cbacon

To celbrate the festivities surrounding the swearing-in Fox News Brigitte Quinn interviewed a Vanity Fair Editor to comment on how exciting the galas are and such. Linked below is the roughly 3 minute video of a Fox News Meltdown. Fox News interview w/ Vanity Fair editor

The hell? That's like yelling "The Bible" or "Christmas" at Chris Jericho

Some spoilers from the first episode of the new season, which I may add, sound fucking hilarious: So yeah I just got back from seeing Seth Mcfarlane creator of family guy. He came here to Ohio State and guess what? I just got to see part of the first episode of the new season of family guy and it was fucking hilarious it opens up with a passion of the christ joke. Peter Griffin was watching PotC on TV when he's like "I don't know why he took all that crap. If it were me I would have done something..." (cuts to flashback of Peter as Jesus covered in scars being beaten by the romans. Peter stands up and scolds them off by saying "NO! None of that!" Then Lois comes in saying she just bought new sheets at bed bath and beyond. Peter tells her he hopes she didn't get those from the beyond section of the store (cuts to flashback of Peter shopping in BEd Bath and Beyond opening up a door labeled BEYOND and being sucked into another dimension. And then it cuts to a honey mooners joke. The lead mae characters says "one of these days I'm gonna..." and his wife interupts him by say "I know knock me to the moon." So the character looks at her angrily and punches her fucking lights out. He then looks at the audience in a shocked manner and cautiously starts to walk backwards off screen. Then it cuts to Peter and LOis about to have sex to test out the new Satin sheets. Peter starts talking dirty to lois by calling her a dirty girl and what not, and then before you know it he is calling her a filthy diseased prostitute. The two start to have sexy and you can hear the squeaking of bed. It then cuts to Meg lying terrified in her bed, Chris lying terrified, Stewie sleeping dreaming that the squeaking is him as an old man in a rocking chair and the monkey lying in the closet scared to death. Then it cuts back to the dark Griffins room and you here lois shout out GEORGE! Peter turns on the light and she explains she was fantisizing about George Clooney. Peter tells her there are only three guys she can fantasize about. I forget what the first one was but the other two were KISS and kermit the frog. When he says kermit the frog it cuts to the muppet who says something along the lines of "I can sleep with her too? Whoopee!!" and precedes to run out of the room. Peter and Lois then decide to have a second honey moon to recapture the love in their marriage... and that's about where the preview left off. And Seth Mcfarlane told us about a bunch of secret **** about the new season of Family Guy. such as the evil monkey, chicken man, and old pedophile will be returning alot. Quagmire gets in a serious relationship and you get to see what the evil monkey does when chris isn't around. I apologise for the spelling mistakes I get those fixed later...

The original campaign was after the show was cancelled for the first time. And all of the cast members will be back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4171177.stm After 'officially' learning that there were no WMD, the other reason that war apologists fall back on is liberating the Iraqi's and bringing democracy. Given the human rights violations in the name of 'protecting' Americans, this is all so contradictory.

que?

Not everyone does. Just a select few that run your countries foreign policy (EDIT: that dosent make sense, ignore) I respect your opinoins, but i'm baffled how you can't find any fault on your current administrations stance on the supposed 'war on terror' which initselft is a farce to appease US foreign policty/corperations/dumb americans. But yeah, don't get me wrong, i don't condone the actions taken by islamic fundamentalists (which were left in power post-soviet invasion, but whose counting?) , which are just as big of a cancer as the neoconcervatives in the white house. I can see that. Seeking to use the military to eliminate terrorist threats before they attack us is about the same thing as beheading people and randomly killing people. I mean, hell, yeah, the other side tends to kidnap and then brutally murder their prisoners --- but, let me guess, because they're Arabs, you can't expect any better, right? Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out? No, it's called maintaining a bit of perspective. In World War II, I'm sure we might have served the Japanese POW's food that was less than succulent --- when you compare it to what the Japanese did to OUR POW's, it's a little hard to refer to the treatments as being even remotely comparable. Well, unless you're an idiot. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing racial profiling to BEHEADING PEOPLE? Gee, can't figure out why the left isn't taken seriously. It truly is lost on me. Racial profiling, like it or not, is simply maximizing security efforts by targeting it on people who MIGHT actually be a problem. If you have a serial killer, you'll look at men more than women, given the ratio of male to female serial killers. That is profiling --- and it's also BASIC FUCKING LOGIC. Given your history --- nah, you probably won't. Somebody's religious "rights" versus the safety of thousands of people who are targeted by an attack plan that they know of and won't reveal. Sorry, not quite the same thing. Let's say we captured OBL back in early September 2001. Would you OPPOSE using whatever means necessary to extract the 9/11 plot info out of him? I'm also more than mildly stunned that you had no problem with Bacon referring to Islamofascism as being as big a cancer as the neocons in the White House. There is a fine line between attempting to look moderate and being a bleeding idiot. As a favor ro yourself, cease referring to Iraq in the future. You are comically misinformed. Do you REALLY want to compare treatment of Iraqis under Saddam and under the US? Feel free to sit back and take all of the dividends from the work, sweat, and blood the troops shed. The world has done so for many years now. Wow, spreading democracy is bad now? Do you recognize how utterly insane a notion that is? Nah, I s'pose not. And, if you REALLY want to get on to the Israel/Palestine issue, feel free to take the side of the subhuman monkeys. You'll be wrong --- but it won't be a first time. And it assuredly won't be the last. Actually, it's called getting info. You know, the thing people bitched that Bush didn't do before 9/11. To the left, nothing is good enough. Bush tries to get info and he is villified. He doesn't, and he is villified. Oh well, it's easier to carp on the sidelines than to actually do anything. Considering that everybody said that they had them, that we know he used them and have no idea what he did with them --- no, it's not an absurd stretch of logic to assume he still had them. Oh, and smitty, mentioning that HRW won a Peace Prize in 1997 is irrelevant. Yassir Arafat won a Peace Prize. Winning one makes one MORE morally questionable, not less. And several who were freed returned to the Middle East --- to fight us. Funny how that doesn't get mentioned. It's illogical to free POW's BEFORE a war is finished. It's, at the bare minimum, a self-defeating act. You're right. Hell, we're still a part of the UN and THEIR record on human rights is comically bad. In what alternate universe are prisoners supposed to be given US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? More than a few countries don't offer legal counsel to their own prisoners --- you think they offer it to POW's? There is no right to a lawyer. Sorry to break it to you. And there is no right to have your religious beliefs respected. And the "torture" is child's play compared to the REAL torture that occurs. Well, could be worse --- we could run pedophilia sex rings like the UN. Um, yes, we can easily take the moral high ground. Honest question time: You have a choice of being caught by the US or by the "insurgents". Who would you wish to be captured by? Why should they be given similar rights? American prisoners tend to have American citizens --- which means they have Constitutional protections. POW's have NO claim to ANY Constitutional protections. Lord, folks, this is rather simple. -=Mike I can see that. Seeking to use the military to eliminate terrorist threats before they attack us is about the same thing as beheading people and randomly killing people. I mean, hell, yeah, the other side tends to kidnap and then brutally murder their prisoners --- but, let me guess, because they're Arabs, you can't expect any better, right? Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out? QUOTE HAHAHHA welcome back. Apparently your still incapable of seeing the obvious in the current geopolitical structure. Islam fundmantalists behead American soldiers, therefore whatever we (you) do is kosher in the name of fighting a phatom enemy used to exploit the atrocities of 9/11. Such a depressing state of affairs really. And really, if your the lesser of two, or several evils, then it's all good right? It would be evident that that sort of thinking helps to guide the ever contradictory thought process of blind Bush apologists QUOTE Jesus, do you actually read what you write, or do you simply tune out? QUOTE Pot, kettle, black, yada yada

Wow..... edit"wrong thread

Well, to be honest, does it truly matter? Think about this for a second: While they are stupid, Baathist fucks for killing our troops, we need to maintain a certain level of dignity. While I might not mind the humiliation, I understand that, on simple principle, it's wrong. We can't do it, because it's just not who we are. I'm all for locking them up, even executing them on site (As in, at the premises), but to do stupid, frat-boy shit like this is not the right way to handle it. :\ And yes, I am very, very inebriated. It's Mad Dog Friday, and I unknowingly agreed to this hell on Earth. May God forgive me. No. More understandable of why they would do this to a terrorist though. But it's not just 'lets humiliate a terrorist' than more of a 'lets break down the will of random muslims we hold in detention arbitraily "

In a 5 minute no contest! OL OL OL oh man, ineed some water.........

Alrght, i'll be there most likely to meet up with you goobers. That's right, even, you Barron. And where the hell is Curry these days anyway? Eh?

All should be contributed towards reperations in rebuilding Iraq in regards to invading their contirues based on lies or 'faulty information' if you will. All this talk of inaguration would be a bizzare concept to any other nation that had a war criminal as it's cheif in commander , but since iit's the US, representaitive of all that is good, then it can slide right?

Well, maybe, but specific incidients such as using taboo subjects in regards to Islamic law such as forced homosexal acts that were outlined by the 'higher up's' in Washington. These are outlined in Seymour Hersh's "Chain of Command" book, if you get a chance to look at (first chapter). Hersh of course was one of the first journalists whom reported the My Lai atrocities in Vietnam, and has merely acted as an imparial observer in US foriegn policiy. For these reasons alone, Rummy should be removed given the strict use of force that infringes on human rights. In relations to atrocities commited by nations past and present, then yes, you'd be right. But for a nation that claims that they're liberating a country from opression, yet at the same time imposes the same measures as the dictatorship that it helped to create, and while dealing with dictators that infringe on on human rights, dosent that seem a tad contradictory? Do you really believe that your current administration has the citizens of Iraq as the fiirst issuse on thier mind? Better yet, do you really believe that by invading Iraq that your country is more secure without Saddam in power? If anything, you've created thousands of more martyrs and islamic fundamentalists. But after all, the US needs a phanton enemy , as it did i the Cold War to propagate such a fear within the common citizen. *falls face first onto keyboard* Ah yes, as long as at least every other drink is Canadian brewed, one of our few claims to fame in regards to our southern neighbours

Nah, unless I happen to catch a segment or two while channel surfing. Which is rare since I hardly watch TV at all these days

Really? Is that all they're doing? The following is just an example of what's going on in Guantanamo, while conditions in Abu Gharib and other US dentention facilities that include amongst other things, somodizing young boys. As INXS mentioned, many of those imprisoned have been found to have no links to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, and if they did this kind of abuse is not justifiable by any means. http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR510032005

Um, yeah, makes sense.

I think the better question is when the Bret Hart DVD is coming out. It was supposed to be released before Christmas...

The 'faulty intelligence' excuse dosen't fly, especially considering that there was such flimsy evidence anyway. The Bush Administration intentionally went out of it's way to ignore any CIA briefings or UN weapons reports that contradicted their need to go to war. Any shred of evidence that would prove there were weapons, no matter how ambiguos, were treated as the holy gospel. Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter how great the intelligence was on the supposed threat, which is similar to what Regean was doing during the Cold War, claiming non-acoustic submarines and such that were being developed by the Soviet Union. If the question of WMD's are such a concern, then why does the US turn a blind eye to their allies, Pakistan when they make deals to help North Korea construct missles?

A friend sent me a file on msn entitled "Webcam_15" which, once i accepted it, forwarded itself to everyone on my list. I deleted it, but ever since my computer will display a message saying "C:/windows/system32\lsass.exe has occured an error", then a 1 minute countdown occurs which resets my computer. I've done virus scans with Norton, but nothing has come up. Any ideas on how I can solve this problem?

That said, Saddam should be impeached. To all Saddam apologists, what justifications are left for not going through with this war? If going to war to remove a brutal dictator is the reason (which was merely an after thought during the whole OMG WMD HE"S GONNA KILLS ALL!!! fiasco ), then the US have a long list of dictators to remove, including one's that they deal with. Given the situation now, where ten's of thousands of lives have been lost, I wouldn't say Iraqi's are better off now

War Crimes: That said, Bush should be impeached. To all Bush apologists, what justifications are left for this war?

K-OS on Monday

Deon's intentions are good....but yeah.....i forget how the rest goes....ahhhh

*scratches head and leaves*