Man…since moving to The Stranger, Goldy has undergone some changes:
“Perhaps if I advertised that I was looking to have sex with a dishwasher, I’d have more luck?”
And we were led to believe that the Maytag repairman was “lonely.”
In any case, drop Goldy a line if you have a portable dishwasher in “decent working condition” that you no longer need.
I’m not sure but I’m told the dishwasher at Appleby’s kinda cute. I guess so for a guy with poker chips in his earlobes and rings in his lower lip.
Whatever trips yer trigger, I always say…
I don’t know why they were upset. It was a GIRL dog that was 3 year old. That’s 21 in dog years.
LMFAO! Well, since Goldstein can’t get laid by a living human woman, (even by the working girls), maybe its best that he stick to inatimate kitchen appliances. ;)
President Palin = 200 U.S. Hostages
Who we elect as president does matter.
“Try this thought experiment. It’s Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011, and President Sarah Palin is delivering a speech on Libyan dictator Moammer Gadhafi’s murderous response to dissidents protesting his government. It’s time, she says, to ‘speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people’ and ‘the victims of Gadhafi’s terror.’ She says she’s talking to NATO allies about a no-fly zone ‘so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people.’ Libya, she adds, is ‘a brutal enemy of America.’ A day later, Libyan forces board a ferry trapped in the Tripoli harbor because of rough seas, and capture nearly 200 Americans trying to flee. Some are government employees and their dependents; all are now hostages in a land of escalating violence and turmoil.
“Cut. OK experiment over, and Palin isn’t president. But she did write those very words and phrases on Facebook last Tuesday — four days before that ferry safely left Libya for Malta. Her point was to draw a contrast between what President Barack Obama had said at that point on Libya (very little) and what she thought needed to be said (regardless of the consequences for Americans trapped there).”
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2.....egypt-and/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Get the point?
@3: You really are a despicable human being, aren’t you? Do you practice being an asshole, or do you rely on your innate ability?
Indeed, TJ, were you born an asshole, or did you just grow up that way?
RR she is just in it for the money and attention. It is doubtful that she will get serious consideration.
One thing about this mess that does bother me is that we have been selling some military equipment to Libya since about 2006. What in the hell for? Bush started selling the stuff and Obama’s administration has continued. Won’t any of them ever learn?
Mine speaks mostly Croatian, but i might know one (dishwasher) who only speaks Sudanese?
Dishwashers would probably provide a more responsive fuck than would a wingnut woman.
LOL… Am I the only one that took a look at the headline and thought it was going to be about another Republican sex scandal?
@9 reminds me of a Republican sex joke I heard several years ago.
Two Republicans are having sex.
“Oh,” he says, “did I hurt you, dear?”
“No,” she replies. “Why do you ask?”
“You moved,” he says.
11
Indeed. The only reason Republicans have sex is to procreate. Unless, of course, they are with goats, or hookers, or toilet stalls.
proud leftist @ 12
… or toilet stalls
On the other hand, you have to give Republicans credit for taking a stance on something.
It’s a rather wide stance. But a stance nonetheless.
Comments on the Law of War
Foreign Affairs magazine has an interesting article on the law of war pertaining to deliberate and accidental targeting of civilians, which is written in the form of a review of two new books, one of which argues that existing “rules” are too restrictive and the other arguing that rules regulating “collateral damage” are too permissive.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/.....aws-of-war
Roger Rabbit Commentary: War is immoral, period. That must be the starting point of any discussion of attempting to regulate the conduct of war. From that perspective, the impersonal tone of the FA article is somewhat unfortunate. For example,
“It is no surprise to [Gross] that powerful states such as Israel and the United States would expand the circle of ‘legitimate targets’ to include civilians who assist insurgents, because it is otherwise difficult to see how they could successfully wage war at all. Gross justifies this expansion by arguing that it is vital for democracies to prevail in asymmetric conflicts.”
In response, one must ask, why must democracies necessarily prevail? Doesn’t this presume their motives are pure, humane, and selfless; when, in fact, democracies wage war in pursuance of their self-interest, and in that respect, can’t be differentiated from autocracies?
I’m not suggesting America fights its wars on a par with the world’s worst dictatorships. It doesn’t. But we’re not lily-white, either. And we’re getting worse under the influence of increasingly rightwing domestic politics that sanction such atrocities as torture and kidnapping. (About 90% of the Iraqi civilians who were kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured by Americans operating under the removal of restraints by the Bush regime were utterly innocent, according to the International Red Cross.) If America is ever to be a moral country again, the first thing we need to do is get off our fucking high horse and stop pretending that atrocities committed by American troops are somehow on a higher moral plane than atrocities committed by our adversaries — because they aren’t.
It seems to me the larger question pertaining to the Law of War is, what good is it? I mean, do rules really stop anybody from waging war at the morality-blind level of military expendiency? When push comes to shove, soldiers will do whatever they have to, to survive. But, on another level, policymakers and political leaders will do whatever they have to, to win. Ergo, the horrors inflicted on Vietnamese civilians by U.S. military forces in the Vietnam war.
Despite the depravities of Vietnam, though, I don’t think America is on a moral par with the Soviet Union, in terms of its conduct of its war in Afghanistan, where the Soviets pursued a deliberate policy of terrorization of Afghan civilians in an effort to depopulate the country. Soviet military operations in Afghanistan where characterized by official brutality of a stunning inhumanity reminiscent of the worst abuses of Hitler and Stalin:
— Soviet forces massacred entire villages in reprisal for resistance attacks against Soviet bases and convoys;
— Soviet forces killed defenseless civilians by running over them with tanks;
— Soviet forces tried to force civilians to give them information by dousing children with gasoline and burning them alive in front of their parents;
— Soviet forces used chemical warfare against undefended villages and unarmed civilians;
— Soviet secret police and military agents were complicit with their Afghan puppets in systematically torturing and murdering the nation’s intelligentsia and religious leaders.
It is unlikely these abuses were carried out by local commanders. The Andropov-era Soviet army didn’t work that way. Low-level commanders simply didn’t exercise initiative. The depopulation strategy, the deliberate use of terror tactics, the use of chemical warfare, the KGB operations in Afghanistan, the torture cells and mass killings — given the culture of Soviet government and military at the time, all these things had to have been approved and ordered at the highest level of Soviet leadership.
My point is, the Law of War didn’t mean a damn thing to the Politburo, the Soviet generals, or their Afghan communist puppets. The Laws of War don’t mean a damn thing to Moammar Gadhafi, either, who obviously has ordered his military forces to use fighter jets, tanks, and heavy weapons to slaughter unarmed civilian demonstrators against his regime.
And the Law of War didn’t mean a damn thing to George W. Bush when he authorized renditions and torture — and lied to the world about what he had done.
And the Law of War doesn’t mean a damn thing to autocrats like Robert Mugabe who respond to political opposition by killing their opponents, and respond to popular uprisings by shooting unarmed civilian demonstrators.
Tyrants will always cling to power by any means at their disposal. And no reputable American citizen can think responsibly about his own government without taking into consideration that we, also, have politicians whose litmus for decision-making is expediency not morality. Because the truth is, human nature is the same everywhere, and we Americans are no better than anyone else in our banal animal impulses.
If you don’t believe that’s so, then maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the attitude and actions of American General Curtis LeMay, and his terror strategy of firebombing German cities to demoralize the unarmed civilian population who, in any event, were powerless to oppose Der Fuhrer.
LeMay was wrong, not only morally, but also in terms of military expediency; nearly all historians agree that his use of terror tactics against German civilian populations hardened German resistance and prolonged the war. He was not a good general; he was a moral monster. And he was an American, not a Nazi or a Stalinist — an American committing his horrific deeds in the name of “democracy” and “freedom.”
And that should be an object lesson for us all as we consider the role played by the Law of War in world affairs — a role which, in my opinion, history demonstrates is nothing but window dressing.
Wingnut anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley already has the man on washing machine thing covered. Oh, and mules. heh- And watermelons.
Steve,
Ahhh, yes…I had forgotten about that small detail from the Neal Horsley chronicles:
RR @ 14: Just a small note: LeMay wasn’t the author of fire-bombing in Europe, that title goes first to the Germans, who made preliminary efforts during the Blitz of 1940. But the first master of the art goes to British air marshal “Bomber” Harris, who was responsible for the Dresden bombing. LeMay learned from Harris’ example, but his employment of fire-bombing against Japan was were the tactic found it’s most horrendous results.
Take a city built mostly and paper. Have different types of munitions included in the bomb-load: first comes the high explosives, to destroy buildings a block at a time and create lots of kindling; second comes the incindiaries to start the fires, and the third includes the fragmentation bombs designed to force the fire-fighters back into their shelters.
The stories of citizens fleeing for their lives, with their clothes (and children) burned off their backs, are enough to give you nightmares.