Thursday, February 10, 2011

What we gave all that bailout money for...

An internet clown-car full of self-entitled fail.

I have to agree with John Cole's summary, though I don't really know Glenn Greenwald:

Knowing Glenn, I bet what angers him the most is the quality of his enemies. Really? The road to riches is advocating for someone the majority of the country thinks is a traitor? How stupid do you have to be to believe this shit? That has to be a let-down to know that you are up against a clown car full of wingnut internet sleuths who can’t even figure out the basics about you. It’s like learning that you thought your arch-rival was Ernst Blofeld but is actually Andy Dick.



Oh, and Bank of America's crusade against criticism gets even more melodramatically and malevolently funnier (via a h/t from Jane Hamsher):


"Bank of America has snapped up hundreds of abusive domain names for its senior executives and board members in what is being perceived as a defensive strategy against the future publication of damaging insider info from whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. According to Domain Name Wire, the US bank has been aggressively registering domain names including its board of directors' and senior executives' names followed by 'sucks' and 'blows.'"

41 comments:

Montag said...

I still think the funniest part of this is that this was a group of professional data security firms, and they got their lunch eaten by a bunch of volunteer hackers, and then the volunteer hackers just rubbed their noses in abject fail.

But, hey, if you're being hired by a bunch of greedy, incompetent banksters from BoA, how good can you be at your jobs?

I think we have our answer....

sukabi said...

that's the thing Montag... the "best and brightest" aren't working for corporate or government security... same with other fields... most of self-proclaimed "kings of the universe" shouldn't be trusted to change light bulbs unsupervised.

Marcellina said...

"An internet clown-car full of self-entitled fail" — this is the best and most enjoyable phrase I have heard in a long time. Bravo!

"aggressively registering domain names including its board of directors' and senior executives' names followed by 'sucks' and 'blows.'"
— because SeniorExecSucks@blogspot.com would never, ever work...

Olives and Arrows said...

.

Wowser, Atta.
You certainly went all out in this post, an all-star selection of left wing internet nuttery.
Jane Hamsher a racist who posted blackfacing bigotry on Huffpo, Glenn Greenwald the master sock puppeteer and John Cole the veteran BBC anti-semite.
Well done, Attaturk.
/sigh/

pansypoo said...

it's long due this wikileaks bank document dump. i suppose the press is scrambling to get clothes for the naked banksters.

MD said...

Shocked and Awed , once again. .... . This why I just Luvs O&A. I can always count on him to go Slurriously Non Sequitur. Who could possible argue against such non logic?

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Hey, Obnoxious Asshole, your buddy Rumsfeld has finally admitted that he told, um, well, "misstatements".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/donald-rumsfeld-book-misstatements-wmd

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

And, oh yeah: Jane Hamsher a racist? Glenn Greenwald master sock puppeteer? John Cole anti-semite?

Fuck you and your delusions, too.

You are a lowly piece of shit, totally unworthy of clinging to the sole of any of these fine people's shoes.

Raoul Paste said...

If these wingers ever realize how they've been duped, it won't be pretty.

Some of them are angry types.

Mr. Hedley Bowes said...

John Cole.
Glenn Greenwald.
Jane Hamsher.

Whistle-calls for teh crazy (or, cue the resident clown car).

Anonymous said...

Witness how the mighty banks are so mistreated...all wikileaks fault. How one determined Assange could piss off so many high and mighty sorts with documented proof of their chilling indifference to honesty.
vox

Olives and Arrows said...

.

And, oh yeah: Jane Hamsher a racist?

Yes.

Glenn Greenwald master sock puppeteer?

Yes.

John Cole anti-semite?

Yes.

Unfortunately, overwhelming evidence indicates that this is the case.
I have posted evidence here before. But I will post here again if you make request (politely).

Southern Beale said...

In case you missed the ThinkProgress report, the story gets worse ... "US Chamber’s Lobbyists Solicited Firm To Investigate Opponents’ Families, Children"

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

I have posted evidence here before. But I will post here again if you make request (politely).

You didn't post any evidence, because you never do.

You just post the same old cockamamie crap that passes for evidence in Wingnut World--- taking stuff out of context and trying to whip it into something that it isn't.

See, the thing is, I read those three blogs fairly regularly, and if those three-- who are all excellent writers who leave no doubt about their opinions--- were regularly into the kind of shameful shit that you claim they are, do you not think that I would've probably have noticed it over the past five years?

So, no shit sherlock--- that's how I know you are doing the tried-and-true wingnut truth-twisting routine.

And that's why the polite request I will make is for you to go take a shit in the same stall as Senator Larry Craig, you shameless liar.

Olives and Arrows said...

,

...truth-twisting routine.

Unfortunately for people like Hamsher and Greenwald the internet keeps everything forever -- for all to see.
The evidence that Hamsher posted blackfacing on Huffpo is irrefutable, as is the fact that Greenwald was caught sock puppeting. The incidents in both cases were traced to the IP address of the computer and its respective owner.


See, the thing is, I read those three blogs fairly regularly


Not surprizing.

....who are all excellent writers who leave no doubt about their opinions--- were regularly into the kind of shameful shit that you claim they are, do you not think that I would've probably have noticed it over the past five years?

Not necessarily. You've proven that you're an ideologue and as such you are mostly blinded to anything that conflicts with your narrow worldview.
And who says that a person has to regularly display shameful behaviour to be accused of the same? The solitary incident of blackfacing is sufficient and irrefutable proof that Jane Hamsher is a racist bigot.

Same goes for Glenn Greenwald. Sock puppeting in today's internet blogging is similar to plagiarism for a writer. Once a plagiarist, always one, and once a sock puppet always a sock puppet.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Look, idiot,

a) it so happens that I don't agree with Jane Hamsher having posting a picture of Joe Lieberman in blackface, for whatever reason.

b) But she didn't post the picture to promote or advocate racism. She posted the picture to mock Joe Lieberman.

c) Then she quickly apologized for having done so.

d) Ergo, one can accuse Jane Hamsher of showing poor judgement in that instance. I would even agree with that accusation. I would guess that Jane Hamsher herself would, too. I would guess that you, too, like the rest of the human race, have done things that you regret.

e) But to call her a racist on that basis is insane.

f) By your logic, if grandma gets a speeding ticket, then everyone should regard her as a lifelong criminal.

g) But WTF; why am I attempting to reason with an idiot?

Olives and Arrows said...

.


b) But she didn't post the picture to promote or advocate racism. She posted the picture to mock Joe Lieberman.

Weasel words.
Nobody has said she was "promoting" or "advocating" racism -- only that she was committing racist bigotry.

She used a racist meme to mock Lieberman (as you've admitted to here). "Hamsher’s image presumably is a comment on Lieberman being a closet Republican who’s posing as a Democrat, her symbol for which is … minstrel make-up."

e) But to call her a racist on that basis is insane.

Explain how calling her a racist isn't a rational deduction, given her use of the Lieberman blackfacing as an obvious insult to African Americans?
After all, it can't really be effective mocking if there isn't an insult at its very base.

Think about it. Jane Hamsher is clearly a racist bigot.

Try substitution. If it was a right wing pundit pulling the very same stunt how would you (then) portray the incident? Think about it....

MD said...

Patton: I love it. God help me I do love it so. I love it more than my life. .... . Butts do you have anything, my dear O&A on the subject of this thread. ...... didn't think so or you would not have attempted to divert the dialog. Again and again and again..... Please try to come up with something more on the subject de jour and not your rerouteration. Something that will give pause and force me to reflect.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Ok, Obnoxious Asshole, since you suggested it, let's try your "gotcha" game with a rightwing figure.

William F. Buckley--- clearly a racist bigot.

Why? His magazine, National Review, vigorously opposed the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

Now mind you, I'm choosing to totally ignore the fact that in later life Buckley "said it was a mistake for National Review not to have supported the civil rights legislation of 1964-65, and later supported a national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whom he grew to admire a good deal, above all for combining spiritual and political values." (Quote from NYT)

But since I'm not really interested in the actual facts about William F. Buckley, just looking for a chance to sling some shit at him, what do I care about actual facts?

***********

See, the thing with you, and your wingnut brethren, is that you are fundamentally dishonest.

None of you give a shit about racism, not for one second.

You are just a bunch of howler monkeys who love to fling shit.

And if you can't find any real shit to fling, you'll pick up any piece of garbage you can find, even if it is obviously bogus.

Olives and Arrows said...

.

MD said....didn't think so or you would not have attempted to divert the dialog.

I'm definitely on the subject by calling into question the credibility of all three sources Atta attempts to use.

PTPSTC,

You might have a point if (if you could think rationally and) William Buckley had used a racist archetype in order to mock an opponent. Lots of people opposed the Civil Rights Act at the time you mention. For instance the Republicans supported and voted for the Act in much greater percentage than did the Democratic Party of the day. Does that make the Dems more racist than the Republicans. No, of course not.

Buckley did use an epithet to insult an opponent when he used the word 'fag' to insult the creepy anti-American Gore Vidal. Thus you could make a case the Buckley was anti-homosexual because he insulted Vidal in that particular manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li73RRLEyW8

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

OK, let's see if I've got this straight, Shit-For-Brains:

You're saying that opposing 1960's legislation guaranteeing black people's right to vote freely was not really racist...

but a posting an online picture of some white politician in blackface is?

Here's what I would recommend... since you are pretending to be offended on behalf of black people, why don't you go ask a few, you know, actual black people, which one of those thing THEY find more offensive; show them

a) Jane Hamsher's internet picture of Joe Lieberman

b) William F. Buckley's NR articles about civil rights.

Go ahead, I dare you!

And make sure you ask black people who grew up in the south and are old enough to remember not being allowed to vote.

Olives and Arrows said...

.


You're saying that opposing 1960's legislation guaranteeing black people's right to vote freely was not really racist...

but a posting an online picture of some white politician in blackface is?


By George, I think he's got it!

While some opposed Civil Rights Act from racist viewpoint, many others had differing reasons in opposition to the legislation.

Some thought it the was the "rise of a new left" and was the leading edge of marxism at the time. (Buckley fiercely opposed communism/marxism....)

There were many that were opposed to Civil Rights Act, some having reasons that had nothing to do with race.

However there can be no mistaking Hamsher's intent with the blackfacing incident, she used the image to mock Lieberman with racist archetype, purely because she's a bigot.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

You are such an asshole.

She used the image to mock Lieberman because he was pretending to care about black people.

Pretty much in the same way as you pretend to care about black people.

As someone who grew up in the south during the time of the Civil Rights Act, I say a sincere "fuck you" to all the people who opposed it, regardless of their supposed reasons.

And I say a sincere "fuck you" to you, as well.

Our family moved out of our all-white suburb and moved north in 1965, when I was 13. And my parents bravely decided to sell our house to a black family.

Don't tell me about bigotry, because I've seen it firsthand. None of our former neighbors ever spoke to our family after that.

And if you had been there, you fucking asshole, you would have been squarely on the side of the bigots, and not my family.

Your faux outrage about a blackface picture of Joe Lieberman makes me want to puke.

It takes guts to stand up to bigotry, like my parents did.

But you wouldn't know about that, because you are a coward, and you've never stood up to bigotry in your life.

Anonymous said...

MD said....didn't think so or you would not have attempted to divert the dialog.

I'm definitely on the subject by calling into question the credibility of all three sources Atta attempts to use.

Dear doG, did you really type this ? ... Where exactly and I'm asking exactly do you get your misinformation from?......Just wondering if there are any bigots etc,etc giving you, your talking points. Child, I warned you before about trying to joust with me. I'm not playing 'cause it isn't worth feeding your cravings. ....but I do luv the dialog, please continue .... ps Privatize is killing you. I'd suggest a hasty withdraw

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Let me tell you some other things our family did to combat racism.

In the 1960's we took part in NAACP protests at some of the leading hotels in our town that didn't allow blacks to stay there or eat there.

When we moved north in 1965, my parents deliberately chose a neighborhood and schools that were half black and half white.

My mother became president of a local neighborhood group which supported the local schools and tried to ensure racial harmony.

Now I moved to Canada in 1970, and there aren't that many black people around my area, so I've kind of lost touch, but my parents still live in the same family home in the same neighborhood.

OK, I know, in the grand scheme of things, my family and I haven't really done that much for racial harmony, but let me ask you, OnAn...

What have YOU or your family ever done to combat racism?

Other than, you know, calling Jane Hamsher a racist?

Olives and Arrows said...

.

What have YOU or your family ever done to combat racism?

Other than, you know, calling Jane Hamsher a racist?


I'm not a politician nor a racial activist so it's not really my role nor my mission in life to "combat" racism. Aside from that, the Jane Hamsher types are getting fewer and fewer in number, that in a country that is the least racist society in history.

You should step back and reconsider. You're making the discussion personal with regaling your family stories of heroism. All of this appears to be in the name of partisan politics with a losing attempt at defending a racist (Jane Hamsher), a writer whom you happen to think might be of similar leftist opinion to your own. In the process you wrongfully accuse me of bigotry (8:07 PM), an accusation based solely on (your principle) I'm not leftist and therefore must be a racist.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Yeah, you're right, I do take this personally.

The Civil Rights Act was only passed because of brave white liberals like me and my family... over the anguished howls of cowardly conservatives like you and probably your parents.

These cowardly conservatives rarely came right out and admitted they were racists, preferring to hide their racism behind bogus ideals like "states rights" or "opposing communism", or "you can't legislate morality".

But here's the problem for you--- the liberals were morally right, and the conservatives were morally wrong.

And since you are a proud member of this same conservative group, why should any liberal take your accusations of "racism" or "bigotry" against anyone seriously?--- and I don't give a shit if it's Jane Hamsher or the Queen of Sheba.

Your accusations are as phoney as a three dollar bill.

They are as ridiculous as me, an atheist, criticizing a Jew for eating pork.

You are making a total asshole of yourself, but then again, I assume that's why you like to come here.

Olives and Arrows said...

It must be strangely satisfying for you, what with your supposed illustrious family background of fortitude and your view of my family as being somehow deficient in some way that you've imagined?

But here's the problem for you--- the liberals were morally right, and the conservatives were morally wrong.

Actually, I think the "problem" might be yours. You don't have your facts straight, a nagging habit that all too often appears as mark of the leftist ideologue. Facts do tend to be very problematic for people like you.
The conservatives (Republicans) of 1964 supported the Civil Rights Act by much greater ratio than did the liberals (Democratic Party).

And probably not coincidental, the Democratic Party appears to have carried that particular problem into the next century. The Democratic Party opposed freedom from oppression for the Afghan and Iraqi people by greater ratio than did the Republicans. Although it should also be noted that similar to the situation in the 1960s the majority of Democratic politicians still eventually managed to come out on the right side of history.

That continues to present day with Obama increasing US troop presence in Afghanistan and keeping the majority of troops in Iraq to maintain the decisive victory for freedom there.

Thus far into his term Barack Obama has done very well indeed -- and in all likelyhood I'll be voting for him in 2012. (...the conservative that you claim that I am, notwithstanding....)

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Facts do tend to be very problematic for people like you. The conservatives (Republicans) of 1964 supported the Civil Rights Act by much greater ratio than did the liberals (Democratic Party).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are actually not lying, but are simply too young to understand the reasons behind this.

Once upon a time when I was young and dinosaurs stalked the earth, both US parties had a conservative wing AND a liberal wing.

The Democrats conservative, racist wing was in the south; a remnant of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era.

The GOP's liberal wing was in the north, a remnant of Abraham Lincoln's original Republican Party.

The passing of civil rights legislation in 1965, followed by Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" caused a seismic shift in US politics.

By 1980, essentially all the conservatives were Republicans, and essentially all the liberals were Democrats; a situation which has lasted to this very day.

You can google all this if you don't believe me. I lived through it all, so I don't need to.

I've gotta run some errands this morning, but when I come back, I have another history lesson for you.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

More on the Southern Strategy from 1980 GOP strategist Lee Atwater, who actually came out and admitted the conservative's hidden agenda of racism.

***********

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires.

So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that.

But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

**************

No, I'm not making this up; I encourage you to google it.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

In 1964, three brave liberals were in Philadelphia, Mississippi as part of "Freedom Summer", an effort to help black people register to vote when they were murdered by the KKK.

Their names were: James Chaney, 21, Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24.

In 1980, a politician came to Philadelphia, Mississippi to make the very first speech of his campaign for president.

His speech didn't praise the bravery of three liberals who had given their lives there sixteen years earlier, following ideals of compassion and service to the less fortunate.

His speech didn't decry the brutality of the KKK in killing them.

No, this politician's speech was all about "states rights".

Here, you can listen to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_eTDP-CSg

The politicians name?

Ronald W. Reagan.

See, this is reason number 66 million that liberals have trouble sitting still for pious lectures from conservatives about racism and bigotry.

We liberals criticize the people on our side of the aisle for engaging in bigotry or racism.

You conservatives don't have the guts to openly applaud racism. You just quietly wink at them for their cleverness in communicating their bigotry and racism without coming right out and saying it.

Just like Ronald Reagan did.

And that is what will forever brand Reagan as a conservative coward and a closet racist.

But the bravery of the three liberal martyrs Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner--- among many others--- will live forever.

Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner make me proud to be a liberal.

Reagan should make you ashamed to be a conservative.

Olives and Arrows said...

.

First of all, I'm not conservative as you seem to think. I'm a centrist and have voted both Democratic Party and Republican, several times each at local, State and federal levels. I'm betting that an ideologue like you has never wavered one molecule from voting whomever the most left wing candidate might be? That goes for before 1980 when you imagined a supposed magical transformation in both parties.

And speaking of the N-word, the kkk and racism within both parties; it's a solid bet that you looked the other way concerning Robert Byrd (D-kkk). Robert Byrd was easily the highest profile racist in either party. Long after Byrd supposedly renounced his associations he continued to use the N-word, publicly slipping up as late as 2001. So, you see, nothing changed with either party other than the Democrats and mainstream media became somewhat more adept at portraying Republicans as either racist, as uneducated rubes, or as both.

Both parties continue to have some racists in their midst, a reality you seem fully willing to excuse for leftists -- such as the considerable effort you've put into defending the obvious racism of Jane Hamsher here on these pages.



To summarize:

You are an extremist ideologue.

I am a centrist with a voting history to prove it.

Jane Hamsher is a racist bigot.

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

See, I'm just an atheist, not a Christian, but to the best of my knowledge, what Jesus was actually saying in the parable of the prodigal son, was that when somebody sincerely asks to be forgiven, one should forgive them.... just like God forgives people who ask to be forgiven.

And generally speaking, I think Jesus' advice is pretty wise.

So on that basis, I am willing to forgive the mistakes of Jane Hamsher, William F. Buckley, and Sen. Robert Byrd.

Oh, yes, Byrd was indeed one of those racist conservative Southern Dems I mentioned above. He not only voted against the civil rights bill, but shamefully filibustered against it in the Senate for 14 hours.

But I DO forgive Byrd, along with Hamsher and Buckley, and not because of their political views.

Why?

Because they admitted they made a mistake, and asked to be forgiven.

I ask in all sincerity, are YOU so perfect that you will never make a mistake, and you will never ask anyone to forgive YOU?

If you ever do, I hope the person you ask to forgive you has more forgiveness in their heart you do.

You seem to be all about the gotchas and the keeping grudges. Sometimes you gotta let some of that shit go, or you'll wind up with a heart full of hate.

"Forgive and remember", as somebody once said.

PS So why am I holding a grudge against Reagan? Why don't I just forgive him?

Because he never acknowledged his mistake. He never asked forgiveness.

Now, you are absolutely correct, I always vote for the candidate who is farthest to the left, and I probably always will.

But that doesn't stop me from believing that former UK Labour PM Tony Blair deserves to go on trial for war crimes, exactly like Bush.

And if I'd lived in the UK and had the chance to vote against the Labour Party because of its support for Blair and his war crimes, I would have happily done so, even if it meant voting Conservative.

Olives and Arrows said...

.


But I DO forgive Byrd, along with Hamsher....Because they admitted they made a mistake, and asked to be forgiven.

It's certainly your perogative to forgive them. I'm a little more careful, since in my opinion these two were not genuinely contrite. Hamsher issued "the typical hollywood non-apology apology". Robert Byrd renounced his kkk association but continued to use the N-word well past his false apology. Go ahead, call me a hardass for not forgiving these two bigots.

I ask in all sincerity, are YOU so perfect that you will never make a mistake, and you will never ask anyone to forgive YOU?

Don't be silly. We've all made plenty of mistakes and hope for forgiveness. Myself included. Just because I make very few mistakes here on this website in the process of shredding lefties doesn't mean I'm free of making mistakes. I do fully realize that I have the advantage of arguing from moderate politics, the moral high ground of classic liberalism.

Now, you are absolutely correct, I always vote for the candidate who is farthest to the left, and I probably always will.

This makes you an extreme ideologue in the greater scheme of moderate Western politics. I was correct in my analysis of your narrow viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

This makes you an extreme ideologue in the greater scheme of moderate Western politics. I was correct in my analysis of your narrow viewpoint.

What you fail to consider is how the goalposts have been consistently moving to the right over the past few decades. Even Barry Goldwater, who used to be at the extreme right of the GOP before he died, once said that he had become a "moderate" Republican without really changing any of his policies, simply because the entire GOP had moved to the right.

So call me an extreme ideologue if you will... but I'm proud of standing up for civil rights and against imperialist wars in both Vietnam and Iraq.

The trouble with so-called moderates is, they don't have the moral compass to do stuff like that.

That's why I'm proud not be a moderate.

Moderates are guys who sit on their asses and do nothing to fight the world's many injustices.

You think Jesus was a moderate?

Olives and Arrows said...

.


That's why I'm proud not be a moderate.

Extremism is what caused the wars in Vietnam and Iraq that you say you were against. Supposed Western imperialism didn't cause those conflicts, it was oppressive regime such as the communists in Vietnam and the Ba'athist national socialist dictatorship in Iraq that were at root cause.

In both of those cases the side you support by default eventually lost. The communists lost the in the larger picture when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Hussein regime lost within a mere two or three weeks of the coalition invading.

Now, other oppressive regimes are beginning to fall one by one; last week Eygpt, last month Tunisia and with more autocracies in the Middle East sure to follow. (...and communist China within ten years max.)

Clearly, you and your extremist brethren are losing and losing bigtime to moderate people (like me) and our desire for freedom.

Anonymous said...

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-12/review-american-war-machine-peter-dale-scott

Privatize the Profits! Socialize the Costs! said...

Clearly, you and your extremist brethren are losing and losing bigtime to moderate people (like me) and our desire for freedom.

Bad brown acid on the right side of the stage!

Olives and Arrows said...

Somebody has seen the Woodstock documentary. If you're gonna attempt to be funny can't you at least come up with your own material?

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ