly banned books” that was floating around the internet for a while).
Accuracy/Fact Check FAIL
mir-oz, you’re a genius.
Um except that’s not the definition of a palindrome…
Um…exactly. It’s a satirical definition of a palindrome.
This is the best Lol i’ve seen in a while.
The earth is 6000-7000 years old, wtf.
*sigh* I need a reference where Sarah Palin actually said or in some way implied that. That is a ludicruis statement made by Matt Damon in an interview, and it has been projected onto Palin. Just because some fundamentals believe that doesn’t mean all of them do. The same thing goes for believing that global warming actually causes global cooling. Just because some liberals believe that doesn’t mean they all do.
“Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. “She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board,” said Munger, a music composer and teacher. “I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, ‘Sarah, how can you believe in creationism — your father’s a science teacher.’ And she said, ‘We don’t have to agree on everything.’
“I pushed her on the earth’s creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them.”
What genius. How clever. This site is an Obama ass kissing enterprise (i.e. hater hang out).
Yeah, I agree. I’m ok with laughing at the people I like, but I think it’s even funnier (and much sadder) to watch people argue on the comment section trying to point out why either candidate is going to cause the world to go to hell.
For all that they “know” about Palin, why don’t we know all of Obama’s history too? Sounds fair to me.
But I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind.
I don’t explicitly support either Obama or McCain. I haven’t even decided who to vote for this election year. I debate issues alone, personally, and don’t claim that either candidate is the end-all of humanity if elected.
And, maybe Obama’s VERY well documented, scrutinized and criticized history (from his racial/national background to his parents’ health issues to his pastor and beyond) just, for whatever reason, isn’t as amusing as this woman’s to most people.
Amusing is one thing, Fair reporting is another. I think it’s fair to know what Obama did before he became a senator, if he’s elected he’ll be able to veto bills and be the Commander in Chief of America’s Army.
I would love to know that guy’s full resume.
His resume’s a little scary. Friend of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrne (terrorist), spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright (racist, anti-semite and America Hater), Financial Advisor Franklin Raines (largely responsible for the mortgage mess we’re dealing with), got his house at a severely reduced price from Tony Rezko (slum lord, currently under investigation), Foreign Policy includes pulling out of Iraq, which would destabilize the country, and invading Pakistan, our ally. Also, wants to severely reduce defense spending.
Used questionable tactics and ad hominem attacks to disqualify his opponents in both his Illinois and US senate seats, voted “Present” more than anything else while in the Illinois senate, put his name on an amendment that added Kindergarten to a sex ed bill (look it up if you don’t believe me), voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which allows for medical assistance to infants who survive an abortion (before that, hospitals were required to just let them lie there and die of starvation/neglect).
I think that’s everything. Everything I can remember off the top of my head, anyway.
Hey, I like Obama, but when they make jokes about him, I don’t mind laughing. They’re not insulting you; don’t take it personally. It’s a JOKE. You don’t have to like it or think it’s funny, but please don’t think this site is trying to promote a political agenda.
Hey, I love jokes! But it is fairly obvious what is chosen here is often negative against McCain and Palin.
Front page score right now:
Obama- 1 picture; not negative against him
Palin- 3 pictures; 2 obviously negative, 1 insinuating that she’d shoot a reporter
Palin got much love when she showed up. Then she started talking…..now even some former supporters wish she’d just go home. She did that to herself.
I’d love to see a woman in the team – but she needs to be a woman with some substance. Why didn’t McCain choose Kay Bailey Hutchison? Smart, experienced, not a whackjob or embarrassment in heels. Seriously, there are any number of qualified women he could have chosen. What McCain and Palin are getting now is just the understandable backlash of those who are finding out they’ve been had.
We shall see, my friend, we shall see. The debate is tonite, even though I may not watch it.
As for the “understandable backlash of those who are finding out they’ve been had,” I was thinking the same was going to happen to Biden being selected for VP on the other side.
There’s so much wrong with that, including “wackjob or embarrassment in heels” If Barry had gotten half the scrutiny in the last 20 months that she’s gotten in the last 2, he never would have gotten the nomination, it would have gone to Hillary. But, the national media decided to prop up the unqualified doofus with a pretty face than Hillary, who at least has seen the process before. I don’t like Hillary Clinton, but she definitely got the short end of the stick in the primary. Oh, and she did get the popular vote in the primary, where’s all the screaming of “selected, not elected!”? Or does that only happen when the rules work in favor of the Republican? Just a though.
There’s a link at the top of your page that says “Vote”.
Quit looking at my page!
(and yes, I do vote occasionally)
If the nation is about to go off a cliff, going backward is the best course of action !
Well played.
considering her lack of a brain, i’d go with PALINDRONE. she’s like a fembot without the fun.
That’s not nice!
I CAN SEE RUSSIA FROM MY HOUSE!!!!
GENERIC MOOSE-HUNTING TALE THAT I THINK HAS TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE!!!!!!
No, no, it’s a pun not a palindrome…….wait wrong Palin
This….
one….
is….
AWE-SO-ME….
:-O
Wake up, America! They both say they “love Israel”. .What is this all about? Israel is a regime which seems hell-bent on outdoing Nazi Germany as a brutal invader and occupier of other people’s lands,and nuclear-armed as well. And you people say Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It is just rank hypocrisy.
You, of course, are talking about lands taken after being attacked? you also neglect to mention that every time they give some land back the Palestinians use that land to launch rockets into Israel. Lets not forget if the Palestinians disarmed their would be peace, what do you think would happen if the Israelis disarmed? As for your Iran comment I haven’t seen any comments from the Israeli PM saying, “Country name” shall be wiped off this Earth in a sea of fire.” So, you go ahead and make baseless comparisons between a democratic country and a cesspit that routinely hangs gays and whips rape victims if it makes you feel better.
If the Palestinians laid down their arms, the Isrealis would take their chance right then to attack. The Isrealis do just as much attacking as the Palestinians do. And it’s absurd to think that if a specific side laid down their weapons the other side would be just perfectly okay with it. No one side here is the total aggressor and no one side is completely a victim, and you are delusional if you think so.
Oh wow, you cant be serious. The Israeli’s could crush and kill all the Palestinians right now with little or no problem if they wanted to they dont need the Palestinians to disarm. That they haven’t, in the face of all the attacks they have endured, is telling. Now I will agree that the Israeli’s are no angels, they have commited some horrible crimes.
However lets do a pop quiz:
Of the two sides which is known for strapping on semtex vests loaded with ball bearings and hopping on a school bus or a sidewalk cafe?
Which side is known for, when a agreement has been made and a settlement has been abandoned than uses that land as a new place to lauch rockets indiscriminately into civilian centers.
Which side has a childrens show where a rabbit leads children in sing songs about killing jews.
My point here is that while israel isnt perfect by any means I am sick and tired of hearing about the “poor oppressed Palestinians’ when alot of their problems are self made.
To start with, I am talking about land stolen in 1948, when Israel was the aggressor. However, I would not support the violence inherent in Ahmeninejad’s statement.This is the way we in the west used to talk about Germany, North Vietnam, and Russia, but hopefully we have moved on.
If the Palestinians disarmed unilaterally, there would be peace, but only the kind of peace enjoyed by France and Poland in WW2, or by Latvia and Estonia and Georgia, among others, in the days of the Soviet Union.
The Palestinians are not even demanding all their land back – they are only demanding justice. It has been consistently denied them, by Israel and its allies.
Oh my God she said “nucular” last night.
I swear to God, recent republican candidates make drinking games out of debates.
Too awesome for words. Isn’t this frightening?
As a person whose name is a palindrome, I must say that the definition is wrong. But it’s hilariously applied here.
Another fun twist on words regarding Sarah Palin can be found here:
http://cheezburger.com/View/4142067712
Its such as you learn my thoughts! You seem to understand so much approximately this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something. I believe that you could do with a few % to power the message house a little bit, but other than that, that is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I will definitely be back.
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all people you actually recognise what you’re talking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally discuss with my site =). We may have a link trade arrangement between us