destruction

How good does your new "Free Brian Doyle" T-shirt fit you pedo boy?

It's about time! One more bone puffer down, many more bone puffers to go.

How dare you Bash your king's alma-mata. I'm ashamed of you!

Kid toucher! Gotta love it. I voted in the poll 'cept I voted him as a hate monger which he is but truth be told he is a kid toucher nonetheless. History has shown that neocons can't get pussy their own age so they troll the parks for "hoodsies".

Oh goody. A debate on igloo. This thread should be a "sticky".

Son of a bitch. Fuck South Dakota and those scheming little Pro-“life†assholes. They didn’t wait long to take their shiny new Supreme Court out for a spin, did they? I remember all the promises about how these two uptight ideologues wouldn’t have any effect on the Roe v. Wade question like it was yesterday. Oh wait, that was yesterday. Fuck. Of course, not all South Dakotians are behind this invasion in utero. A whopping twenty-five percent of the residents of the Coyote State support banning abortion outright. So what is wrong with those assholes in Pierre? It’s the same fucking thing that’s screwy with all the other “Family Values†zealots. They just love telling the rest of us how to behave, but the logic they use makes George Costanza sound like Steven Fucking Hawking. Like, let’s take Bill Napoli, Head Baby-Saver-in-Chief and general sponsor of bills that would make Mother Teresa do a spit take. Just in case you haven’t heard it yet, here’s Bill explaining how someone who wasn’t on death’s doormat could get an abortion under the Taliban – sorry – South Dakota bill: “A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.†Hang on one motherfucking second. The only women this asshole thinks should be allowed to get abortions are the ones who never miss church? What kind of ass-backward, bullshit argument is that? Is this the new virginity promotion plan? Keep your hymen intact, pray on your knees every night, and if you’re unlucky enough to get brutally raped in one of Bill Napoli’s fantasies (and sodomized, nice touch), you’ll be able to get your abortion nice and legal-like, provided the whole experience has left your noggin fried to a tender golden crisp. That, right there, is fucking brilliant. Can we outlaw prime rib for everyone but the vegans next? And yes, Senator Napoli is the same fucker who says that most abortions these days are for, no kidding, “convenience.†Because taking a pill or slapping on a piece of latex is way, way less convenient than spending your afternoon in stirrups while strangers poke at your private bits with hoses and forceps. Exactly where did these fuckers get the idea that people are getting abortions like it’s a walk in the park? “Oh shit, I got so wrapped up teaching my kids to be gay that I completely forgot to get my abortion! I sure hope they can murder this baby on Friday or it’s going to completely screw up my weekend.†But that’s not the biggest lie these fuckers are peddling. Anyone who’s taken an intro to stats course can tell you that there’s no relationship at all between whether abortion is illegal and how many abortions people get. In fact, countries that do have bans in place have some of the highest rates of abortion on the fucking planet. And, here’s a shocker, they also have the most women dying when they get one. And it’s not just because they’re getting invasive procedures from amateurs. It’s that instead of preventing abortion, pro-life laws just put them off until they’re more dangerous. So those same assholes who are tsk-tsking about the rise in late-term abortions? They’re the ones who are fucking causing them. Sorry – too many numbers for your little heads to crunch? It’s not about statistics, it’s about personal responsibility? Whatever – we’re not completely blind to your fucking double standards. We know that what you scream at the TV cameras has nothing to do what what you actually do. It’s easy to be an extremist when it’s not your daughter picking out maternity dresses for her junior prom. When the oats hit the millstone, you fuckers find a way to get your mind around abortion being ok just this one time because your special flower can’t be bothered with changing diapers while she’s working full-time as a sidewalk counselor. So let’s drop the caring about the babies bullshit, ok? There are more kids in protective custody in South Dakota than there were abortions last year, so if you’re done pushing bloody photos in Sally’s face when she shows up for her pap smear, how about swinging by children’s services and giving one of those whippersnappers a home. Or does your politics stop at the edge of the vaginal canal? And just this once, can we leave your fucking megachurches out of this debate? You’re basing your politics on stories passed down for hundreds of years before anyone bothered to put them down in ink? You guys so never played Telephone growing up, did you? Some vicar tells you that the Almighty is using pack animals and sewing implements to make decisions about who gets into the Happy Place and you’re all, “I make the check out to who?†You don’t think maybe Brother Brewmeister might have mistranslated whole sections of your moral code, do you? What’s next, getting into heaven is as hard as riding a thoroughbred through a buttonhole? Jesus fucking Christ, is there anything they can say that you won’t believe? And that’s just the New Testament, where things don’t get much stranger than, “I wave my magic wand and... shazam! Fifty trout and a bucket of pumpernickel!†Most of you pious fuckers are taking your cues from the ancient scrolls where Thor starts flinging frogs and giving us pimples when he doesn’t get his way. “Dude. Your wife’s a spice rack. What the fuck did she say to Yahweh?†Don’t even try and play this off like it’s just a bunch of prairie extremists who are pushing this radical agenda. It’s just that South Dakota’s legislature is willing to admit what the pro-life movement is really after: forced pregnancy. And they’re not the only dicks who want their chicks barefoot and knocked up – assholes in at least ten other states are preparing turn a procedure that more than a third of American women get at some point during their lives into a fucking felony. And while one hand is knocking down abortion clinics, the other is stealing our rubbers and trying to convince us that “abstinence is cool!†is the only answer kids should get to the whole “Where do babies come from?†line of questioning. Abstinence. Now there’s a workable curriculum if I ever heard one. Look, do you really think you’re gonna get a bunch of hormone-soaked highschoolers to keep it in their pants because their teachers say it’s the right thing to do? You dickheads put the “Holy†in “Holy fuck, have you ever actually met a teenager?†Ok, ok, you save-it-for-the-honeymooners might manage to get a few teens to hold off on the wild thing for a year or so, but those same abstinence-only classes are driving the kiddos to do the wilder thing. That’s right you self-righteous dickheads, while you’re bragging about how your youngsters are getting it on with the Silver Ring Thing and saving themselves for their nuptial night, they’re out blowing each other in the back of your SUV and rediscovering those classic Butthole Surfer albums, if you know what I mean. Which lesson plan has the part about how the Slippery Cowgirl is a good alternative to Premarital Missionary? Y’all keep peddling this abstinence bullshit and you’re gonna wish your little tykes were fucking like rabbits. At least bunnies stick to the straight-up doggy style — your kids are doing shit that would make Jenna Jameson snap her legs shut. No, seriously. You think the big porn stars are assfucking without a condom? And those guys get paid, motherfucker. Your kids are having unsafe sex as a fucking hobby. And are you sure you want to be promoting a vow of celibacy at this point in the news cycle, Cardinal Nambla? While we’re talking sodomy, you bible humpers are gonna have to decide where you come down on the Going Down question. Is it sex, or isn’t it? You’re fucked either way, so I’ll make it easy on you – it’s sex. Someone makes someone else cum, and that’s the end of that. Or the beginning if you’re lucky. So, yes, Virginia, Clinton was having the sex with Monica in the study with the candlestick – um – cigar. Speaking of shooting people in the face, y’all better stop complaining that we're making too big a deal out of Cheney’s little hunting mishap. It might not have anything to do with his job performance, but you fuckers impeached Bubba when he unloaded on his partner, and that shit was a whole lot less painful. And besides, abortion rates dropped faster while Bubba was getting busy in the West Wing than when Mr. Born Again and Again took the throne. What was that? You’re all about a Culture of Life? Turns out if you don’t have a Culture of Don’t Send My Job to Mexico to go with it, we’re not all that interested in listening to some silver spooner shovel that morality shit down our throats. See, the problem here is your Intelligent Designer didn’t engineer no fucking automatons. People just don’t take orders like you think they do. Just Say No! You bet - just let me take one more hit. No smoking! (Cough) Sure thing, boss. Don’t eat that dirt! Mrnfph? Just ask the Catholics if you don’t believe me. Could the Pope be any clearer on the abortion question? Go on, take a stab at how that affects the behavior of the masses in the masses. Jesus Christ, don’t you see this shit coming by now? Their abortion rates are almost the same as the national average. And when I say almost I mean slightly higher. It’s sort of like everything you believe is wrong. Oh wait, it’s exactly like that. So if God’s super shepherd can’t convince his flock to to stop with the abortions, what do you think the chances are that some perverted Senator from Rabid City is gonna bring this whole thing to a grinding halt? It ain’t gonna fucking happen. This is one of those places where the supply-siders actually know what they’re talking about. Want to stop abortions? Get those kids an instruction manual before they start messing around with their fucking equipment. You’re not going stop them from doing the purple piledriver, so get over yourselves and start handing out the hard hats before they show up at your door asking “Mommy, is my wonderwand supposed to ooze like this?†See, nature’s not on your side, you nattering nabobs of nativity. You can wax nostalgic about the good ol’ days all you want, but you’re in for a fucking surprise if we wind up winding back that clock. Check your history books, assholes: back when abortion was illegal and contraception was just a forbidden apple in some pharmacist’s eye, American abortion rates were more than five fucking times higher than they are today. So, class, what have we learned in Sex Ed today? The pro-life movement is just fucking with us when they say they want to end abortion, trying to stop teenagers from having sex is like stepping in front of a freight train with a doorstop, and Republican lectures on moral turpitude make Montgomery Burns seem vaguely trustworthy. You want to live in your own little fantasy world? Great – just take your pretend virgins and your blissful ignorance of statistics and your Right-To-Life-As-Long-As-It’s-Not-My-Daughter-Who’s-Got-A-Bun-In-The-Broiler with you when you head back to the Garden of Eden. We’ll all be back here in the real world enjoying our Right to Fuck. http://www.fucksouthdakota.com/

Cheney (hopefully).

Hey Igloo..... Was this you as a child??? How to spot a baby conservative KID POLITICS | Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ... Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM KURT KLEINER SPECIAL TO THE STAR Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding. But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings. A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective. Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial. In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives. Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias. Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed. "I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members. The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners? Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism? Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal? Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect. For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place. Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty. The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual. Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact? It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids. Kurt Kleiner is a Toronto-based freelance science writer. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142722231554&call_pageid=970599119419

That's right morons. BX's article came from the ASSOCIATED PRESS! Bite that motherfuckers!!

Fuck you igloo Who were those guys? Agents posed as journalists before visit By KAREN NELSON karennelson2@aol.com There was a whirlwind of activity in the days prior to President Bush's arrival at a home on the beach in Gautier last week, with government officials and Secret Service scouting a location and checking the neighborhood where Bush would stop. The reason for all the fuss was kept a secret even from the family that received Bush. They didn't know it was prelude to a presidential visit until the day Bush arrived. But one part of the preparation for the President's arrival involved two government agents posing as journalists. Recounting the pre-visit days for WLOX and the Sun Herald, Jerry Akins, who received Bush, mentioned that on the Friday before Bush arrived, two men approached him identifying themselves as members of the media. He said the men told him they were with Fox News out of Houston, Texas, and were on a "scouting mission" for a story on new construction. They took pictures inside Akins' house, which is under construction and looked up and down the road in the neighborhood. Akins said he didn't think anything more about them partly because visits from strangers increased exponentially as government agents and Secret Service arrived that Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday before the March 8 visit. But after the president left Akins' home, the two men again approached Akins and let him know they were not media after all, but were with the governmental entourage. Akins said the two showed him blue porcelain lapel pins that contained the Presidential seal and another government official confirmed the two were with the government entourage and not the media. Akins assumed they were Secret Service agents. But a spokesman for Secret Service, under Homeland Security, said posing as a journalist is not something the agents typically do. He did suggest they might have been with the White House staff or a branch of the military, based on the description of the pins. Fox News had no comment. But Aly Colon, who deals with issues of ethics for the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla., said such a scenario undermines the public's trust of the media. "I think when individuals who are not journalists pose as journalists, it creates, at the least, some confusion in the public's minds," Colon said. "The key to journalism is credibility. So what the public wants to be able to do is trust people and organizations who represent themselves as part of the journalistic community." He said such misrepresentations might feed any perception among the public that some news organizations lie about their political ideologies or associations with businesses. "When they see someone blurring the lines, it sets up a doubt," Colon said. "It's like someone misrepresenting themselves as a police officer or public official to seek out information. It begins to sow doubt in the minds of the people. They ask, 'Who am I dealing with here?' And he said they are less likely to trust a real journalist or photojournalist who presents a valid ID while legitimately covering a story. Akins said he saw no problem with what happened and the government agents laughed about their fooling him. In the long run, he said, he'd rather have had a visit from the president than be on a segment of Fox News, anyway. http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/14119840.htm

SANDRA DAY O'Connor's remarks on the dangers of dictatorship in this country got little attention last week. Maybe that's expected when a retired U.S. Supreme Court justice speaks to a roomful of corporate lawyers. But O'Connor's thoughts on the high court deserve prime time. In recent speeches, she has criticized political attacks on the judiciary as demeaning, dangerous and a threat to constitutional freedoms. Last Thursday, she really got going. In a Washington, D.C., talk, O'Connor noted other nations, where dictators order up justice from a compliant bench. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.'' In the 1930s, it was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, "that fellow on the dime,'' who O'Connor felt tried to undermine the court by packing it with White House flunkies. Now it's the Republican right-wing who is trying to intimidate the judiciary, she indicated. The Reagan-appointed moderate barely concealed her targets. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the former House majority leader, had trashed the courts for removing the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo in a "right to die'' case. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, drew fire for his idiotic remarks after a judge was killed in Atlanta and the family of another jurist was murdered in Chicago. An unaccountable judiciary that engages in politics, he suggested, may bring on violent attacks. O'Connor may be retired from the bench, but she shouldn't quit the public arena where her thoughts are needed. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/15/EDGU9GJFCM1.DTL

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article352193.ece Iraq occupation: Three years on and still they're lying to us As global protests mark the day the invasion began, Raymond Whitaker examines the latest example of the self-delusion and spin that have characterised the occupation Published: 19 March 2006 Hundreds of American and Iraqi troops are engaged this weekend in Operation Swarmer, described as "the largest air assault operation" since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. But yesterday, as protesters marched in dozens of cities around the world to mark the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, it became clear that this "assault" was little more than a propaganda exercise. Three days into the offensive against suspected insurgents, there had been no clashes and no casualties among American or Iraqi troops. Fifteen caches of weapons and explosives were said to have been found, but television footage showed little more than the kind of small arms most rural Iraqis keep to protect their homes. An American spokesman said 83 people had been detained, of whom 17 were later released. "This was an operation to achieve military aims. This was not a PR exercise," Lt-Col Edward Loomis, spokesman for the 101st Airborne Division, said in Tikrit. But far from being a major counter-insurgency campaign of the kind which demolished Fallujah in November 2004 at the cost of thousands of lives, Operation Swarmer was a "sweep" exercise in a sparsely populated desert area. The only departure from routine was in the number of troops - particularly Iraqi troops - deployed. While it was true that more aircraft had been used than at any time since the war, they were all troop-carrying helicopters. There were no air strikes, despite the impression created by describing Swarmer as an air assault operation. Again the contrast with Fallujah, which saw dozens of heavy air strikes in 2004, was telling. In that assault, 17,000 American troops were deployed, compared with a few hundred last week. By the second day of Operation Swarmer, the total force - Americans and Iraqis - had already been scaled down to 900. The main purpose of the much-publicised "assault", apart from capturing the news agenda as the third anniversary of the war approached, appeared to be to highlight the ability of newly-trained Iraqi troops to operate independently - an essential precondition for the withdrawal of British and American troops. John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, who is visiting Iraq, said yesterday: "This operation is Iraqi-led, something that on this size and scale would not have been possible 12 months ago." Although he conceded that Iraqi troops were not capable of taking control yet in any of Iraq's 18 provinces, he insisted the army was growing in strength, saying there were now 240,000 troops, with 59 battalions capable of taking the lead in operations. On Friday Lt-Gen Peter Chiarelli, the second-ranking US commander in Baghdad said Iraqi troops would control about three-quarters of the country as early as this summer, considerably more ambitious than the goal set by George Bush only a few days earlier. The President said his aim was to have Iraqis control more territory than coalition forces by the end of 2006. These upbeat projections will be irrelevant, however, if another problem alluded to by Mr Reid - Iraq's failure to form a government, three months after the election - is not solved. "The most urgent need at the moment is the speedy formation of a government of national unity," he said before meeting Iraqi politicians. "As the weeks pass and the months pass ... a political vacuum allows people of malevolent intent, and people who would use violence and terrorism, opportunities to step into that vacuum." The first meeting of the Iraqi parliament last week set in motion a timetable under the constitution for the appointment of the president, the prime minister and the cabinet. Deadlines have been consistently missed, however, and many politicians believe talks could drag on until the summer. So far the main Shia bloc has insisted that Ibrahim al-Jaafari should continue as Prime Minister, despite calls for him to step aside by President Jalal Talabani, among others. Mr Jaafari is bitterly opposed by Sunnis, Kurds and secular Shias, all of whom mistrust his links to the militias doing much to worsen and prolong sectarian violence. Yesterday Mr Reid said civil war was neither imminent nor inevitable, but admitted violence between Sunnis and Shias was worsening. As he spoke, the bodies of six men, some handcuffed, some blindfolded, were found in a Shia district of Baghdad. Mr Bush faces a difficult balancing act between downplaying difficulties in Iraq and raising expectations of a pullout of American forces. In his weekly radio address yesterday he urged Americans to resist the temptation to retreat from Iraq. Despite "horrific" images, he said, progress was being made on the political and military fronts. "These past three years have tested our resolve. We've seen hard days and setbacks," Mr Bush said. But his administration was "fixing what has not worked". With the President reduced to appealing to Iraqi leaders to achieve a consensus, however, the limits on his ability to influence events were clear.

Can you spot it?

Who cares? We like this one better.

True that. HEY IGLOO????

Does that mean that igloo could be a liberal pretending to be a conservatard?

That's because you have no respect for human rights and you believe the USA should be the same way. Thanks for admitting it cockboy. "Bold move" as long as it conforms to your warped agenda. This is also consistant to the FACT that you are a moron with the IQ of cock dribble. But you have no problem with your brother threating people online or igloo telling ppl to kill themselves do you so your point is????? Oh wait.... Would you, your brother and iggy fancy a glass of Halliburton's finest spirts? PS. Your mix sucks. Go sell drugs on the corner with dr logic's kids and don't them each a glass of contaminated water, imported from Iraq by Halliburton.

Yes.But Igloo doesn't care either as long as his stocks with Halliburton remain consisist. Maybe iggy should be served a glass of that water.

*raises sign* It reads, "Al Qaeda, could you please send a truck-bomb to igloo's home?"

What dr logic actually typed before deciding to edit out the critical parts... Way to go contributing to the crime rate tard.

Fuck Halliburton.

Your idea of "human rights" is murdering innocent muslims, blacks and gays so what is your point assmunch? On another note... Geez iggy. You shouldn't be posting pictures of yourself in myspace. I thought I point out one of them...