Thursday, November 19, 2009

Washington Blade Reborn as D. C. Agenda

According to Amanda Hess at the Washington City Paper Sexist blog, the Washington Blade which went out of business this week, will be revitalized at the D. C. Agenda.
The Washington Blade served as D.C.’s gay newspaper of record from 1969 until Monday morning. This Friday, the paper intends to return as the D.C. Agenda. Editor Kevin Naff confirmed the re-Christening this evening at an event at the Hard Rock Hotel supporting the paper’s rebirth.

Naff, who was accompanied by about 100 supporters at the Hard Rock Hotel event, says he believes that all of the Washington Blade’s former staffers are in on the new project. Their first task, he says, was to agree on a new name for the paper. D.C. Advocate Agenda, Naff says, was “a group decision of about 25 of us.” Earlier today, the paper sealed the deal by securing its new Twitter account, @DCAgenda.

Now, the staff just needs to decide which aspects of the Blade to carry on in its new Agenda. “This is still very new,” Naff says. “We’re still looking at everything. Our core strength has always been news coverage, and that’s going to remain our core strength. But we’re not going to ignore the other areas, as well.”

The new outfit will need to get its editorial priorities straight quickly. The first issue of the paper, due to hit newsstands this Friday, Nov. 20, has already sold “six pages of ads without even trying,” Naff reports. “We were initially thinking of releasing it just as a newsletter, a leaflet, just to say, ‘hey, we’re still around,’” Naff says. “Now, we have plenty of space to fill.” The Washington Blade Is Now the D.C. Agenda

Cool that they seem to have been able to keep the entire staff. I have heard that the Washington Blade made money while other papers produced by the same corporation did not, so the weaker ones brought the whole company down. Hopefully they can keep this local newspaper going without missing too many paychecks.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

For many years (almost as long as its history) I have been able to enjoy the Blade as a free publication. I'm sure its many former readers would not object to paying for a weekly "D.C. Agenda" if the lack of income, generally supported by advertising, would hamper its publication. The problem with this suggestion, though, is that a new system of distribution would have to be developed and implemented. As with the "City Paper", it's nice to be able to pick up copies at Metro stations and other convenient locales without having to have a vendor collecting any money.

I wish the new venture much luck and fortune. It's especially satisfying to know that anti-LGBTers will continue to suffer splitting headaches and stomach cramps, knowing that we still have a free press in this country.

November 19, 2009 1:22 PM  
Anonymous level headed said...

"re-christening of the paper"? It was never first time christened as it would have to be a person and it would have to relate to Jesus Christ. Jesus is not present in such an endeavor.

November 19, 2009 3:33 PM  
Anonymous level headed said...

Luck and fortune. That is what it will need since it won't have God's blessing.

November 19, 2009 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cool that gays have finally admitted they have an agenda

November 20, 2009 12:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Earlier today, the paper sealed the deal by securing its new Twitter account, @DCAgenda."

oooo, now I'm scared

they've got a twitter account

"The first issue of the paper, due to hit newsstands this Friday, Nov. 20, has already sold “six pages of ads without even trying,”"

that's interesting

maybe today, I'll start a bank without trying

say, these weren't personals ads, were they?

"Naff reports. “We were initially thinking of releasing it just as a newsletter, a leaflet, just to say, ‘hey, we’re still around,’” Naff says. “Now, we have plenty of space to fill.”"

that's the kind of thing that always happens if you don't try

"The Washington Blade Is Now the D.C. Agenda"

well, at least they can say they were honest about their intentions until they go out of business during the holiday season

they're part of the gay agenda that everyone here always denies

"I have heard that the Washington Blade made money while other papers produced by the same corporation did not, so the weaker ones brought the whole company down."


where did you hear that?

November 20, 2009 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

now I'm scared

You've been scared all along. You fear people who are different from you rather than respect individual differences. According to you, some people deserve fewer rights than others and LGBT discrimination=freedom while religious discrimination=crime.

November 20, 2009 7:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, you figured it out, anon-B

I'm quivering in fear here

"According to you, some people deserve fewer rights than others and LGBT discrimination=freedom while religious discrimination=crime."

I'm sure you're right because you've apparently got a PhD in rights but, just for the ignorant masses:

who are "some people" and which rights do I want them to have "fewer" of?

we need some specifics here

November 20, 2009 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I DO love the honesty of using "Agenda" in their name....

November 20, 2009 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I DO love the honesty of using "GODHATESFAGS" in their name...

November 20, 2009 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The first issue of the paper, due to hit newsstands this Friday, Nov. 20, has already sold “six pages of ads without even trying,”"

hey, where else but Washington could you sell six pages of ads saying things like?:

"Male seeking male for rough sexplay. Send pic to Montgomery County Council chamber"

at least it reduces the demand for gay bars

November 20, 2009 9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

three polls of likely or registered voters in the last two days have found Obama's approval rating below 50%

that would be:

48, 46, 46


November 20, 2009 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" You are a disgusting pig ("Male seeking male for rough sexplay. Send pic to Montgomery County Council chamber"). And you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian?

"cool that gays have finally admitted they have an agenda"...yes, GLBT citizens have an agenda. It's called "equal rights under the law" as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Having obtained a copy of the infamous Family Values AGENDA, I was shocked to read only a few of its instructions to its advocates. Notably:
(1) Show contempt and hatred for anybody who isn't "exactly like me"; Attack them incessantly!
(2) undermine duly-enacted laws that protect minority citizens;
(3) Spread lies and malicious misinformation about HIV/AIDS in order to demonize the GLBT community without recognizing the problem within the heterosexual population;
(4) Endorse and advocate for divorce in order to break up families...or at least blithly ignore it;
(5) Utilize violence, and sometimes incest, against your spouse and children in order to determine your male role of dominance within the family;
(6) Ignore the needs of hundreds of thousands of unwanted and abandoned children;
(7) Endorse the concept of "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas", and the fun to be had in spouse-swapping weekends;
(8) Get involved in hatred of America rallies in order to advance your "Christian" agenda;
(9) As a "cafeteria Christian", quote the Bible selectively and inaccurately in order to rationalize your hatred and justify your attacks on others;
(10) Get elected to public office so that you can cover up your questionable adultrous activities and ethical failures;
(11) Get rid of the offensive maxim "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" so that you can be free to spread your smarmy hypocracy any time, any where.

(I got weary of reading through your AGENDA at this point, and I was only on page 2 of a 50-page document).

November 20, 2009 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”

The document was written by Mr. Colson; Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, who is Catholic; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala.

They convened a meeting of Christian leaders in Manhattan in September to present the document and gather suggestions. The 4,700-word document is called the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.” The New York Times obtained an advance copy.

The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”

The most likely points of controversy could involve religious groups that provide social services to the public. Such organizations could be obligated to provide social services to gay people or provide spousal benefits to married gay employees.

Mr. George, the legal scholar at Princeton University, argued that the conscience clauses and religious exemptions were insufficient, saying, “The dangers to religious liberty are very real.”

November 20, 2009 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Anonymous" You are a disgusting pig"

I am?

Did anyone pick up a copy of today's gay agenda?

Who are these six pages of advertisers?

November 20, 2009 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please elaborate, "Anonymous" ("Did anyone pick up a copy of today's gay agenda? Who are these six pages of advertisers?")

Are you talking about "City Paper"?

Have you stooped to reading unsavory material?

Perhaps you are keeping a secret from us?

Are you advocating for "censorship" of the press now?

Is that on page 3 of the FAMILY VALUES AGENDA?

Guess what?

No one is forcing you to read what might give you a hissy fit.

Speaking of "City Paper" and even an online site like "Craig's List", have you ever read the ads posted by virtuous husbands whose "wife is out of town, so contact me for some hot fun"?

Or "Wife/Girlfriend and I are looking for a 3way; prefer unhappy wife."?

Hmmmmmm...I smell a little "Anonymous" hypocracy here.

Oh, btw...I admired the publishing/writing skills and the style of presentation that you employ here so much that I decided to copy it.

November 20, 2009 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Jim said the new Gay Agenda would hit the newstand today because of six pages of ads.

I was just curious who is advertising in the new paper.

I was guessing they are referring to the type of ads the Blade used to run for people looking for random deviant sexual partners.

"I admired the publishing/writing skills and the style of presentation that you employ here"

I knew all you guys secretly admired me.

"WASHINGTON (Nov. 20) —The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill's attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage — even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid's bill is the worst he's seen so far on the divisive issue.

The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through the Senate."

November 20, 2009 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"Or "Wife/Girlfriend and I are looking for a 3way; prefer unhappy wife."?"

These are gay or bisexual people so they don't count in your argument against heterosexuals. (Note that there are two sexes -- male and female -- so having a "three-way" means that there has to be two males or two females participating).

November 20, 2009 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


the "likely voter" polls have had Obama below 50% for some time

Gallup has always polled all voters, reasoning that one can't tell until close to an election who is really a likely voter, and thus, has been giving Obama higher ratings

today, even Gallup has Obama gaining the approval of less than half of all voters:

"Gallup's latest numbers have 49 percent approving of Obama's performance and 44 percent disapproving.

Gallup joins three other polls this week that also put Obama below 50 percent for the first time: a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted Nov. 17-18 put the percentage of voters who approve or disapprove of Obama at 46 percent each, with 8 percent undecided; Quinnipiac University put Obama's approval margin at 48 percent to 42 percent, and Public Policy Polling had him at 49 percent to 46 percent. "

November 20, 2009 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as the Obama administration melts down, Democrats turn on each like vampire in Italy:

"Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.

Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, members of Congress escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.

Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China's practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.

And Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he thinks Geithner should step down, pointing to his handling of the aftermath of American International Group's meltdown.

Across Capitol Hill, senators signaled their opposition to rushing regulatory reform. Democrats voiced reservations about parts of the bill.

Perhaps most troubling for the administration was that one of the few measures to succeed Thursday was an amendment by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) that would subject the Federal Reserve to unprecedented scrutiny.

The House committee had been set to vote to send the final piece of its regulatory reform package to the House floor after months of debate. That is, until the committee's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), told a shocked committee room that passage of the bill would be delayed until Dec. 1 because the Congressional Black Caucus wanted the administration to do more to help African American communities suffering in the economic decline.

Frank told committee members that black lawmakers were "frustrated by the response to the economic situation by the administration."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), issued a statement: "The recession has created a unique systemic risk that threatens all parts of the African-American community, including the poor and the middle class."

"You're talking about people whose constituents have been badly hammered by this," Frank said. "Given the nature of this recession, there needs to be some more conversations."

Frank said the caucus had concerns about whether minorities were being fairly represented in helping carry out Treasury's bailout programs and other federal efforts to resolve the financial crisis.

Congressional aides said the caucus's concerns are similar to those of the Democratic Party's liberal wing.

Meanwhile, Geithner was taking a beating as he urged Congress to pass regulatory reform as quickly as possible, arguing that delay would create uncertainty for businesses across the country. Lawmakers sharply criticized him for his role in the crisis during the tense Joint Economic Committee meeting. They were particularly critical of his involvement in the decision, as president of the New York Fed, to bail out AIG."

it's chaos, I tell ya, chaos

November 20, 2009 9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we all saw this coming. Computer files of a major research center in England which reveal how data was manipulated to support the theory that human activity is causing global warming. Especially interesting is discussion about steps to prevent scientists sceptical about global warming from being on peer review teams.

Major scandal.

November 20, 2009 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as the festivities of Sarah Palin week start to wrap up, here's a reflection on the significance of this special time of year:

"Slate magazine is just one of the countless media outlets convulsing with St. Vitus' Dance over that demonic succubus Sarah Palin. In its reader forum, The Fray, one supposed Palinophobe took dead aim at the former Alaska governor's writing chops, excerpting the following sentence from her book:

"The apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn't work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle."

Other readers pounced like wolf-sized Dobermans on an intruder. One guffawed, "That sentence by Sarah Palin could be entered into the annual Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest. It could have a chance at winning a (sic) honorable mention, at any rate."

But soon, the original contributor confessed: "I probably should have mentioned that the sentence quoted above was not written by Sarah Palin. It's taken from the first paragraph of ‘Dreams From My Father,' written by Barack Obama."

The ruse should have been allowed to fester longer, but the point was made nonetheless: Some people hate Palin first and ask questions later.

Just this week, a liberal blogger at The Atlantic who has dedicated an unhealthy amount of his life to proving a one-man birther conspiracy theory about Palin's youngest child (it's both too slanderous and too deranged to detail here) shut down his blog to cope with the epochal, existential crisis that Palin's book presents to all humankind. The un-self-consciously parodic announcement seemed more appropriate for a BBC warning that the German blitz was about to begin, God Help Us All.

Indeed, some of us will always be sympathetic to Mrs. Palin if for nothing else than her enemies. The bile she extracts from her critics is almost like a dye marker, illuminating deep pockets of asininity that heretofore were either unnoticed or underappreciated.

Sarah Palin is neither savior (that job has been taken by the current president, or didn't you know?) nor is she satanic. She is a politician, a species of human like the rest of us.

I'm fairly certain that if you read many of her public-policy positions but concealed her byline, many of her worst enemies would say "that sounds about right." Most people would say that her views are perfectly within the mainstream of American politics. She may be more religious than coastal elites in the lower 48, but that is something some bigots need to get over, anyway.

I'm happy about the books she's selling thanks to the controversy over her, but that doesn't mean I think these controversies are justified. Palin holds no public office and, as of yet, is not running for one. But the Associated Press assigned eleven reporters to "fact-check" her book, while doing nothing like that to fact-check then-candidate Obama's or current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's no doubt riveting book.

As it stands, my sense is that Palin is good for the Republican party. She generates enthusiasm among, and donations from, the base. Whether she's ready for the presidency is another matter. But the presidency is a long way off, and besides, that's what primaries are for."

November 20, 2009 10:02 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

OK, Anon, that's enough copy-and-paste for one night. I'm deleting them after this.


November 20, 2009 10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

aw, man

I was just getting ready to put up Dr Stephen Meyer's discussion of his new book about how DNA is evidence of intelligent design.

How about just the website?:

November 20, 2009 10:21 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

A link is fine, Anon, thank you for your brevity.


November 20, 2009 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you noticed the weather seems noticably cooler the last few years?

Did you know the planet has actually cooled in the last decade?

more on the global warming scandal:

Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, hypothesized a global conspiracy to make it appear the Earth was heating up due to human activity.

Turns out, the fiction was no so far-fetched.

November 21, 2009 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"...thank you so much for your acknowledgement that there are people who are bisexual.(These are gay or bisexual people so they don't count in your argument against heterosexuals.)

Do bisexuals choose their sexual orientation? How would you define the cheating husband who advertises for a sexual liason (whether it be with a heterosexual or homosexual) when his "wife is out of town"?

November 21, 2009 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do bisexuals choose their sexual orientation?"

A trick question. "Orientation" is a fantasy which serves the gay agenda.

Bisexuals are those who say they are attracted to both genders so they make a choice about which gender their sexual partner will be.

All gays are really are bisexuals. Having rejected social convention, they can choose from all willing persons. They may develop preferences but preferences are fleeting. Plaid or striped? Gingerbread or pumpkin latte? NY strip or filet mignon? Bethany or Duck? Pinot or cabernet?

These things are subject to change.

November 21, 2009 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the global warming scandal heats up:

"LONDON (Nov. 21) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Climate change skeptics and bloggers say the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers conspired to manipulate data.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.

Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not return requests for comment."

November 21, 2009 9:24 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Congratulations to DC Agenda...while I do not agree with some of their agenda, I am thankful to live in a part of the world that takes a free press seriously.

November 21, 2009 11:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, is a human characteristic...yes - an orientation. Being a Christian or a vegetarian or a Republican or a bigot is a chooice.

Do bisexuals choose to be bisexual?

And on what authority do you claim when you make the ignorant and idiotic statement that "All gays are really are bisexuals."? Do you speak from personal experience

I do worry about your proclivity to dwell incessantly on GLBT's. Experience has shown that the people who scream the loudest and spend a little too much time attacking GLBT's are attempting to divert attention away from their own sexual confusions and are usually the worst closet cases.

"Plaid or striped? Gingerbread or pumpkin latte? NY strip or filet mignon? Bethany or Duck? Pinot or cabernet?
These things are subject to change."

Add to your list: bigotry and hatefulness or enlightenment and love? I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell before you would, in the deepest recesses of your "Christian" heart, be able to make that change. That is a real choice.

November 22, 2009 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Experience has shown that the people who scream the loudest and spend a little too much time attacking GLBT's"

I'm not screaming at all, friend.

That you think that saying people choose their own path is an attack on them shows how brainwashed you've been by the lunatic fringe.

If you credit people with the freedom to form their destiny, you have..."bigotry and hatefulness?"

Someone's deluded you.

Think for yourself.

November 22, 2009 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you abortion has ruined our future?

it's true

since 1973, 45 million people have been aborted before birth

if they made the average salary of 45 thousand, they would pay 154 billion in social security tax annually

1.54 trillion over ten years

the wages of evil

November 22, 2009 9:16 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

I just found this amazing video: George Carlin: Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life. Yes Carlin used some rough language, but I have not heard anybody make these points any clearer than this. Or funnier.


November 22, 2009 9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched it, PB. He's fascinating to watch but what "clear" point would you endorse?

here's one I found objectionable:

"hey, how come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette"?

November 22, 2009 10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, did you know there are two great rhetoriticians in our time?

it's true

Sarah Palin and Brack Obama

Sarah's great speech was her acceptance at the Republican Convention

Brack's was his race speech during the Jeremiah Wright controversy

one of these people has the pulse of America and one has been revealed to have fringe views

sorry, Brack

we like you but your ideas will ruin our country

November 22, 2009 10:16 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

here's one I found objectionable:

"hey, how come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette"?

Yeah, I agree with you on that one, Anon! That joke was in bad taste. Everybody knows that an omelet is made from an unfertilized egg. That was a bad joke, very objectionable.

On the other hand, the other stuff he said comparing us to chickens was pretty effin funny!


November 22, 2009 11:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww...I watched the Carlin video. How sad a man, to be so devoid of humanity. It is no wonder he had to use drugs to relieve the pain of his tortured being.

November 23, 2009 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, the other stuff he said comparing us to chickens was pretty effin funny!"

Oh, if you don't think too hard about what he's saying, he's very funny. No denying it.

But what points do you think he made clear?

November 23, 2009 6:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are some points George Carlin made clear:

"Prolife conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you, they don't want to hear from you, no nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no HeadStart, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're preschool, you're [not]"

"Prolife, prolife. These people aren't prolife. They're killing doctors! What kind of prolife is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not prolife! You know what they are? They're anti-women, that's as simple as it gets, anti-women. They don't like women. They believe woman's primary function is to serve as a brood mare for the state."

"Prolife. You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? You don't see them adopting a whole lotta crack babies do you? No, that might be something Christ would do!"

"The really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization; fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg, which is usually a few moments after the man says "Gee, honey, I was going to pull out but the phone rang and it startled me." Fertilization. But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still 6 or 7 days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins and yet they are, fertilized eggs! So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer!

Consistency! Consistency!"

"Not every ejaculation deserves a name!"

November 23, 2009 8:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As usual, ""Anonymous" sidestepped any issue/question that makes you uncomfortable or that you do not have an answer for, instead playing "cutesy" with your "how brainwashed you've been by the lunatic fringe...Someone's deluded you."

The delusion, friend, is yours.

November 23, 2009 9:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you sidestepped any issue/question that makes you uncomfortable or that you do not have an answer for"

this is a simple extension of your delusion

I haven't sidestepped anything

you have asserted that believing that people can choose their own path is "hateful" and "bigoted"

that's just ridiculous

please tell me what you think I've sidestepped so I can make sure and stomp on it for you

November 23, 2009 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's the kind of thing I've discussed here before:

Last season, on American Idol, the final two were Kris Allen, a likable church youth group leader but mediocre talent, and Adam Lambert, an extremely talented gay guy. Personally, I thought the final vote, giving Kris the win, reflected anti-gay bias.

After watching Lambert's performance on last night's American Music Awards, you have to wonder whether such bias might not be appropriate. Lambert brought S&M to prime time in a performance to rival the sickest gay pride parade:

"In 'For Your Entertainment,' Adam Lambert asks "can you handle what I'm about to do?" Viewers who caught the 'American Idol' singer's sexually charged AMA performance may now be answering: "maybe, not."

In Sunday night's performance, Lambert gallivanted around the sprawling stage, mingling with a wide-ranging cast of backup dancers. He did it all: grabbed a woman's crotch, dragged another female dancer around by her leg, made out with an androgynous keyboardist and -- perhaps most shockingly -- simulated a certain sex act with a male dancer."

November 23, 2009 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Calls are growing in Parliament for an investigation into the global warming scandal:

"Lord Lawson has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.

"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

"If there's an explanation for what's going on they can make that explanation."

Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and have been circulated on the internet.

The correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers."

November 23, 2009 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know, if you're a Republican, you have to admit that some part of you hopes the Democrats push the health care bill through:

"Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan."

November 23, 2009 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know you guys have mocked the idea but the jabs at Obama on SNL have an influence on public opinion:

"(Nov. 23) -- It's always been a good sign for "Saturday Night Live" when people are still talking about the show on Monday morning. That's happening more often now that the venerable comedy program is sharpening its satire of President Barack Obama.

This weekend's show opened with a parody of Obama's news conference with China's president that included jabs at the administration's spending on economic stimulus, health care reform, bailouts and Cash for Clunkers. America's $800 billion debt to China was the butt of many jokes.

"Remember this moment, folks," Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood announced. "One year after Obama's election and just more than ten months into his administration, 'Saturday Night Live' takes its first crack at Obama for something other than not being left enough."

But it's not the first time SNL has generated buzz by skewering President Obama. At the beginning of October, pundits declared the caustic "do-nothing Obama" sketch a turning point in the popular perception of the new president. CNN took it so seriously it actually fact-checked the comedy bit.

"SNL's awakening is a sign that Obama's honeymoon is over," said Ellie Velinska on Right, who saw the China news conference skit as a reflection of a "public revolt against some of Obama's policies."

While rejecting the idea that "liberal comedians are somehow arbiters of popular culture, let alone public policy," Power Line's John Hinderaker said Saturday's "funny" sketch did "seem significant.""

Just to be even-handed, they also did a take-off on the current disaster movie, 2012, that implied the real disaster was that Palin will be elected.

On the other hand, that might be more a commentary ofn the leftist hyperbole than Palin herself.

November 23, 2009 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christopher Monckton on the Climategate scandal:

"This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights.

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.

They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers."

scientists who study sexuality are probably busily deleting their hard drives as we speak....

November 23, 2009 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Studies: As Ice Sheets Flow and Melt, Oceans Continue to Rise

(Nov. 23) -- Since 2006, the Antarctic ice sheet has been flowing into the surrounding ocean at an increased rate, resulting in ever-rising sea levels, a new study says.

Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin said satellite images suggest sea level will likely to rise faster than previously predicted.

"If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," the study's lead author, Jianli Chen, told the BBC.

The study's release comes as world nations prepare to meet Dec. 7 in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The White House says it will propose a target for reduced carbon emissions at the conference.

Over the weekend, controversy erupted when computer hackers broke into the e-mail account of Phil Jones, one of the world's leading researchers on climate change, and posted messages that appeared to show Jones admitting to tinkering with temperature data to explain a relative lull in global warming over the past 10 years.

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a skeptic of global warming, has accused U.N. researchers of "cooking the science" to make climate change seem more severe than it is.

Meanwhile, another report released Monday by Europe's largest insurance company, Allianz, warns that unless immediate action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the world faces a "tipping-point scenario," resulting in billions in weather-related insurance losses.

The Allianz report said that if climate change is left unchecked, rising sea levels would be particularly hard felt in the United States, because of its proximity to Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheet:

"As water added to the ocean takes time to be globally distributed, this leads to sea level rise that is larger than the global average in some regions. Here, the greatest initial sea level rises are predicted down the North Eastern seaboard of the USA, affecting a number of U.S. port megacities including Baltimore, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Providence," the report said.

Another new study, conducted at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and published in the journal Science, found that, as with Antarctica, Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster than past studies showed.

According to The Associated Press, sea level has risen by an average of an inch and a half since 1997.

November 24, 2009 12:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"According to The Associated Press, sea level has risen by an average of an inch and a half since 1997."

When did the AP become a scientific institute?

Funny that, a few days after evidence is uncovered about a massive fraud by climate scientists, these scientists are out with more scare tactics.

Why would the ice be melting when global temperatures have been falling for a decade?

November 24, 2009 7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because for the 150 years before the last decade, global temperatures rose much higher than the little recent dip.

November 24, 2009 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, my...the "Morality Police" are on the hunt again. "Lambert brought S&M to prime time in a performance to rival the sickest gay pride parade."
Perhaps the solution to your problem of outrage and shock is to utilize the little button on your remote or on the t.v. set itself: it's called the "Off" button!

November 24, 2009 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Because for the 150 years before the last decade, global temperatures rose much higher than the little recent dip."

Please. There have been lengthy periods of decline during that time. I'm old enough to remember when the alarmist scientists were sure we were headed into a new ice age.

Of course, based on the alarmist scientists warnings over the years, we should be out of oil, the ozone layer should be gone, birds shouldn't be chirping, rainforests should paved, et al.

None of the models of the alarmists explain why the temperatures are declining.

Why should we remodel our entire society based on their predictions?

"Oh, my...the "Morality Police" are on the hunt again. "Lambert brought S&M to prime time in a performance to rival the sickest gay pride parade.""

Did you watch it?

"Perhaps the solution to your problem of outrage and shock is to utilize the little button on your remote or on the t.v. set itself: it's called the "Off" button!"

Yeah, well I'm assuming ABC wants me to watch. Polls show most Americans don't want that on network TV.

Thanks for showing what you think is normal.

November 24, 2009 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yeah, well I'm assuming ABC wants me to watch. Polls show most Americans don't want that on network TV. Thanks for showing what you think is normal." I appreciate your effort to define what is "normal" but, unless you are an advocate of censorship (contrary to rights guaranteed by the Constitution) you are merely expressing an opinion.

"What is "normal" is allowing people to watch, or not watch, whatever they choose. Of course ABC wants you to watch their offerings (it's the $$)...but they do not make up your mind for you. Your particular views are, indeed, shared by many viewers (most of whom are probably supporters of an unfettered capitalistic goal of making lots of money). one is FORCING you to watch that which offends you.

Wacko religious programs that reflect this same capitalistic goal offend me. You know what? I don't watch them.

November 25, 2009 11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must have had one wicked case of the vapors when you watched the Janet Jackson episode at the Super Bowl a couple of years ago.

November 25, 2009 1:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home