« Alternate History From MSLSD | Main | Natives Get Restless at GE Shareholders Meeting »

April 23, 2009

Open Thread

Compliments of Diversity Lane.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 23, 2009 8:03 AM


Eight Most Obnoxious Hollywood Lefties. The list I talked about the other day is up. Thanks for your inputs.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 23, 2009 8:33 AM

Please see previous (political) “Hypocrites in the News:”

Today we widen our focus to cite non-political hypocrites very deserving of our attention to demonstrate that, although politicians have raised hypocrisy to a virtual art form, they don’t enjoy a monopoly.

A sad case in point is the previously-discussed, Mel Gibson, (”Sex, Morality, and the Decline of a Nation II,”, who, apparently, couldn’t keep his pants zipped when it came to a couple of Russki hotties. If the allegations are true, Mel merits the top of the hypocrisy heap simply due to his prior status as a conservative icon who let us down almost as much as he let down his wife, his family, and himself.

Second place in the hypocritical non-political category is awarded to a sorry substitute for a human being, some swishing twit named Perez Hilton, who earned his position here by demonstrating intolerance. As a dashing gay blade and a representative of his homosexual clique, surely he must have heard of the gay “Day of Silence” last week which sought to muzzle straight high school and college kids to enable the homosexual lobby to present its case for, take a guess, tolerance toward the gay community.

In actuality, the Day of Silence was dedicated as much to recruiting kids to its lifestyle as it was to gaining respect and tolerance, but that’s just one man’s opinion. See here for the substance behind that opinion:

Well, Perez, whose real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. and who maintains a website which features a more than flattering caricature of his likeness,proved proved to be more than a tad intolerant of a young lady named, Carrie Prejean.

The Perez-Carrie story has been widely circulated but for those not into the stuff of fluff, such as Miss America contests, a quick summary: For some reason, Perez was chosen to be a judge of this year’s competitors to help determine who would wear the 2009 crown. Why a flaming homosexual would be asked to sit in judgement on a bevy of American beauties in the first place, except perhaps for a touch of comic relief, is beyond me. It was tantamount in its absurdity to Rep. Barney Frank judging honest CEO’s, which he does.

Now, I’m not qualified to allege that gay “men” don’t like women, especially pretty women, although it’s probably true, but Perez went at Carrie as if . . .

(Read the rest at

Posted by: Berlet98 at April 23, 2009 8:51 AM

"Workshop studies issues of racism" (an article in my local paper today)

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2009 12:35 PM

Obama refuses to accept findings that Gitmo inmates are too dangerous to release inside the U.S.

After Obama’s promise to close Gitmo, the White House ordered an inter-agency review of the status of all the detainees, apparently believing that many of those held would be quickly determined releasable. The committee -- comprised of all the national security agencies -- was tasked to start with what the Obama administration believed to be the easiest case: that of the seventeen Uighurs, Chinese Muslims who were captured at an al-Queda training camp.

The Uighurs sued for release under the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision, which gave Gitmo prisoners the Constitutional right to habeas corpus. Last October, a federal court ordered their release into the United States, but an appeals court overturned the decision, saying the right to make that determination rested entirely with the president. Since then, Attorney General Eric Holder has said that some of the Gitmo inmates may be released into the United States.

That, apparently, is what the White House plans for the Uighurs and others.

Reviewing the Uighurs detention, the inter-agency panel found that they weren’t the ignorant, innocent goatherds the White House believed them to be. The committee determined they were too dangerous to release because they were members of the ETIM terrorist group, the “East Turkistan Islamic Movement,” and because their presence at the al-Qaeda training camp was no accident. There is now no ETIM terrorist cell in the United States: there will be one if these Uighurs are released into the United States....

More here...

Posted by: SK at April 23, 2009 12:55 PM

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 23, 2009 3:08 PM

Take a look at this thread in the Obama Forum:

I can't tell if this is parody or nightmare serious. What was that you said once, VH, about how it's impossible to parody moonbats?

Posted by: Panday at April 23, 2009 3:21 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at April 23, 2009 4:10 PM

This is what COWLOVE said in an open topic yesterday:

"All I wanted was a definition. "Military-style" is just another word for, "that gun scares me.""

COWLOVE, let's try a little experiment. Here are some exapmles of what were used to discribe "assault weapons" over the past few decades. (Not all are included, I'm going by memory) Let's see how they stack up against the British "Brown Bess" flintlock musket, 1750-1825.

1}Not easily concealable (President Clinton added that one): CHECK
2}Military-style: CHECK
3}Can be fitted with a bayonett: CHECK
4}Can be fitted with an assault sling (No idea what that is, but it has loops for a sling): CHECK
5}Fires one round for each pull of the trigger (Untill empty): CHECK
6}Can be easily converted to fire fully automatic fire (Look up "roman candle loads"): CHECK
7}Designed to kill people: CHECK
8}Uses millitary bullets: CHECK
9}Powerful: CHECK
10}Can fire multiple rounds ("Buck and ball", buckshot) CHECK
11}Can be cut down to make it more concealable (See top of list): CHECK
12}Has a handle that protrudes (Clinton again): NO
13}Inexpencive: NO (even "cheap" replicas go for several hundred dollars)
14}Is "the weapon of choice for criminals: NO (No criminal has been known to use a muzzle-loader since 1900)

That's ELEVEN out of FOURTEEN, so we can pretty much say that the Brown Bess musket, which was OBSOLETE by 1840, IS an "assault weapon"!

This is what we get when people who know NOTHING about guns want to regulate them.

Posted by: KHarn at April 23, 2009 4:39 PM

As Alan Ladd said in the movie classic "Shane", "A gun is just a tool, Joey. It's as good or bad as the man that uses it".

There is a lot of truth to that statement, but it doesn't go far enough. A gun is not good or bad at all; it's an inanimate object.

A ROCK or STICK is an "assault weapon" if someone decided to use it as a WEAPON and ASSAULT you with it....

The Liberals are in denial of the fact that we have "Gun Laws" In this country....and lot's of them. The last set of BATFE "Rule Books" I received was as thick as a phone book.

KHarn and cowlove have both talked about the ambiguity surrounding the term "Assault Weapon". They make a lot of good points, and we can take this even farther.

Want to really split hairs and get goofy with this? Just mention "pre-ban" and "post-ban" with regards to the 1994 "Clinton Gun Ban". Many times the only difference was an accessory lug or muzzle extension.

It was commonly called the "Ugly Gun Ban", because it had very little to do with reality - all a weapon had to do to get on the list was look "scary" to someone who probably had no idea what they were looking at....

What I object to most of all is the fact that as a taxpayer, I have to pay to enforce this nonsense.

Posted by: TonyD95B at April 23, 2009 5:16 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at April 23, 2009 7:12 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at April 23, 2009 7:13 PM

Three teenagers were dished out the draconian punishment of 72 WEEKS and 26 WEEKS for the brutal robbery, beating, and death of a tuba player.

Whew! That sure sends a strong message: It's ok, boys, were letting the 24 weeks already "served" apply, so you can get back to your gang and kill someone else. Please don't get caught next time.

Posted by: Lyle at April 23, 2009 7:24 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at April 23, 2009 7:41 PM

The NYTs consiters CHE as CHIC

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 23, 2009 7:50 PM

Posted by: V the K at April 23, 2009 8:48 PM

The Trump defends Miss California, basically says Perez Hilton forced her to lose with his question

But Trump defended Prejean as well, disagreeing with Perez Hilton's assertion that it was the worst answer in the history of the Miss USA pageant.

"Miss California has done a wonderful job, that was her belief ... It wasn't a bad answer, that was simply her belief."

Trump added that Prejean's question was "a bit unlucky," arguing that no matter how she answered the question "she was going to get killed

Posted by: BURNING HOT at April 23, 2009 9:15 PM

Obama asks federal judge to throw out lawsuit against Iran filed by American hostages

Apparently the President will stop at nothing to please the mullahs. "US wants Iran hostage suit tossed out," from The Associated Press, April 22...


Astounding. Obama's Justice Department didn't have to intervene in this. The fact that it did indicates that not stepping on Iranian toes is a very, very high priority for Obama.

Posted by: SK at April 23, 2009 9:42 PM

Sorry. Link.

Posted by: SK at April 23, 2009 9:43 PM

Clairol’s old ad asked the tantalizing question, “Does she, or doesn’t she?” posing the Earth-shaking question of whether some woman dyed her hair or not but subliminally asking all kinds of other questions about said woman and what she does and doesn’t do.

The title question, “Will she, or won’t she?” is similarly packed with innuendo but related to significantly more profound import namely, Will Israel attack Iran before Iran is nuclear-capable and missile-capable of reducing much of Israel to a glowing, molten puddle.

The stakes are incredibly high, not only for the State of Israel but for the United States, the Mid East, Western Europe, and much of the rest of the globe.

Should Israel stage a pre-emptive assault on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear and nuclear- delivery facilities, it would face a severely adverse reaction from a world and a United Nations which historically haven’t wildly embraced either Jews or their homeland. Should Israel not attack Iran and have one or more of its cities obliterated, its retaliation against Iran would surely be far worse than pre-emptive surgical strikes.

What to do?

To say the geopolitical situation is complex and grave would be gross oversimplification. Israel has often shown it doesn’t conduct its foreign policy with a watchful, cautious eye toward international or American opinion even though the United States is its chief benefactor, arms supplier, and possibly its lone, reliable ally. However, change is in the air and its new, feisty prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu seems well aware that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are no George Bush and Condi Rice.

The Bush administration often demonstrated a total, unflinching commitment to the State of Israel. Despite the support of the vast majority of American Jewish voters for Obama and despite the very powerful Jewish Lobby in this country, the Obama administration has been less than committed, and Bibi is well aware of that as well.

What to do?

Political considerations are never simple matters. Even Julius Caesar, backed by the indomitable Roman army, had to placate, cajole, and intimidate when necessary the various factions in Rome as well as in the provinces. Israel is no Rome and Netanyahu is no Caesar and his options are very few and very limited.

How would the United States react to such a strike? Israel has acted unilaterally before when it staged successful raids on Libya and at Entebbe . . .
(Read the rest at

Posted by: Berlet98 at April 23, 2009 11:29 PM

Posted by: nancz at April 24, 2009 6:32 AM