April 09, 2007

The Sun Has Set

There was a time that it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire. The Brits were on the decline in WWII, but they were still fighters and had Winston Churchill as a leader. Later they had Margaret Thatcher who had bigger balls that Tony Blair. Alas, the sun has finally set. Here's the latest from Ron.

"This England never did, nor never shall, Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror."

(The operative word there being Lie)

Arthur Pendragon, Alfred the Great, the Bard of Avon, Good Queen Bess, Sir Winston Ö all the staunch defenders of "This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England" (Richard II, II, i), their earthly bodies long since turned to dust by time and nature, now see their revered memories turned to rubbish by apathy, complacency, appeasement, fear, and political correctness.

The last vestiges of Brittanic spine, starch, propriety, perseverance, that stiff-upper-lip mettle that withstood Dunquerque, The Blitz, and Cold War showdowns, ignominiously drowned in Arabian waters recently as 15 UK troops were kidnapped without resistance by Persian thugs and humiliated in the international media. The speed of their capitulation, the absence of backup from their own support system, and the weakness of their government in dealing with the situation are completely grotesque compared to what their grandfathers would have done and would be hideous in their eyes.

Such complete lack of esprit-de-corps and self-discipline appears to be, as some have said, the beginning of the end of British resistance to terrorism and intimidation. The unwillingness of individual military members, theater commanders, and central government to do anything which might "precipitate an international incident" (read "hurt some Muslimsí feelings") has driven a wedge between the US and UK on how the WOT should be conducted.

At the bottom line, only Australia and the United States remain convinced that Western culture is under constant attack by a fierce and inimical mindset whose ultimate goal is either complete submission by or elimination of our way of life and our freedoms. Europe no longer has the will to resist the insidious takeover by the insect-like spread of Islam. Its faith in Christianity has been eroding for decades, and its citizens have become indigent, self-absorbed, timid, unrepentant socialist dilettantes, completely unequipped and unwilling to confront the more demanding and aggressive Muslims.

Saudi Arabia has not for a moment reduced its brainwashing barrage on Arab children through its Madrassas while simultaneously spending large sums of petrodollars on propaganda materials to convince Europe and the US of its friendly intentions toward Western nations. To convince Afghani and Pakistani warlords of the value of democratically elected central governments would be as difficult as changing the national language of Japan to Chinese.

Ignorant, narrow-minded fanatics from all corners of Islamdom have gathered like vermin in Iraq and Lebanon to wreak havoc with the Westís efforts to weaken terrorism. Thousands upon thousands of "innocent" and "moderate" citizens have died in brutal bombings and savage shootings for no other reason than the spite and pique of misled and exploited young men ordered by their "religious" leaders to throw hissyfits.

And now a sinister renegade state has victimized and divorced the weaker sister from the US/UK alliance, clearly demonstrating that no deterrent to piracy exists in its immediate sphere of influence, that it can with impunity challenge or ignore suggestions, resolutions, or mandates from anyone. Iranís goal of becoming a carbuncle on the private parts of the free world lurched dangerously forward with its overt maritime challenge to the nation which not long ago proudly proclaimed itself ruler of the waves.

Most of the problem is a direct result of President Carterís inept management of the earlier hostage crisis, along with Clintonís total aversion to dealing directly with bombings of our embassies, skyscrapers, and ships. As Europe quavered in fear of Muslim reprisals, only Britain stood by the US in the attempt to thwart the terroristsí plans on their own lands instead of on ours. But now Britain has shown that it prefers to be cordial rather than courageous, to appease rather than oppose, to demur rather than deter.

So weíre basically on our own now, a quasi-Christian nation of 300 million, less than half of which go to any church at all, to defend against over a billion fanatical followers of a pedophiliac prophet who believe the world would be a much better place if we werenít in it. We wonít have allies in this conflict, not even supporters, only hand-wringing, tongue-clucking spectators. Our European cousins have abandoned not only their own defense, but the very idea of their national existence. Except for the Muslim communities within them, virtually no European nations have birth rates which will ensure their continued traditional existence.

That leaves only the US for all practical purposes. And what do we have here? Well, we apparently have very short memories, for one thing. Some refuse to believe that Muslim terrorists were even responsible for the bombing of the Towers. And among those who will believe it, the number is growing which says that we asked for it, we had it coming. We also have a reluctance to finish what weíve started. And we clearly have no stomach for adversity. Only around a third of the general populace and under half of Congress believe we have any chance of success in the Middle East. The nation is as divided and rudderless as it was forty years ago during a similar crisis of faith in leadership.

The mantra today amongst many of our social and congressional leaders is one of complacency and appeasement, apparently based on the belief that the fundamentalist fanatics would leave us alone if we left them alone. Many like to believe in the ultimate goodness of humankind, that people are just people no matter where they live or what religion or lifestyle they follow. People such as Nancy Pelosi simply donít accept or have forgotten that many truly evil people live on this planet with us. And if someone does somehow convince them of a rogue elementís monstrous, corrupt, and barbarous intentions, they somehow delude themselves into believing that divine intervention will occur, and weíll all sit down with a nice cup of tea and work out our differences in the spirit of good fellowship.

Actually, Iím glad such optimistic people exist. Iím glad that many of the people with whom I share this world prefer being nice to being cynical and distant. But at the same time, I think living in a world populated entirely by such types would be unbearably tedious and boring. A world become all politically correct would not allow for confrontations, and eventually no differences of opinion. Never would a reason exist to defend oneís position. The ego would never be put in a situation where it might be bruised, and the minds of the people would atrophy like a disused muscle.

Even worse, when that mindset takes over, progress is choked, initiative is stifled, creativity is stillborn. Complacency, appeasement, cowardice, and political correctness are the flat tires on the all-terrain vehicle of growth. Without controversy, without conflict, without challenge, nothing happens except through serendipity . . . or divine intervention. Thatís why the construction and daily routine of anthills havenít changed much in the past 100 million years.

Thanks Ron. Our mother county has turned into a nation of wimps. If the Dimocrat party has its way, we will do the same.

Posted by denny at April 9, 2007 09:06 PM  

I still wonder what the actual deal was?

I actually think Blair handled it pretty well. Instead of reaching for the sword immediately, using the veiled threat of further action. It did put off the inevitable to another day.

Posted by: Another Government Employee on April 9, 2007 09:44 PM

You're really your own worst enemies some days.

While you're busy - and rightly so - slamming the crap out of the appalling display of lack of fighting spirit by one group you have done the same as the BBC. Ignored one of the youngest VC winners ever as well as a teenager winning a decoration for valor. You blip over some of the most courageous actions by British soldiers in Iraq.

Canadians are still fighting and dying alongside you. What do you want from these guys?

In October last year the US Ambassador in Wellington presented most of the 17 US medals including 10 bronze stars won by New Zealand troops in Afghanistan.

It would be a shit load easier for those of us who are struggling under left wing gutless fuck governments like the Blair and Clark disasters if you didn't fall over yourselves to crap on us when we do help. I'd point your now getting a taste of what happens when you elect socialists yourselves.

Not to mention the many who leave their own countries to take up the fight where there is more chance of action.

One of my cousins who followed me into the Armoured Corps here against my advice recently jumped ship with his entire section to go the Australian army. The Australian army is taking so many kiwis now they have fast lane for processing them.

The people you want are the left wing elements in Anglo countries including your own, not the entire people.

Watch you targeting because the fire aint so friendly.

Posted by: Murray on April 9, 2007 09:46 PM

Murray - I have nothing but good things to say about the Aussies and most of the Brits. What amazes me is that these guys didn't fight back against the Iranians and just gave up. I would hope that Americans would not do the same.

Posted by: Denny on April 9, 2007 10:27 PM

OK, clear me up here...the quote was from Ron?

Or the whole fucking-amazing / my-knees-nearly-buckled-I'm-in-love-with-whomever-wrote that-essay was from Ron?

Posted by: Erica on April 9, 2007 10:34 PM

Erica - Yep! It was from Ron, AKA commenter eros-total. I took the night off.

Posted by: Denny on April 9, 2007 11:03 PM

And if you take a look around some of the chat boards and Anglosphere blogs you'll find a lot of former and current servicemen kicking the living crap out of them too.

Point is its not "US & Oz against the world". Saying only us an Oz left tends to be seen as cutting off the rest that are there. I'll take a company of Jocks on my flank any day of the week.

As long as I don't have anything they'd want to steal.

Posted by: Murray on April 9, 2007 11:06 PM

"It's Clinton's fault. No, it's Carter's fault." I'm surprised you're not blaming LBJ. Every bad thing that happens anywhere is caused by a liberal/socialist/Democrat. Do you people have any idea how foolish you sound?

I stubbed my toe yesterday. Which Democratic president should I blame that on?

Posted by: Sally on April 9, 2007 11:40 PM

The rest of the world (outside of the U.S. and Australia) has seen how stupid and pointless this war is. They have seen that it doesn't fight terrorism; it breeds it. They have seen the futility in it. Why can't you see it?

When we get into a quagmire, must we just get ourselves into it deeper and deeper? Would you be happy with us fighting against both sides of a civil war for the next couple decades. Sadly, I think you would.

Posted by: Sally on April 9, 2007 11:44 PM

I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but I felt our (USA) response should have been stronger. Tony Blair has backed us for a good while, even at his political detriment.

Posted by: vetfromhell on April 10, 2007 12:11 AM

Nice of Socialist Sally to bring up LBJ, one of the most corrupt politicians to ever sit in the White house. Voter fraud, kickbacks, the list goes on forever. Many in Texas think he whacked JFK. Good choice, Sally.



From the wiki:

Simultaneously, he escalated the American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968.

How soon the Dims forget.

Posted by: vetfromhell on April 10, 2007 12:22 AM

one of the most corrupt politicians to ever sit in the White house. Voter fraud, kickbacks, the list goes on forever

He'll never get to #1 as long as Nixon is on the list. What an embarrassment.

Many in Texas think he whacked JFK.

Thanks for the whacko conspiracy theory. You sound as crazy as Rosie O'Donnell.

Simultaneously, he escalated the American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968.

LBJ escalated our involvement in Vietnam? *Gasp!* Really? I had no idea. Thanks for the news flash.

But you are right to bring up Vietnam when we're talking about Iraq. Vietnam was much more deadly, but it is a similar quagmire. LBJ and Nixon got us in deeper and deeper, leading to more and more American deaths and no progress. Finally we had to just end it because it made no sense to keep fighting that pointless war. Sounds a lot like Iraq. No reason to keep fighting this stupid, meaningless war either.

Posted by: Sally on April 10, 2007 01:03 AM

"Complacency, appeasement, cowardice, and political correctness are the flat tires on the all-terrain vehicle of growth."

It doesn't get much more clear than that. I only disagree with one part...

...It's not only a flat tire, it's a blowout.

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 10, 2007 02:27 AM

Socialist Sally likes the quagmire word, except when it describes her quaint brethren. How typical.

"Finally we had to just end it because it made no sense to keep fighting that pointless war."

Surprise! Sally was a coward defeatist then and still is one now! Who would have ever thunk it:)

"He'll never get to #1 as long as Nixon is on the list. What an embarrassment."

Amazing! Deflection, obfuscation, more of the same old tired dim tactics. Wake up Sally, Nixon was fucking scared of LBJ.

Sally, you are so damn predictable. Your eloquence in prose so deftly tries to hide your complete ignorance of politics. Are you related to Alger Hiss?

Posted by: vetfromhell on April 10, 2007 04:20 AM

That was a good post, BUT I believe way to cynical. I have more optimism in mankind (this does not include Muslims and ME nations, they don't qualify to be classified with the rest of us). I think the world, unfortunately not until after another disaster that will make 9/11 look like a small incident, is going to wake up and realize that it's time to take off the gloves with these barbarians that refer to themselves as Muslims. Like the first several weeks of the Iraq war, we just need to annihlate and obliterate all that is Islam/Muslim. It's the only thing they understand and it's the only way that we will ever be able to go back to the way of life we were once accustomed to. As for the British soldiers, I'm not entirely sure the behavior we were seeing (from both the government and the individual soldiers) wasn't a ploy of some type. What I don't know, but let's face it, the behavior they exhibited on the videos and the stories we hear coming out regarding some of their comments just aren't very "soldier like". Therefore, I suspect something is up and we may never find out, but this "incident" might have been planned for some underlying purpose. And as for Sally, her posts once again regurgitate typical pacifist, liberal points that Americans are pretty much finding themselves tired of as they realize the foolosophies such as hers get this country no where. She'll be someday soon thanking "strong" leaders that put their reputation second and national security, patriotism and what is right for this country first, unlike her Dimocratic idols.

Posted by: Ray on April 10, 2007 07:38 AM

United we stand - Divided we fall
Whats that tell you about your future ?

Posted by: Darrell G on April 10, 2007 07:50 AM

I have always had a lot of respect for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. A lot of that respect evaporated when I saw the conduct of some of the hostages held by the Iranians, particularly the two commissioned officers, and I suspect a lot of other people's respect went the same way.

I know that "Name, Rank and Serial Number" is an outdated concept, but surely these Marines must have received some sort of Code of Conduct training that doesn't involve praising your captors and holding briefings with pointers and map boards and writing abusive letters to your country's Prime Minister.

Posted by: PQ on April 10, 2007 08:06 AM

Man ! you turn away from your former friends very quickly ! The final end of "The Coalition of the willing" ?
Poor you, you already had trouble to deal with world's terrorism when you had allies, now that you're on your own (if I understand you well), what's gonna happen ?

Posted by: Prosper on April 10, 2007 08:07 AM

Socialist Sally........

Nixon was more crooked then LBJ????? Excuse me but while Nixon resigned due to his stupidity with getting involved with the watergate coverup, he has a long long way to go to be judged more corrupt then LBJ.

As far as I am concerned if Nixon had taken the dimocrat approach & thrown his people under the bus instead of attempting to defend & protect them,his resignation would never have happened.What Nixon did was certainly wrong but it pales in comparison to the backroom dealings of LBJ as well as the wholesale lies
& corruption of Clinton. But it is all how the LSM media spins the tale isn`t it.

Nixon took the hit for defending his people, Clintons people ended up dead by the busload down thru the years, one of them so dedicated he even wrote two suicide notes & apparently returned from the dead to place those suicide notes where investigators had already searched so they could more easily find them.

Like Denny said "Dimocrats forget" Republicans do not, when our leaders violate the law we ask them to resign, it would be refreshing were the Dimocrats to do the same.......But don`t hold your breath as past practice shows not only do they remain in office ,they usually get more power & prestige.

So Socialist Sally, save your liberal BS for the dimocratic faithful it does not play very well in the harsh light of reality.

Posted by: dudley1 on April 10, 2007 08:11 AM


Do not be afraid for the United States, we still have enough loyal patriots to go around. For the record .....do you believe the BS from your countryman Cheasepeak? While this might be a chance for you to score a hit, I think you have enough of a grasp of history to know he is completely wrong.

Have a good day...Dudley1

Posted by: dudley1 on April 10, 2007 08:16 AM

The rest of the world (outside of the U.S. and Australia) has seen how stupid and pointless this war is. They have seen that it doesn't fight terrorism; it breeds it. They have seen the futility in it. Why can't you see it?

This war is a war on terrorism. Sally, people here have given you numberous links to the truth, yet you like the lame stream media want to ignore it. There is no negotiating with terrorism. You give an inch, they next demand a mile.
Islamoterrorism has been arround for centuries. The first crusades were the islamoterrorists spreading their religion by the sword accross Southern Europe. The notable crusades were to free the oppressed lands and drive back the hoards.
Are you aware that our first wars after the revolution were with the Islamoterrorists of the 1780's? Its emortalized in the Marine Corps Hymn: From the halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli..... Tripoli, in Northern Africa, marines didn't fight in WW2 in Africa, they fought there in the late 1700s. History channel had a piece on it several months ago.
Islamic terrorism is nothing new, its been arround since Mohammed the pedophile (Piss be upon him) Just read the Koran. It advocates spreading their pedophelia by the sword. It commands the killing of infidels, thats you too BTW. Decisive action is what is needed to stop it. Look how they behave even in modern societies. Salmon Rushdee has had a price on his head for years over a simple novel. The slightest thing, and they are rioting all over Europe. Here in the USA they are mostly too weak to riot. In the Koran it commands to do what it takes to spread the religion. They will lie, cheat etc. Their book tells them how and when to behave.
Every Islamic that dies in Iraq is one less to spread hate to the rest of the world.
Why does Reuters refuse to call them terrorists? The islamics consider that in itself a victory.
This war is worth fighting. Its worth winning.
I don't blame the dems for everything. I blame Nixon for the events of 1976 through 1980, because if it weren't for Watergate, we'd never have had Carter to deal with.
You honestly think Carter was good? The man is an idiot. He emboldened Islamofascism in the 70's. He gave the Panama Canal away. Reagan faced off against communism and won.
Nixon was a fool to pursue relations with China, so he is partly to blame for some of Clintons mess as well.

Posted by: Jeremy on April 10, 2007 09:24 AM

Sally, do a little research on Vietnam. We won the battles, ALL the battles. Our politicians surrendered when victory was at hand. North Vietnam was on the verge of giving up. General Giap has written about it extensively. It was actions by the revolt leaders such as Kerry and Fonda that gave them the courage to hold out. Vietnam was lost by the press, and the liberals at home.
Why did they insist on losing their own war? True Eisenhower sent advisors, but Kennedy sent the first combat troops, Johnson escalated it, and then their base rebelled! Its simple really, communism fighting communism. The idea was to bring about change in the USA gradually and win here with out a war. Kennedy didn't get the message. he opposed the communism his brother embraces. Thats what the sedition on our campuses was about.
Carter will always have my vote for worst president ever though. Clinton and LBJ vie for second.

Posted by: Jeremy on April 10, 2007 09:39 AM


I don't think you'll be around much longer. I suspect you prefer echo chambers to discussion, and you really don't like the pesky way we tend to tell you you're wrong, then prove it.

Having said that:
They have seen the futility in it.

Futility? Or apathy? Why do something if the US is going to shoulder the cost, the burden, and the blood? That is a serious problem that you're ignoring, for the last 50 years, a lot of the Western world has ignored any and all threats in order to allow the US to take the burden of risk and cost.

But you're unaware of that, and you'd argue the facts to that anyway. Canada. France. Belgium. The most egrarious cases of spending almost nothing on the military. Right now, there's only 1 military that can reasonably share the battlefield with the US - that's the UK, and they're in the process of cutting the budget there, meaning soon the UK won't have the technology or ability to fight alongside/coordinate with the US.

In many cases, they've chosen to appease the terrorists. Hope that they'll attack the US, rather than them, at least first. Spain after their bombings. Of course, it didn't work, and they still face a terrorist threat. Because the Moors were driven out of Andalusa.

Sally, do you know what Andalusa is? Do you know why Tours is still a sore point with the radical Muslims?

They have seen that it doesn't fight terrorism; it breeds it.

How many terrorist attacks have we seen since 2001? More, or less (Outside Afghanistan and Iraq)?

The answer to that is not your obvious one - don't bet another paycheck on it.

Sally, what "breeds" terrorism isn't the forces in Iraq. If it is, explain why a rich Egyptian, educated in Germany spearheaded the 9/11 hijackers. All of his compatriots were also from rich/well-to-do families, too.

What "Breeds" terrorism from the Islamic Fascists - and that's really what they are, is Andalusa. Tours. The failure of you to be quiet when men - your betters! - tell you to hush.

The audacity that you have to argue with men. Britney Spear's hoo-ha. Paris Hilton. Think I'm kidding? Read what Osama and the other radicals say. They blame the US culture for spreading loose morals, for corrupting their youth with a desire for non-jihad, for daring to suggest to women that they're not property.

That's what bred the 9/11 terrorists. That's what is still feeding a lot of the radical groups. A grievance for our culture, our success (According to the Koran, once land is Muslim, it never will be non-Muslim.

And Sally? I'd far rather that people inclined to kill you for failing to shut up, cover your head, and look at the ground fight US military forces who are armed and ready, than hit a shopping mall in Kalamazoo. I don't want to have the US forces die. But with anything, it's an issue of bearing costs, and shifting them. US military deaths fighting our enemies I'm far more accepting of, than waiting for Al Queda to try and beat the Beslan body count. (They've found places where Al Queda was practicing just that.)

That is the alternative. We fight them there, at cost to the Iraqi people, to be sure, or we fight them here, at cost to our liberties, security.

We could fight them here. But it would mean the death of almost all Liberal ideas. I'll let you think about that before I explain.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 10, 2007 09:55 AM

Canada. France. Belgium. The most egrarious cases of spending almost nothing on the military
let see : List of_countries by military expenditures.

french bashing at large ?

Posted by: Prosper on April 10, 2007 11:07 AM


Not when it's going into truffles for the MRE-analog.


They apparently trade 4-6/1 for the US MRE.

Also, let's not forget what we're getting for the expenditure at large.

Our nuclear aircraft carriers work.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 10, 2007 11:17 AM

because the UK's nuclear carriers work better ?
oups, they haven't any?
Yep, our ship is the first nuclear-powered carrier built outside of the United States Navy. So you laugh at she... Sounds fair to me.

Posted by: Prosper on April 10, 2007 11:30 AM


You've got the one, that has been towed back into port how many times now? How many times has it been unable to conduct flight ops because the catapults were caput?

Not exactly something I'd want to rest my laurels on.

But I have heard the De Gaulle is the fastest carrier in the world - in reverse.

Oh, going to get a group buy going with England?

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 10, 2007 11:36 AM

This is beginning to sound a bit like being with the Lakota Sioux or the Cheyenne circa 1870.

"Kill them all so that we can go back to our way of life!"?

I bet this cheers up every single one of you:


Posted by: DanS on April 10, 2007 11:44 AM


You know, I might have been a bit hasty with accusing France of not spending enough. From what I'm reading, France does spend a almost-reasonable portion on the military.

So, apologies for that. Care to explain, however; why the French expenditures are for so much less effect than the US and UK?

I had been under the misconception that the French military was just underfunded, apparently, they're inept! Sorry about that, my mistake!

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 10, 2007 11:45 AM

Great link. Totally at odds with the sneer of the crack you made. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 10, 2007 11:47 AM

All the military in the world will not defeat Islamofacism if free countries let the assholes take over within. It's happening all over Europe and starting here in the US aided by the likes of the ACLU and weak minded congress critters. Hell, in England they refuse to teach history correctly as not to offend the Muslims. In Minnesota the damn taxi drivers refuse passengers who is transporting booze and the grocery clerks will not scan pork products. I know where I think they can go. Back to the precious land they came from.

Posted by: gene Hall on April 10, 2007 12:04 PM

One last though on Vietnam vs Iraq. Our troops in Vietnam were drafted for the most part. Some were volunteers, but the majority were inducted. As such many had lower morale, and a lower will to fight. by contrast our guys in Iraq are 100% volunteer, they have the will and the skill to do the job and do it to a high standard.
National pride was low during Vietnam as well and that hurt morale.
Of my cousins and brothers who served, not a one was killed or even wounded in combat, and there were many of us. I myself didn't make it in until after the war, otherwise, to be sure, I'd have gone. I, like my cousins and brothers would have volunteered. No member of my family has been drafted. All went willingly.

Posted by: Jeremy on April 10, 2007 12:16 PM


.... "sneer of the crack you made." .....

What sneer?

I was commenting on a quote from higher up in the responses. I qualified my remark. I offered something light-hearted as a response.


Now, something about 'projection' comes to mind but I'm listening to my music and seeing how at odds it is with this gloom & doom.

That's okay, isn't it?

Posted by: DanS. on April 10, 2007 01:09 PM

"Kill them all so that we can go back to our way of life!"?

Yes, yes, yes, you finally get it. If we can just exercise this on the Muslim population all will be good again. Thanks for the quote DanS. I've told these guys time and time again you were good for something. :)

Posted by: Ray on April 10, 2007 02:42 PM

Sally - You stubbed your toe? That was Jimmah Carter's fault. As for most corrupt president, I think you'll find that Nixon was actually behind LBJ and Clinton. The press covered for LBJ. They hated Nixon. Sigh! I've covered this before. Nixon, one FBI file he never got. Clinton, over 1000. Nixon, tried to get the IRS to audit his enemies with no luck. Clinton got the IRS to audit all of his enemies. We're not even talking about Whitewater and selling pardons as he was leaving office, or turning the Whitehouse into a Motel 6 for campaign contributions. Also, the most members of any administration to be under investigation. Clinton cronies like James McDougal thrown in jail. A sitting Arkansas governor had to resign because he was involved in Clintonian corruption. Bill and Hill sailed on through while their subordinates and partners (Web Hubbell)took all the hits. But our scumbags resign. Three honorable Republican senators went up to the White House and asked Nixon to resign to avoid putting the country through impeachment. He had some honor and he did. I lived through Watergate. I remember it. Unfortunately, there were not three honorable Dimocrat senators and Clinton had no honor. Clinton was probably the most corrupt president to ever hold office. He was right up there with Warren Harding. Your deficient knowledge of American history is appalling.

Posted by: Denny on April 10, 2007 02:54 PM

Denny, the Cinton corruption is still going on. Does anyone remember or does anyone care what happened when the Barrett investigation was finished and about to be released? Five democrat senators bought off a judge (how else can one describe it) to redact 180 pages of a 300 page report to protect Bill and Hillary from going to jail. It seems that they were using the IRS to investigate and stop any of their enemys from disclosing embarrassing things of their past. I only hope a source I know is correct when she says that an unredacted copy is secured for this next election and will be released when appropiate. Only we can hope!

Posted by: gene Hall on April 10, 2007 03:13 PM

Now now Denny, she's college edumbcated remember. She's smarter than you because you dropped out. Just wanted to remind you of that little factoid.

Posted by: Ray on April 10, 2007 03:15 PM

gene - It doesn't really matter. It was obvious to the most casual observer what crooks Bill and Hill were, but even so, we'll have women voting for Hillary Rodent because she is such an example of a strong woman, even though she allowed her husband to humiliate her and her daughter in front of the entire world and everything she has achieved has been because she is the wife of Bill. Amazing!

Ray - I forgot to point out to Sally the most famous college dropout: Bill Gates. He dropped out of Harvard and is now one of the richest, if not the richest, man in the world.

Posted by: Denny on April 10, 2007 04:09 PM

I try to block the Clinton presidency from my mind.

Posted by: vetfromhell on April 10, 2007 04:29 PM

a few bullet points:

1. Bill/Hill almost certainly were involved in the murders of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Its a bit shocking.

2. Main problem with Great Britan is the activist muslim population and the accomodating silence of the natives.

3. The world will come to its senses one day regarding terrorism, but its going to be a big fvcking bomb that kills a ton of people that does it.

Posted by: patrick on April 10, 2007 04:34 PM

Yeah but Denny you forget, Bill is everything that libs are opposed to. He's an F*&ing gazillionaire so he's part of the problem of class warfare, so to use him as an example of how a drop out can still suceed, well, it just doesn't fly (in the mind of a liberal).

Posted by: Ray on April 10, 2007 07:05 PM

You know Patrick, I don't even think a big ass bomb blowing up in the US will wake any more than the people already actively supporting the current war. All others will simply brush it off, point their scaly fingers and say, "See, we had it coming..." Let's just hope the bomb goes off over more of them than us. Maybe then we can make some progress.

The futility preachers like Sally will never be satisfied with any amount of action or progress other than throwing our arms up in the air, declaring Islam our official religion, adapt Sharia law, kill the Christian's, put on some burka's (or little boys if you're a man), hold hands (again only men will be allowed to do this) and sing some Muslim equivalent to Kumbaya. Sorry Sally, as a soldier I can confidently say that I will gladly die before I allow this to happen. 99% of US troops agree.

BTW Sally, a little history lesson. the Tet Offensive, a desperate and abysmal military failure by the Viet Cong, signaled the end of the Vietnam War. Why? Because of people like you who don't have the guts to see difficult times through to the end. We lost the war because of gutless hippy pussies and bad politics. Had we stuck it through it would very well have ended with the next year or two on a positive note and 2-3 million South Vietnamese and Cambodians might still be alive and breeding. There is nothing pointless or futile about showing our enemy we will not be bullied. Especially not by some third world, child/goat fucking, women abusing imbeciles who live their lives according to the teachings of a seventh century, third world, child/goat fucking, woman abusing imbecile named, dare I say it, Muhammad. Man, I wish I was a cartoonist...

Posted by: Lumpy on April 10, 2007 07:14 PM


Get your facts straight and tell the WHOLE story of Tet.

For starters, Google McNamara, the JCS, President Johnson's 'Wise Men'.

You'll see they arrived in 1966 that Viet Nam was an unwinable war. At the time, our valiant dead numbered around perhaps 13,000;

These numbers and these high-level consultations were easily available to North Viet Nam.

Tet 1968 was a resounding success from the point of view of simply accomplishing strategic goals.

Not that I agree with or endorse the outcome!

But it's not easy to topple an American President in Washington D.C. from a third-rate rice-paddy economy 12,000 miles away. They said they would; they did it. Give a devil his due and salute, learn and overcome!

Posted by: DanS. on April 10, 2007 10:43 PM

1. Bill/Hill almost certainly were involved in the murders of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Its a bit shocking.

You guys crack me up. You talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome and yet you don't even know that you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Do you know how deranged you have to be to think that either Clinton were involved in murdering Foster and/or Brown? That is whacko conspiracy theory nuttiness. And you spew all of that other faux-corruption BS, like Whitewater. Even Kenneth Starr eventually concluded that there was nothing there (as he reported to Congress at the impreachment hearing). And you forget about all of the investigations and indictments from the Reagan White House and Reagan's advisors. Your mind quickly dismisses them because Reagan was your god. How quickly you forget.

Posted by: sally on April 10, 2007 11:25 PM


One poster said that, and it's not anything I, at least, support.

Care to address the more substantiative questions? There are a gracious plenty for you to select from.

And you spew all of that other faux-corruption BS, like Whitewater.

Err, like this one: What are you talking about? Do you.. wait.

Sally: what was "Whitewater"? What was the investigation looking into, and why?

How many convictions resulted from those investigations, and what political office and party were they affiliated with.

And what did Judge Starr actually say? "Nothing there", I don't think was that. Please give me a cite of what your quoting.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 10, 2007 11:34 PM

I agree with unix-jedi about Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Total whacko conspiracy theories. As to Kenneth Starr, what he said was more along the lines that the Clintons were not innocent but what he had was not worth going to court over. I think he was also tired of all the personal abuse he received from the left and just wanted to end it all. If Clinton was so innocent, why was he disbarred? As another commenter noted, Nixon got involved in the coverup of Watergate to support his subordinates. Clinton corrupted his subordinates to protect him.

How many people were convicted in Iran contra? One. Cap Weinberger whom Reagan promptly pardoned. Do you want to compare that to the Clinton administration? Now you sound like you have Reagan Derangement Syndrome.

If you really want, I can dredge up the numbers of the people convicted under the Whitewater investigations. The number of people who fled the country to avoid testifying. You don't really want to even attempt to compare Clinton's corruption with either Reagan or Nixon. It is no contest.

Posted by: Denny on April 10, 2007 11:57 PM

(sheesh! Did I just say that???).

We are discussing the fall of the British Empire!

Tony Blair was confronted with overwhelming evidence that his Sailors & Marines were En Flagrante Delicto Ooop's-O. No one moves 'up' and no one moves 'down' on this issue unless YOU give them more attention than they asked for themselves.

Suppose you are correct and that indeed the British Empire is seeing a setting Sun; Gosh, I wonder what next Empire might fall?

GET SERIOUS! Our American actions cause a huge wake in Global Affairs!

Posted by: DanS. on April 11, 2007 12:15 AM

Actually, Denny, I was hoping Sally would do some research and realise that she was flat wrong. (But it's a common misconception, oft-repeated, as you yourself show.)

Judge Starr resigned before the final report was released. It was a trick question. Not that I meant to merely catch Sally - I was hoping she'd do some research and - maybe - stop dittoheading and actually respond.

Robert Ray is who gave the final report. Unlike what Sally remembers/relates, his report was not that there was "nothing there". But that there was no liklihood of a successful prosecution, a rather different statement and context.

Anyway. Back to what I asked Sally:

What was "Whitewater" about? When did the investigation start? Who was involved?

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 11, 2007 12:17 AM


Tony Blair was confronted with overwhelming evidence that his Sailors & Marines were En Flagrante Delicto Ooop's-O.

By whom?

The Iranians even accidentally released the correct coordinates initially - showing the piracy to be well outside Iranian waters.

Backing that up was the radar data from the British Navy cruiser, and the Helicopter's "Black Box"... All of whom backed the British, not the Iranians.

So, what exactly was Blair supposedly embarrassed about, in regards to the location of his men and women, who were where they were supposed to be, and illegally kidnapped and held without Geneva protections?

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 11, 2007 12:20 AM

(sorry, Denny, I'm still asking Sally, not you, those questions (in case it's not clear, it's a mite late))

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 11, 2007 12:22 AM

So, what exactly was Blair supposedly embarrassed about,

O, perhaps all the GPS equipment captured along with the Sailors & Marines? You know, the one's that were actually involved?

GOD! If we could EVER give up the charade and SAY what we MEAN and then ACT in accordance with same!

WHY do things always have to be based on LIES and obsfuctaion? WHY???

Posted by: DanS. on April 11, 2007 12:30 AM

To support what Lumpy said here:
I don't even think a big ass bomb blowing up in the US will wake any more than the people already actively supporting the current war. All others will simply brush it off, point their scaly fingers and say, "See, we had it coming..."

Soon after Sept 11, 2001, the refrain began "Whyyyyy do they hate us"?

Amazingly, the people asking that were quite positive they knew why. Failure to ratify Kyoto (Which in a wild flight of fantasy was assigned to Bush's fault). Failure to "end poverty". (Nevermind none of the hijackers lacked money, or were ever deprived).

Anybody asking this - and there were many - asked rhetorically. Because they KNEW why. Capitalism. Moralism. The "why they hate us" were many. Amazingly to me, the people saying that refused to ask/listen to the people who were doing the hating.

For they have been quite loud and vocifirous in their reasons for why we needed to be taken out, why the US needed to fall apart.

(Yes, Sally, that was actually what they were hoping for. 100-250k deaths in NYC, Congress gone, the total collapse of the US economy, and the reduction of the US to a stone-age existance. To quote Bugs Bunny: "Dey doan know us very well, do dey?" Plan doomed to failure or not, that was their plan. Don't agree with me? Well, really, your argument isn't with me, it's with Mullah Omar, Osama Bin Ladin. That was what they said the plan was.)

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 11, 2007 12:31 AM


Posted by: DanS. on April 11, 2007 12:32 AM


The ... GPS equipment seized in the piracy operation?

The equipment then in the hands of the Iranians for 2 weeks?

Call me silly, but I think I'll go with their original numbers - which gibed completely with the UK report, the GPS records, the black box, and which the Iranians hurridly "Corrected".

If we could EVER give up the charade and SAY what we MEAN and then ACT in accordance with same!

Dan, I know you don't believe this, but most people actually do this. But when we point out what people say, like Arafat, or Ladin, or Omar, you denounce us. Most people are very plain in what they say. Al Queda wants you dead, Dan. What could be more plain in meaning and actions?

Yet you seem to be of the opinion that their strong pronouncements actually don't mean what they do say.....

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 11, 2007 12:35 AM


Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!!!!

Just Like when GWB claims everything is all-better in Iraq & Afghanistan!

The 'Surge' is working because the is less enemy-activity?

The 'Surge' is working because the is more enemy-activity?

That's sort of like my cigarette that puts me to sleep and also arises-charges me at first-light.

An AMazing concept and certainly a magical-thing!

Can't you see & appreciate Durham-quality BULLSHIT when it's right in front of you?

Posted by: DanS. on April 11, 2007 12:49 AM


The 'Surge' is working because the is less enemy-activity?
The 'Surge' is working because the is more enemy-activity?

Ah. I see. Well, I don't, because I've not seen that like you're saying.

Can't you see & appreciate Durham-quality BULLSHIT when it's right in front of you?

Oh, sometimes. Sometimes.

I recall last year, before the election, a huge number of Democrats running on mismanagement of the war, that more troops were needed, that we needed to increase our troops, patrols, and Bush had failed to do that.

After the election, when Bush increased the number of troops, patrols, and started the programs that the Democrats had been demanded that he start.. suddenly he was a total moron for that, and we needed to just give up.

Sometimes I do see it, Dan.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 11, 2007 12:59 AM

The British Empire hasn't fallen.

Even without England the better part is still there complete with cold beer and hot women. Something that got reversed from the mother country when we crossed the equator.

Our ways is much better as it turns out.

The Union Jack in the canton is a dead give away. And Mrs Windsor is on all our cash.

Posted by: Murray on April 11, 2007 01:02 AM


Factor-in the TIMELINE of the Evnts you cite!!!

It makes all the difference.

Posted by: DanS. on April 11, 2007 01:15 AM

Why are you calling Sally a socialist? She's made no claim to being a socialist.

Posted by: haha on April 11, 2007 03:13 AM

The sun has not yet set on the British empire....... but it is a rather pale light from a dim bulb which shines down on a shell of what used to be.

Posted by: dudley1 on April 11, 2007 07:33 AM

I tell you, that boy of mine has the biggest cock of all the second graders, but thats because none of the others are ninteen.
He got him a job at Burger King, but they had to shut down because he grossed them all out eatin boogers at the drive up window. I keep tellin him, Its BURGER King, not Booger King. He don't listen to mama any more than he does smart folk.
I guess I was askin a lot when I said please be nice. You don't have to no more though.
I think he's hot on that Sally, but I think she's a dyke. Oh well, he don't have no balls, so they'd make a pair.

Posted by: haha's momma on April 11, 2007 10:00 AM

Unix-jedi - Sorry I didn't do my research. I do remember about what the prosecutor said, I just didn't remember that it was Robert Ray. Of course, the Clintonoids spun it as being exoneration when it was nothing of the sort.

Posted by: Denny on April 11, 2007 04:51 PM

Dan S,
Are you on your meds or off? I use to be a drug addict once so I know the affects they can have on memory. It's been a while so the details could be hazy for you so here is the full story of the Tet offensive:


Remember we lost the war at home not on the field. Pay attention to that last installment, it should remind you of that fact.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 11, 2007 09:23 PM

haha's momma-

"Oh well, he don't have no balls, so they'd make a pair."

I really despise your depiction of my nephew's current situation. He don't work at no Booger King. He been workin' at "Window 'E'", livin' off the man for a few years, and maybe off of momma too! He lives in his mother's basement. He also posts comments under other commenter's handles because he is really bored and masturbating to FHM all day long because he is too lazy to get a job and smokes weed and masturbates all day, bouncing around from site to site just looking for attention because his life is so boring and pathetic. He's a lost soul looking for affection from someone and he's latched onto sally in hopes of a really good pimple-pop.

Just though I would clear that one up for ya.

Posted by: haha's bastard uncle on April 11, 2007 09:51 PM

I watched all of your links; where did they refute the central idea of what I posted?

OF COURSE we lost the war at home!

Jeebus, do you think that America is a Country that can just-plain DO WHAT IT WANTS without the consideration of any Other???

The American People said of Viet Nam: "We have had Enough!"

Are you saying that one or two Politicians should be able to over-ride the Will of the People? Are you saying that one or two should have the power to over-ride the consensus of the Constitution?

Do you even understand the importance of what I'm asking you?

Using YouTube as a resource to rebut one who was part of the Loss is disingenuous at best; LAME is more like it.

YES! We lost the War at Home! Yes! Other's WIN their War at Home! What does that tell you?

Posted by: DanS. on April 12, 2007 02:09 AM

It tells me to ask you a question;

When do YOU want US to WIN?

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 12, 2007 02:33 AM

Brother! Where you been? Don't you be tellin em my boy was a prison cum dumpster, they might get the wrong idea and think he was forced into taking all that cock up his ass.
I told you I got him to quit wackin off, I hid his tweezers.
I wish Sally would post her address so's I can git him onna bus outta here. One Grayhound ticket costs less than he snorts in a day.

Posted by: hahasmomma on April 12, 2007 09:11 AM

---I watched all of your links; where did they refute the central idea of what I posted?---

You lambasted me when the point I was making in the comment prior was that we only lost the war because we lost it at home. Otherwise we would have won, plain and simple. I consider your central idea to be pointless. That's just the same as saying that just because a few members in congress think we can't win the war in Iraq that obviously we can't win. We will only lose this war if we lose the support at home, just like Vietnam.
Your parallel only proved my point.

---Jeebus, do you think that America is a Country that can just-plain DO WHAT IT WANTS without the consideration of any Other???---

No, I don't think we can run around and just do what we want. Nor do I think that that is what we do. If we really wanted to own the Middle East we have the military capability to make that possible. Yet, strangely we don't. With every country we have fought, we turned their governments over to them and then payed a great deal of money to rebuild them.

Now what I do expect is for our country to send a potent and irrefutable message that we will not be bullied and the unprovoked killing of our citizens will not be tolerated.

---Are you saying that one or two Politicians should be able to over-ride the Will of the People?---

Whose will are you referring to? Are you referring to the minor portion of our population who are vehemently opposing the war as opposed to the majority that supports it? In a democracy the majority rules, however that is lost on liberals. Politicians over ride the will of the people all of the time. No matter what any politician does, somebody is going to be upset about it. Soooo, you do what you can to benefit the whole, not fuck over most people to satisfy the whining of a few dissenters. The will of the people is to celebrate Christmas without getting harassed. The will of the people is to not be told where they should pray. The will of the people finds it OK to have the 10 commandments in our courthouses, especially if other religious symbols are being allowed. The will of the people is to secure our borders. The will of the people is to hold criminals, especially child molesters, accountable for their actions and not sent to some worthless rehabilitation training over prison. "One to two politicians", especially judges, have had an ample history of kicking the will of the people in the side but I don't hear liberals complaining about these issues. Liberals are clueless to the will of the people.

---Do you even understand the importance of what I'm asking you?---

I don't find it too important to satisfy a minor voice in this country when the minor voice is free to go to another country that supports their worthless ideology over trying to change a country that fighting men and women have fought to establish as it stands. If you wanna molest children and beat women, convert to Islam and move to the Middle East. If you want to kill unborn babies, move to China. If you want to be a worthless contributor to society and live on welfare, move to Switzerland. If you want to be homosexual, move to France. Now, if you want to be these things (excluding child molesters and female abusers) and live here, don't expect the majority to bend to your every little whim. We have an established way of life that can be beneficial to all but recognize we can't please everybody. The beauty of this country, unlike North Korea for example, is we don't force you to stay here.

---Using YouTube as a resource to rebut one who was part of the Loss is disingenuous at best; LAME is more like it.---

Actually, I technically used the History Channel, it was just posted on YouTube. But, just like liberals you have as much use for history as you do facts. What is LAME is that as a Vietnam vet you should be full aware of the pain one feels when he is risking his life for the security of his country (not to mention the country that is not his own that he is fighting for) only to find his own countrymen selling him out and stabbing him in the back. Using your experience to think you're above reproach (Cindy Sheehan?) is disingenuous at best, cowardly at worst. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

---YES! We lost the War at Home! Yes! Other's WIN their War at Home! What does that tell you?---

It tells me you (not you specifically) need to either put up or shut up. If you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem. We would win the war at home if we got fair and balanced reporting. We would win the war if we (the soldiers) were being utilized for what we were trained to be utilized for and not as political pawns for the spineless. We would win the war if we all stood up in a unanimous voice that, "we will not be divided, we will not be intimidated, and we will not give up until you (our enemy) learn to be civil else learn the feeling of hot steel tearing through your chest. We will win." Sadly, that won't happen. If it did, the war on terror would be short lived and we could finally hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 12, 2007 09:15 PM


That was brilliantly expressed, and I would love to see someone even TRY to refute what you wrote. You're spot on!


Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 13, 2007 01:54 AM

Lumpy wrote : "If you want to be homosexual, move to France. Now, if you want to be these things (excluding child molesters and female abusers) and live here, don't expect the majority to bend to your every little whim."

CD wrote "That was brilliantly expressed, and I would love to see someone even TRY to refute what you wrote"

I won't waste my time telling you France isn't a gay harbor (in my country, Gay-rights defenders talk about San Francisco as a model), but isn't Lumpy's comment homophobic?

Posted by: Prosper on April 13, 2007 05:26 AM


but isn't Lumpy's comment homophobic?


Homophobia is "Fear of homosexuals". Nowhere did Lumpy demonstrate a fear of homosexuals. I think a strong case could be made that he expressed an "intolerant" opinion for homosexuals using political pressure to make changes, but that's not, by itself, "homophobic".

(Considering how "tolerant" the vocal homosexual community is, anyone using that to argue against Lumpy would be showing an Alanis Morrisette level of igorance of "irony")

Posted by: Unix-Jedi on April 13, 2007 11:08 AM


As usual you only pick out the sarcastic comment that suits your purpose (whatever it may be)

In my comment, I was referring to a couple brilliantly expressed statements by Lumpy:

~~I don't find it too important to satisfy a minor voice in this country when the minor voice is free to go to another country that supports their worthless ideology over trying to change a country that fighting men and women have fought to establish as it stands.

~~The beauty of this country, unlike North Korea for example, is we don't force you to stay here.

~~No matter what any politician does, somebody is going to be upset about it. Soooo, you do what you can to benefit the whole, not fuck over most people to satisfy the whining of a few dissenters. The will of the people is to celebrate Christmas without getting harassed. The will of the people is to not be told where they should pray. The will of the people finds it OK to have the 10 commandments in our courthouses, especially if other religious symbols are being allowed. The will of the people is to secure our borders. The will of the people is to hold criminals, especially child molesters, accountable for their actions and not sent to some worthless rehabilitation training over prison.

~~Liberals are clueless to the will of the people.

Can you refute any of that?

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 13, 2007 11:40 AM

Actually homophobia, literally broken down, means fear of sameness making the term even more stupid to use. This goes right with a point I made in another thread that if you don't tow their line you are labled with a name. I'm truly frightened now I guess I'll shut up. Wait, I'm not Imus so no I won't.

I'm not against homosexuals. I love them wholeheartedly as my fellow man and and care deeply about their health and wellfare. However, that does not mean that I have to condone their every action, particularly when it comes to actions that can damage themselves and more importantly other people (primarily homosexual sex).

You can't just pull aline out of my comments and expect that it could refute all of the rest. My point is we have an established tradition and way of life in our society that has long been healthful and the heart and strength of our communities. Destroying the political and moral foundations of our country to suit the whims of a few who could care less what damage they do to themselves (homosexuals, lifelong, viable, welfare recipients, surrender monkeys, et al) or others is completely unsat. I believe we should be tolerant of these individuals and allow them to live their lives in accordance to our laws. not change or misrepresent what our laws stand for to bring out a social revolution that is wholly unhealthy to the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual well being of our country. Liberals have destroyed our sense of self pride, national unity, and individual generosity and responsibility all in the name of "tolerance". I'll not have it and the American people shouldn't either. Once again, you can't please everyone but you can do what is for the good of the larger populace, give where you can give, but not bend to what is destructive to our solidarity and wellbeing. This causes some to have to sacrifice. The trick to surviving life is the fluent knowledge and acting on the knowledge of sacrifice and compromise. Not name calling and rioting when we don't get our way like little 3 year old children.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 13, 2007 11:49 AM

actions that can damage themselves and more importantly other people (primarily homosexual sex)

You're closer from sharia laws that you may have hope...

Posted by: Prosper on April 13, 2007 04:17 PM

Prosper - Do you mean closer to sharia laws? If so, you are wrong. We do not have Moo-slime enclaves that our policeman refuse to enter as you do in France. I would venture to say that there are more Moo-slime honor killings in France than there are here. I fear for your country my friend.

Posted by: Denny on April 13, 2007 04:39 PM

How do you figure? This is health and science not Sharia (I apologize for the graphic nature):

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Viral hepatitis types B & C

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent),29 they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.30

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. 30 Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.31

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.32

There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called "the Gay Bowel" is described in the medical literature.33 "Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse."34 Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with "gay bowel," the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.35

"Rimming" is the street name given to oralanal contact. It is because of this practice that intestinal parasites ordinarily found in the tropics are encountered in the bodies of American gay men. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, "rimming" provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections.

Men who have sex with men account for the lion's share of the increasing number of cases in America of sexually transmitted infections that are not generally spread through sexual contact. These diseases, with consequences that range from severe and even life-threatening to mere annoyances, include Hepatitis A,36 Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica,37 Epstein-Barr virus,38 Neisseria meningitides,39 Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, Pediculosis, scabies and Campylobacter.40 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) identified a 1991 outbreak of Hepatitis A in New York City, in which 78 percent of male respondents identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.41While Hepatitis A can be transmitted by routes other than sexual, a preponderance of Hepatitis A is found in gay men in multiple states.42 Salmonella is rarely associated with sexual activity except among gay men who have oral-anal and oral-genital contact following anal intercourse.43 The most unsettling new discovery is the reported sexual transmission of typhoid. This water-borne disease, well known in the tropics, only infects 400 people each year in the United States, usually as a result of ingestion of contaminated food or water while abroad. But sexual transmission was diagnosed in Ohio in a series of male sex partners of one male who had traveled to Puerto Rico.44

In America, Human Herpes Virus 8 (called Herpes Type 8 or HHV-8) is a disease found exclusively among male homosexual practitioners. Researchers have long noted that men who contracted AIDS through homosexual behavior frequently developed a previously rare form of cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma. Men who contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex or intravenous drug use rarely display this cancer. Recent studies confirm that Kaposi's sarcoma results from infection with HHV-8. The New England Journal of Medicine described one cohort in San Francisco where 38 percent of the men who admitted any homosexual contact within the previous five years tested positive for this virus while none of the exclusively heterosexual men tested positive. The study predicted that half of the men with both HIV and HHV-8 would develop the cancer within 10 years.45 The medical literature is currently unclear as to the precise types of sexual behavior that transmit HHV-8, but there is a suspicion that it may be transmitted via saliva.46

Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals.59 However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion's share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,60 and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian.61 Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men.62 Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.63

Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners.64 Consequently, the lesbians' median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women.65 Lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men.66 The study "demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports."67

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.68 Intravenous drug abuse was nearly six times as common in this group.69In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30 percent had bacterial vaginosis.70 Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.71

In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as "crabs," genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported.72 Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.73

Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people's unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries ó in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."80

The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 13, 2007 04:54 PM

haha squeals like a pig when I drill him from behind. I know he likes it though, because he keeps begging for more.

Posted by: haha's butt-pirate boyfriend on April 13, 2007 05:58 PM

Where did you go Prosper?

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 13, 2007 11:12 PM

I'm here people!
(sorry I have a real life too!)

So Lumpy cannot condone Homosexuality because of health.

Hmmm, is it the same with motorcycling, alcohol, or fat food?
Lumpy, could you say to CD, who is fond of beer : "if you want to drink a couple of beers evry night and live here, don't expect the majority to bend to your every little whim" ?

No? Double standard?

Denny, thanks to correct my grammar.
as for the enclaves you're referring too : you're right, and it's a shame and a disgrace.
But are you really sure you haven't the same problems in some LA's neighbourhood?

And we don't hear a lot of muslims honor killings here in France. It seems it's a Turkish speciality, and that's more a german problem. But I have no statistics.

Posted by: Prosper on April 14, 2007 09:34 AM

---Hmmm, is it the same with motorcycling, alcohol, or fat food?
Lumpy, could you say to CD, who is fond of beer : "if you want to drink a couple of beers evry night and live here, don't expect the majority to bend to your every little whim" ?---

First of all, these are hardly parallels. But I will address them because this is a common argument. First and foremost, I would indeed tell CD that we shouldn't bend to his every whim if he say, wanted to have the law changed so that he could drive blitzed out of his mind. As far as consuming a few beers a night that is fine depending on what you mean by a few beers. Alcohol in small quantities has been clinically proven to be good for your health. It's the abuse of the alcohol that leads one down the road of poor health or even becoming a danger to yourself or others.

The consumption of fatty food is only bad for your health if you over consume them. By themselves they are not necessarily unhealthy. The human body requires a certain degree of fat content and, depending on your level of activity, high calorie content. This proives nothing.

Motorcycling is a non sequitur as riding a motorcycle is neither poor for your health nor spread fatal diseases to others. It can potentially be dangerous but so can walking down the street, breathing oxygen, and going swimming. Let's not get to rediculous and stick to what is relevant.

What you have to show to me Prosper is that there is any form of moderation one can practice in homosexuality that is not harmful to oneself or others. You can't say condoms because you're still damaging the rectum and opening the door for infectious disease. You have to show to me that there is a more healthful and moral approach to homosexuality than abstinence.

I think a more pertinent equivalent you could have made is cigarette smoking. You can look at a cigarette and it won't kill you. But the moment you light it and ingest it it deals you harm. No amount of moderation in cigarette smoking can provide any healthful benefits or at the very least not damage your body or others bodies. This is a practice you can equate to homosexuality. There is no harm in a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman. I love men and women equally as we all should. But there is a certain line you cross that has detrimental consequences. This is where I and many like me draw that line. If you truly loved gay people you would express a great concern for their health and wellbeing. Encouraging them to live a life that is detrimental to their wellbeing is not love. You don't show love to the heroin addict by encouraging him to shoot up do you? If you do then that's not really love. Your tolerance and compassion kills, mine saves. Who do you think has the better perspective?

Posted by: Lumpy on April 14, 2007 03:26 PM

Prosper - Nope! Our cops will go anywhere in LA or in any other city. Our cops shoot back.

Posted by: Denny on April 14, 2007 07:27 PM

What are you smoking? Are you really trying to equate enjoying beer to homosexuality? No one's whim is being bent by me drinking beer, unless like Lumpy said, if I am shitfaced and get behind the wheel. It's not a choice for me Prosper, I was just born this way...(insert sarcasm here)

I don't know about you, but I have never seen a beer-drinking-pride parade, and I've never heard of a Beer Drinker's Coalition. (although that would be pretty cool)

And my flag isn't a rainbow, it's Red, White & blue.

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 14, 2007 09:33 PM

So Lumpy, your advice for homosexuals is chastity ?
and I must understand your wife is not allowed to receive this special tribute? ;-)

and CD, you really should travel to Europe once in a while. May I suggest you Munich, Germany?

Posted by: Prosper on April 15, 2007 03:04 AM

I really should. It's easier said than done. If/and/or/when i do, what's your take on this??


I don't expect them to bend to any whims of mine, but Munich sounds like a blast!

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 15, 2007 03:30 AM

Prosper, Prosper, Prosper....

Yes, I do encourage chastity among homosexuals. And yes, my wife did receive chastity from me until we married. When I approach the issue of homsexuality there are many facets that hold my opinion together. I assume you are not religeous so it would do me no good to tell you of the unitive, procreative, and metaphysical functions of sex, that it is more than just mere pleasure and self satisfaction. There is a deeper beauty involved that many miss out on. I highly reccommend reading the Catholic Church's teachings on sex.

Now whether you are religious or not you can not ignore the fact that we are either created to serve specific roles or we evolved through specific functions. Either way homosexuality goes against the natural law. I mean, how could our species flourish if we're poking each other in the butt? Also ends don't connect among lesbians. If I need to explain sex to you and how children are made let me know.

The prime function of sex is the creation of children. This is why I am also against abortion and procreation. Just like I would teach to the unmarried chastity so do I teach chastity to homosexualities. This is primarily religious but there are a great many other things invloved. Let's say God knows what He is doing and we can see the reasons why He established a code of conduct if you would for His creation. Look at what results when we stray form this code of conduct: single parent families, abortion (murder of the unborn), widespread STD transmission, teenage pregnancy, rape, incest, marital infidelity...the list goes on and on.

Now suppose for a moment if all people lived according to the teaching's of the Church. Illigitimacy would end, no need for abortion, no pregnant children, and we could effectively wipe out STD's. You can't argue that there isn't something there in this.

But like I said before you aren't likely to accept the religious argument. I understand not all people are Christian/religious so I have to approach the issue from a health perspective. As mentioned in the portions of an article on medical studies the vagina is made to handle sexual intercourse. It's designed (or evolved if you prefer) for it. The rectum isn't. How hard is that to understand? Having sex, properly understood, with my wife stands in unity with the natural law and God's law. There are times in my marriage that we do practice abstinence. It's very healthy believe it or not.

And Germany is awesome CD. Haven't been to Munich though. Berlin and Nuremburg are pretty cool. Or if you like small town I really recommend Weingarten.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 15, 2007 11:23 AM

"And yes, my wife did receive chastity from me until we married.
The prime function of sex is the creation of children. This is why I am also against abortion and procreation

so, no blow jobs, and just as many sex games as your number of chilren?


"I mean, how could our species flourish if we're poking each other in the butt?"

first you do it churchy way, then you've got a couple of month of fun!

think of it! maybe you're wife already do...


Posted by: Prosper on April 15, 2007 11:40 AM

Prosper the former religious zealot....

I am surprised at you with a backhanded comment in response to points that you could not intelligently challenge. I say this because of your previous postings for being Catholic & now faced with being in a corner you lash out with a comment to a more erudite poster by proposing that his wife is indulging or at least pondering.

But that is the way a liberal responds to truth or logic, crudely, viciously & with a mean intention to do harm . This propensity of the liberal intellect is considered to be the norm & is accepted by the left as fair play. Now were a conservative to do the same, it would be construed to be shameful, Senators would be hounded from office, Jackson & Sharpton would be outraged & the LSM would make the guilty person the subject of this weeks talking points.

Hell, Prosper I almost think you are going to run for office as a democrat. That was a joke, but I do think you owe Lumpy an apology. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Shame on you.

Posted by: dudley1 on April 15, 2007 04:33 PM

I caught that one too dudley1. I distinctly remember Prosper claiming religious superiority, but when it doesn't suit his purpose, it flew out the door.

If I didn't know any better, I would think Prosper is Sally's alter-ego.

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 15, 2007 09:46 PM

Ahhhh, the inevitable disintegration into ad hominems...

Posted by: Lumpy on April 15, 2007 11:57 PM

uh, I'm sorry if I offended Lumpy. That was not the goal. I had to check my dictionary for the word "indulging". I never insinuated his wife wanted to cheat on him! Are you nuts or what? I described sexual behavior a lot of woman like and practice with THEIR husband. And I insinuated his wife maybe expected this kind of behavior with HIM. I don't know in the US, but in France, this is not extraordinary behaviors!
As for the church, I'm catholic and listen carefully of what is said, with a few exceptions : sexual life of married couples is one of them. Trust me : never listen to someone who didn't experiment on what he pretend to be the wise guy.

Posted by: Prosper on April 16, 2007 03:11 AM

Prosper .......

So it is our fault because we understand the English language & you do not? Well if one chooses to post in the language of common culture for the website of choice & its audience, it is advisable to at least proofread your compositions prior to actually posting them.

The fact is what you posted could only be reasonably interpreted as either an insult or mean intent. Perhaps as you say this is but a mis-application of terminology.....but here in the United States it is a good way to get the s--t kicked out of yourself.

A word to wise....Say what you mean but know what you write before you post it. Best of luck in the future with English composition.

Posted by: dudley1 on April 16, 2007 08:23 AM

Dudley, I wrote :" think of it! maybe you're wife already do"

I was referring to my previous sentence : "then you've got a couple of month of fun!" that meant a couple of month of non-reproductive sex.

and you think I insinuated his wife was cheating on him, or I wanted to insult him...

English is really tough!

Posted by: Prosper on April 16, 2007 09:54 AM

I encourage further study as mentioned before Prosper. The Church stands against all sodomy, to include that commited by heterosexuals. I don't understand how you can claim to be Catholic but take a stance against the Church's teachings. Dissent is for Protestants (if that offends anyone I can better explain, not meant as an insult). Being a Catholic means recognizing that the Pope teaches infallibly in the area of faith and morals.

I didn't take offense but your apology is appreciated and accepted. If you wish to further discuss the Church feel free to email me.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 16, 2007 11:55 AM


English is not that tough....if you take the time to learn it.
Lumpy is right about the teachings of the CATHOLIC CHURCH regarding Sodomy, sex for fun, or any type of fun intended for other then the production of more children. Apparently you are not the obedient Catholic you stated in earlier posts or you ignore some of the teachings.....Thats OK by me, regarding matters of marital relations ... It is not the business of the Church,its local representatives or the Pope as far as I am concerned, only the two people so involved.

Prosper indulge as you see fit, but watch what you allege for others & proofread to prevent mis-representation or honest mis-interpretation

Posted by: dudley1 on April 16, 2007 02:20 PM

dudley1 - In defense of Prosper, English is not that easy to learn because it is a mishmash of French and German and has weird spelling and grammatical rules. We have twice the vocabulary of most languages. How's your French? Remember, English is not his main language. Imagine you commenting in French on a French blog. How do you think you would do? That's why when I get a French troll I don't make fun of his English, just his country and what he has written. I did ask Prosper a gramatical question in this thread to make sure I understood his meaning in the comment he made. I admire him for taking on me and other commenters on this blog. I think he's wrong but that doesn't make him a bad person.

Posted by: Denny on April 16, 2007 02:38 PM

Thanks Denny.
Lumpy (and dudley and CD) : to summarize, the papal infallibility is a doctrine defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. The last time an infallible doctrine was declared was in 1950 when Mary's assumption into heaven was proclaimed an article of faith.
You see? Mary's assumption into heaven. We all catholics agree on that.
Sodomy with your own wife? Are you kidding me? No way the Pope would pretend being infallible on this subject! Believe me!

Posted by: Prosper on April 16, 2007 04:14 PM


Apparently they do not mandate Pre-marital education in your Catholic Parishs in France as they do here.....Believe me, we were instructed what you could do & not do to be free from sin. Don`t fret, it was a load of BS & nobody in my circle of friends paid any attention.

Denny, I have already commented in a previous post to Prosper that he did remarkably well with his command of English & told him how poorly I would do in French. As to his comment , if Lumpy is OK with it ...so am I

Posted by: Dudley1 on April 16, 2007 09:21 PM

"Ahhhh, the inevitable disintegration into ad hominems..."

I'm guilty as charged Lumpy.

I don't know how a post about the Dimocratic party ended up with close to 100 comments total, and resulted in discussing butt sex.

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 16, 2007 11:36 PM

Actually CD, I was referring to Prosper. ;)

Posted by: Lumpy on April 17, 2007 11:03 AM

And BTW, Prosper you are right, Papal infallibility had to be defined but it was still always believed by the Church. Often times when a teaching is called into question, usually by heretics, the Church has to define given doctrines so as to be better

One of the best and most misunderstood is the Council of Trent. When Martin Luther decided to take it upon himself to remove books of the Bible he felt were not inspired the Church had to convene to declare them part of the official Cannon. They had always been part of it but due to Luther they were forced to reiterate this point. These are the books most know as the apocrypha.

Posted by: Lumpy on April 17, 2007 12:32 PM

As Prosper has already informed you, I am fond of beer. At 8:36 PDT I was already 6 in, so when I read that, I assumed it was directed towards me. My bad.

However, I am still guilty of Prosper's charge. I am working on that one...

Posted by: CharlieDelta on April 17, 2007 09:47 PM
Post a comment