Don’t be a “Koch sucker”

Symbols of the tea party movement

This is a follow-up to the previous post: 10 biggest douchebags of 2009. Please join us now for our awards ceremony red carpet after party. It’s time to get down and get funky.

So who is behind the Tea Party movement? One of the big players is Americans For Prosperity (AFP). Who is behind them? One of America’s richest billionaires, a man by the name of David Koch. According to Wikipedia’s David H. Koch page:

In 1984, Koch founded Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch also funds Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group that has recently used new media technologies and other efforts to create opposition to U.S. President Barack Obama‘s proposed health care reforms.

Yep, if there’s one thing the rich want, it’s more “prosperity.” When will the dude have enough to get by on?

In the previous post I wrote a bit about who’s behind the tea party movement. Big companies like Exxon and Philip Morris. So how does that translate to a group like Americans For Prosperity? Let’s take a look at the influence of tobacco. According to

AFP advocates pro-tobacco industry positions on issues like cigarette taxes and clean indoor air laws. The name “Americans for Prosperity” will sound familiar to tobacco prevention policy advocates, as Americans for Prosperity worked around the U.S. in recent years to defeat both smokefree workplace laws and cigarette excise tax increases.

Americans for Prosperity opposed a proposed Texas smoking ban in 2005. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “A proposed statewide smoking ban appears all but dead, supporters acknowledged Monday as they waged a frantic battle to bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate. ‘I think the bill is dead,’ said Peggy Venable, Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, which opposed the legislation, arguing that it is an intrusion on private-property rights.” The strategy of portraying smoking as a “property right” can be traced to Philip Morris which, in the mid-1990s, introduced bills in state legislatures nominally to protect property rights as a means of fighting smoking bans. Venable called the smoke-free measure a “reckless expansion of government” that “set a dangerous precedent.” Although Venable did not testify against the bill directly on behalf of the tobacco industry, the Houston Chronicle reported in 2007 that Americans for Prosperity had, in fact, been underwritten by tobacco companies in other states.

Americans for Prosperity opposes smoking bans by using slippery-slope arguments (“Where will it stop?”) and erroneous arguments that smoking restrictions are economically damaging.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) also opposed an Illinois state tax on cigarettes in 2008, claiming it would eliminate jobs.

AFP opposed a clean indoor air law in Washington, D.C. in 2006.

AFP opposed a clean indoor air law in Kansas City, portraying the issue as one of personal liberty and economics rather than public health.

I think there are a lot of really sincere and good people in the tea party movement and even in groups like AFP. Unfortunately I feel that most of them don’t even realize how they are being used as pawns in a big game of chess. Their desire for social change is being funneled into a direction they don’t even know. That’s a bit sad. Some call them teabaggers. For foot soldiers in the AFP movement, the phrase Koch sucker might be slightly more accurate.

And that’s all I have to say about that. At least for now. 🙂

63 responses

  1. Awesome, we have our own George Soros


  2. Hopefully the trend is away from that sort of influence being successful. We finally have a smoking ban in bars and restaurants here in NC effective tomorrow…never thought I’d see the day.


  3. Awesome, Big Brother hit North Carolina


  4. So in addition to all your other charms you come down on the side of smoking. Lovely.

    You didn’t ask but I’ll give you my personal opinion about why I think the “big brother” argument regarding smoking in bars and restaurants is pure fucking bullshit.

    We all have “rights.” Some of them extend as far as our house. Some extend to our vehicle. Some extend where ever we go.

    The utterly misguided argument about smoking is that it is a “right” then extends to anywhere we go. It doesn’t.

    I have the right to have sex. I can’t, however, have sex on the sidewalk or in a restaurant.

    I have the right to pee. I can’t, however, do it on the sidewalk.

    I have the right to drink alcohol. I can’t, however, do it in my car or on the sidewalk.

    The belief that smoking is a right that extends to everywhere is one of the biggest lies of all time.

    That’s my argument on smoking and my personal opinion.


  5. I wasnt aware you had a “right” to eat at a restaurant or drink at a bar.


  6. “So in addition to all your other charms you come down on the side of smoking. Lovely.”

    Well at least you admit I am charming, which I am btw. But I am not coming down on the side of smoking, I am coming down on the side of businesses deciding if they are to allow smoking in their restaurant or bar. Personally, I dont smoke. I never have and I never will.


  7. I look forward to having sex on the sidewalk in front of your house and enjoying a cold one.


  8. Thats your argument? LMAO


  9. I made my argument previously. As usual you chose to completely ignore it. That is why I’m basically done with you.


  10. I didnt ignore it, it made no sense. You ignored it when I mentioned ” a right to eat at a restaurant and drink at a bar.”


    1. That was after numerous exchanges of this phenomenon. I’m tired of it.

      I say, “Roses are red.”

      You say, “Violets are blue.”

      What was the purpose of that? Are you agreeing with me that roses are red? Or are you trying to claim they aren’t by making a completely unrelated statement? At the end of the day I’m simply tired of your approach and no longer give a shit.


  11. Just trying to figure out how you having sex on a sidewalk has to do with a private business’s decision to allow smoking.


  12. Nothing. It has to do with the fact that all “rights” don’t automatically extend everywhere. You can’t legally walk down the street with a beer in most cities. Why should smoking be any different?


    1. I guess he doesnt want to discuss the right of private businesses allowing smoking which was the original argument.


      1. I stated my position, which is the belief that smoking is not a “right” that should exist outside of the home. I also stated I would oppose laws that attempt to ban smoking in private residences, even though:

        * Smoking increases the risk of fire and danger to innocent neighboring homes
        * Some parents smoke indoors in the presence of their own children who have no legal power to defend themselves
        * The stench can reach neighboring properties and interfere with enjoyable use
        * Their cigarette butts end up in the street and on my property
        * It’s fucking disgusting
        * The people themselves often smell disgusting – but there is no law against smelling awful

        I support personal freedoms up to the point of legal “harm.” As the saying goes: “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”

        For most people, second hand smoke is harmful. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

        If you think it should be a business decision whether people are allowed to punch each other in the face you’ll find me opposed. (As usual.) Smoking is no different.

        Even the bullshit law about no smoking with 10′ of a door is pure tripe. I love running the smoking cloud of death gauntlet just to get into the front door of the local Applebee’s. Then being seated where I’m about 4 feet from an asshole who reeks like hell. Some of them smell so bad they activate my gag reflex. But that’s their “right,” isn’t it?


  13. Maybe you should move to San Francisco. Isn’t it a right to engage in lascivious sex on the sidewalk, in a restaurant or at the workplace??

    Just out of curiosity, will your view on Big Brother change if they ban smoking in personal residences?


    1. I see no reason to ban smoking in a private residence. People still have the right to be idiots.

      That said…

      I bought a home six years ago. It was 1/3 acre lot, downtown, in a residential subdivision. I’ll never forget just how fucking delightful it was to sit on my back porch and be engulfed in the fucking stench of cigarettes wafting over from my neighbor’s house. It seriously impacted my enjoyment of the property. But I never sued or complained or asked “big brother” to take away their rights. I just cursed the circumstances.


  14. Still comparing apples to oranges? Geesh


    You are right on that. whose to say big brother wont ban smoking in your home or car, especially if you have kids. Guess drones love fascism.


  15. Yep, there are quite a few odors that are annoying. Pigs, goats, chickens and other animals can smell if nearby. Many hobbies such as furniture refinishing, car restoration, and flower gardening
    (some are allergic to pollen) can be intrusive. In fact someone who sweeps their porch may cause dust allergens to waft into their neighbors area. Of course there is the dreaded deodorant/perfume/cologne allergy. My old gym tried to ban perfume and strong deodorant.

    Here is one that may be more pertinent…

    May 28, 2008

    A group in Santa Fe, New Mexico is pushing to have WI-Fi signals banned in public buildings. The group state that they suffer from the wireless Internet signals as they are allergic to them.

    Reports state that these Wi-Fi allergy sufferers experience chest pains and other allergic reactions to the wireless Internet signals.

    Others though, such as Santa Fe City Councilor have not been very receptive to these claims just yet, stating people should not go against new technology such as this.

    An investigation is on to decide what to do about this situation in Santa Fe, as they need to figure out if the Wi-Fi signals could really cause these heath problems, and whether or not they are a form of discrimination.

    Ahhh…I love the smell of Wi-Fi in the morning.


  16. Is it the right of a private business to allow smoking at its business? Jesus Christ am I asking a difficult question?


  17. No one has the “right” to do something harmful to other human beings.


    1. You are correct but no one forces someone to eat or drink at a restaurant or bar. Its not a right to be there so your argument is weak at best. Its called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.


  18. Personal responsibility has nothing to do with your right to pursue your life without being harmed.

    Public spaces, like restaurants and bars, are subject to higher standards than private homes.


  19. No one forces you to go there. You can always eat or drink someplace else.


    1. I don’t know about where you live. Maybe it’s the land of Oz. Here in my town, before the state stepped in, every bar allowed smoking. There was NO bar that was non-smoking. If that is what you call a “choice” then my opinion of you must be adjusted lower.

      I’ve been to one of those bars since the law went into effect. It was pretty nice except for the occasional idiot. You know the type. He keeps an unlit cigarette in his mouth the entire time he’s in the bar to demonstrate his raw anger that the law dares prevent him from injuring others that are near him, and then he goes outside every five minutes (what a fucking addict) and comes back in reeking some bad that my gag reflex kicks in and I want to vomit. Viva la non-smoking establishment. Oh yeah, it’s a lot better now.

      Speaking of Mr. Unlit Cigarette, I call keeping anything in your mouth like that 24/7 an oral fixation. The dude should just go home and get a penis in his mouth and get it over with already.

      By the way, I heard of a recent study that said the people who reek like an ashtray may be just as hazardous as second hand smoke. In other words, if you can smell it, then cancer may have dealt it. If that’s true, then just their odor may be violating the concept of rights vs. harm. I’d advocate government picking them up and hosing them down and washing their clothes, but then I’d really have to listen to you bitch and moan. Perhaps a mere ticket will suffice.


  20. “If that is what you call a “choice” then my opinion of you must be adjusted lower.”

    So? Open up your own bar than that caters to non smokers. who is stopping you? Its their bar, not the states.

    “I’d advocate government picking them up and hosing them down and washing their clothes, but then I’d really have to listen to you bitch and moan. Perhaps a mere ticket will suffice.”

    Spoken like a dedicated advocate of fascism.

    Cant wait til the government runs the cigarettes companies out of business with high taxes. Maybe they will tax to death something you like to make up for their revenue loses.


  21. You don’t get it, do you? It’s harmful to other human beings. They can choose to do it to themselves if that is their wish. They don’t have the right to do it to someone else.


  22. Ohh I get it. These human beings have freewill. They can choose NOT to eat at a restaurant that has smoking or not goto a bar that has smoking. So whats next? Make the restaurant serve only food that the government sees as healthy or force bars to serve only health drinks because drinking alcohol isnt healthy?


  23. Jeez. It’s such a simple concept. I’m not sure why you don’t get it. (Well, to be honest, I have my suspicions.) Heh.

    Eating unhealthy food isn’t the issue. That only hurts the eater.

    Drinking unhealthy drinks isn’t the issue. The only hurts the drinker.

    Smoking is different. Smoking injures other people. That’s why the government works to prevent it in public places.

    You want to smoke? Do it at home to yourself. Your right to injure yourself ends when you go places where you’ll be injuring other people, too.

    Pretty simple, eh?

    By the way, you never did answer my question about the number of nonsmoking bars in areas where the government hasn’t made it the law. It’s pretty much about 100 percent, right? Go ahead and try to deny that and lose the tiny shred of credibility you’ve got left.

    Also, the CDC estimates the smoking rate in the United States at 21% for those 18 and older. (And 20% of high school students have smoked within the last 30 days.) So it doesn’t seem that surprising that government (aka the will of the majority) would want to stop something that injures other people.


  24. “By the way, you never did answer my question about the number of nonsmoking bars in areas where the government hasn’t made it the law.”

    I dont care. If a business owner wants to make his bar non smoking, more power to him. Its his bar.

    “So it doesn’t seem that surprising that government (aka the will of the majority) would want to stop something that injures other people.”

    The government isnt always the will of the majority. Just ask the people of Nebraska if Nelson served their will.

    “That’s why the government works to prevent it in public places.”

    A bar isnt a public place, its a private business. A park is a public place. Simple concept.


  25. LOL! You stand for the rights of American’s to injure each other. Jihad!

    By the way, a bar or restaurant is a “retail or service establishment open to the general public.”

    I never said a bar or a restaurant was publicly owned, like a city park. The bar in the B.P.O.E. lodge, however, it not open to the general public. Smoke ’em if you got ’em. (But, to be honest, I don’t know if NC’s new law affects a place like that or not.)


  26. “You stand for the rights of American’s to injure each other.”

    I stand for the right for every American to make a decision if they want to enter an establishment that has smoking. Damn right I do.

    “By the way, a bar or restaurant is a “retail or service establishment open to the general public.”

    Open to whoever wants to enter.

    “But, to be honest, I don’t know if NC’s new law affects a place like that or not.”

    Big brother will find a way. He loves to control people’s lives.


  27. The Cigarette Jihad lives on!


  28. More like a jihad on individual freedom. Dont worry it will get to you too. The government’s appetite is never sated.


    1. Well, unlike smokers, I don’t run around committing physically harmful actions on other human beings. So I say … bring it fucking on. I say please feel free to take away my “right” to hurt other human beings. I fucking welcome it.

      No doubt you’ll pull out that red herring again about fatty foods or soda or a tax on beer or being overweight or whatever. That is an individual choice thing and I’ll be along side you fighting government if they try to impinge there.

      I’ll leave it you to fight the good fight for the right to hurt others all by yourself.


      1. “I’ll be along side you fighting government if they try to impinge there.”

        No you wont. You like the government telling the people whats best. If that was the case, you wouldnt be saying al-Thuggy is an awesome “president”.

        “I’ll leave it you to fight the good fight for the right to hurt others all by yourself.”

        If you are friggin stupid enough to walk in an establishment to “hurt yourself” of your own free will, you deserve to “be hurt”.


  29. 2010 Will Be Worse
    By Monty Pelerin
    The year 2010 is likely to be the pivotal year where pundits stop referring to the recession and begin openly talking about a depression.

    Our economic problem is rather simple to describe: There is too much debt relative to income and/or wealth. Below is a single graph that depicts the condition of our economy. It shows total debt of the U.S. as a percentage of GDP from 1870 forward. The debt figure includes all private and public debt. It does not include liabilities associated with unfunded government mandates like Social Security and Medicare. (Note: according to the U.S. trustees of these funds, the present value of the liabilities is about $106 trillion. Including them would boost the ratio below to nearly 1,000%.)

    This should cheer you up. Everyone will be too friggin poor to eat at restaurants and drink in bars. Hell, no one will be able to smoke, isnt government great?


    1. I don’t care how poor some people are, they always seem to find a way to get their cigarettes. So I disagree with you there.


      1. We will all be poor


  30. If you actually took issue with the point being made I’d poop my britches. You should try it and surprise me some day.


  31. “No you wont. You like the government telling the people whats best.”

    You know the difference between you and me? I actually try to look through your bullshit to see if you have any points I can agree with. But when we’re having a discussion and you call me a liar when I’m talking about myself you have gone too far. You are not worth the effort, troll. I’m done with you. Now you can do your victory dance and claim this means you are right. Go on, it’s ok. Live in your little fantasy world. It’s what makes you happiest.


  32. I never called you a liar. You have me confused with Joe Wilson. 🙂


  33. Here’s something I didn’t know about the term “tea bag”. I hope the link works.


  34. The link worked great.

    You didn’t know what teabag meant? LOLZ! It’s one of those “let’s give every sexual act we can think of – especially the most disgusting – their own crazy words” things. 🙂

    IMHO left vs. right politics in the United States has become a lot like the Middle East. It is no longer clear who threw the first stone yet every time a stone is thrown there absolutely must be retaliation. Only that way can the fight never truly be over.

    Some who viewed any criticism of Bush as unpatriotic are now rabid practitioners of some of the most scathing presidential criticisms all all-time. And that’s the way that merry-go-round spins.


  35. The first stone was thrown during the Reagan era when the “left” made constant baseless demeaning accusations against Reagan because they couldn’t stand the fact that their pathetic excuse for a President (Carter) got an ass whooping by him. It was during that time that I learned to be wary of the left and the media. It’s humorous because I used to love Green Peace as a kid and always wanted to start a group like ALF before they even existed. But, over time those groups were co-opted by others who had more general and encompassing agendas. I still have some respect for the Green Peacers out in their little Zodiacs trying to ram a Japanese whaling boat. LOL. But, that respect fades when I hear them whining like little babies about how the Japanese are endangering them and then engage in lawuits. It’s pathetic. If you’re going to fight for a cause fight with some honor not like a little whining biatch. Al-Qaeda has more honor than pretty much every left wing group.

    As for stone throwing I’ve been glad to see the escalation over the last decade. There was a time when there were nothing but left wing radio hosts on talk radio. And, of course, the network news has always been dominated by them. In fact, I think it took too long for the right to fight back using the same scumbaggy techniques the left has used for years. They’re still not that good at it though. They can’t effectively portray a Democrat as an idiot as well as the left can do it to a conservative. Remember Dan Quayle? Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas? Reagan? They try it with all of them and see if it will stick. If it does they run with it.
    Remember how Carter was portrayed? Even as an abject failure as a President he was portrayed as “too intelligent for the position”. Obama will be portrayed the same way most likely. Remember Kerry vs. Bush? Ok, Bush did not appear to be a genius but Kerry was just as dumb if not dumber yet he was portayed as an intellectual. Bush was supposed to get killed by him in the debates yet it didn’t happen. They made fun of Bush’s grades in college until they found out that Kerry’s grades were the same or worse.
    So, I say KEEP THROWING STONES! Bigger more jagged stones. Preferably to the cranium region.


  36. I remember when I first heard Keith Olberman use the term tea baggers while reporting on the first tea party gathering. I thought, “does he know what he’s saying?”. Then Chris Matthews started using it and I heard Sean Hannity use it as well. Those guys have no clue what they’re saying half of the time. Well, it made for a good laugh anyway.

    Now I wonder if the gay community is going to get pissed off at the fact that a conservative movement has co-opted one of their pet terms just as they co-opted the biblical concept of marriage.

    And, just for some clarity, tea bagging isn’t just oral sex. It’s more related to the insertion of the scrotal sac into the mouth or bouncing it into a recipients face. It’s obviously not exclusive to the homosexual community but it is most commonly referring to male on male activity.

    Remember what David Shuster said, “If you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you’re going to need a Dick Armey.” : )


  37. Are you saying that the criticism of Reagan is akin to what we’ve seen directed at Obama?

    I really don’t remember too much from back then, so you may be right. What I mostly remember is criticism of the tax cuts for the wealthy that were supposed to “trickle down” and that the plan was referred to as “Reaganomics.” BTW, the decades since then have shown an increase in the gap between rich and poor. Things don’t really seem to “trickle down” like Reagan thought.

    Yes, you are correct on your definition of teabaggers. The Daily Gut didn’t have it quite right when they called it “oral sex.” In this era of name calling and insults based on political disagreement, I have no doubt that the term is meant to be as derogatory as possible when directed as an insult against the tea party movement. I think I’ve even used it myself, which is unfortunate.


  38. Not quite. Obama has not been portrayed as stupid or asleep during his meetings or just a dumb actor. Although he has been portrayed as an inexperienced community organizer. But, he is that so….

    Kid gloves have to be used by more well known pundits when it comes to criticizing Obama. Given his race you open yourself up to the proverbial racist allegations whenever you criticize an American-African.

    As for trickle down. I don’t believe Reagan ever advocated trickle down. Both terms, trickle down and Reaganomics, were pushed heavily in the left leaning media to mock Reagan.

    But, just for an exercise in economics:

    If you cut the top marginal tax rates on high income earners or cut the corporate tax rate where does that “saved” money go?


  39. Just to be clear, are you stipulating my point that the gap between rich and poor has grown since Reagan?

    I’m not foolish enough to take you on in a battle of wits. I’d essentially be unarmed in that battle. 🙂

    I’ll go ahead and answer your exercise question, though, cause I want to hear you explain what I’m obviously not understanding.

    Answer: The wealthy?


  40. No, I cannot deny that the gap has grown. The gap has been growing for a hundred years. What most fail to add to the argument of income gaps is that both the rich AND the poor’s income has grown over time. Sure the gap has widened but for about 3000 years of man’s history the poor stayed in abject poverty. Now, even though entrepreneurs, silver spoons, and union bosses all make staggering sums of money, the poor, as a group, have seen far higher income growth over the last decades than at any time in human history. They are only poor by relative standards.

    LOL. Ok, so the money goes to the wealthy. But, what do they do with it? Spend it on a yacht? Who makes the yacht? Who builds the yacht? Who makes the parts for the yacht? Where is the yacht stored? Who works as staff on the yacht?

    Maybe they save the money. As long as it’s not saved in a mattress then it must be going somewhere. If it’s in a bank then it is probably being loaned back out at 30 times the amount of the savings. Who is that money loaned to? People buying cars? People buying houses? Higher savings results in lower interest rates as well.

    It really boils down to an argument as to whether the rich spend their money in a better way than then the government would. The rich tend to spend on luxury goods which of course creates many many jobs in the luxury goods industries. It looks bad but works well. The government either uses the money to buy defense products and fight wars that the left doesn’t like, creates a government job by taking one or more jobs out of the private sector, or just outright gives the money away to a group they think needs it.

    Anybody that has their tax rate cut does SOMETHING with the money. It makes its way back into the system. either you believe that the market makes better decisions than the government or you don’t. Government decision making always worked really well for the Soviet Union.

    Unarmed my ass. I’ve seen the sharp honed edge of your cold steel wit.


  41. Booyah!

    LOL! OK, seriously. I feel good. I got you to concede one point. That takes care of my things to do list for 2010. It’s all rest and relaxation from now on, baby. 🙂

    I agree that the money does go “back into the system.” And that does indeed help stimulate the economy in the ways you describe. I guess I’m just skeptical of the efficiency of that particular method. I’m not convinced that is the optimal approach, but I’m not necessarily endorsing one that entails more government decision making, either.

    I’ve been at my current job five years. (I know, I must really love it. Oops. Had to hurl. I’m back now.) I’ve seen a couple very modest raises during that time frame, and although I can’t prove it because I don’t have the raw data, I’m convinced that I make less in terms of buying power than I did five years ago. Maybe compared to 100 years ago my “poorness” isn’t really that bad, but that is one forest that is very hard for me to see due to the tree camping on my chest.

    One last thought on the gap between rich and poor. I remember asking you almost 15 years ago if you’d mind having your luxury mansion equipped with machine gun turrets on every corner and surrounded by riff raff like me. You said you wouldn’t mind. I don’t see the efficiency in that, either.


  42. So what was Reagan’s position on tax cuts for the highest tax brackets? I went to Wikipedia and got schooled:

    Today “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. Originally, there was a great deal of support for tax reform; there was a dual problem that loopholes and tax shelters create a bureaucracy (private sector and public sector) and that relevant taxes are thus evaded. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Democratic controlled House, which, according to the Constitution, is responsible for introducing all bills related to taxation, cut the marginal tax rate on the highest-income tax bracket from 70% to 28%.

    Source: Wikipedia: Trickle-down economics

    I did not know that.


  43. Well, I’m glad that I could help you reach your goals for 2010. Maybe I should become a motivational conceder?

    As for efficiency of the systems. Both are somewhat ugly. Capitalism tends to be more ruthless but better decisions are made more quickly. Centralized planning tends to be lethargic, corrupt and, worst of all, wrong most of the time.

    Gun turrets?

    LOL. Reminds of the scene from Dawn of the Dead (2004) when they are on top of the building taking pot shots at the large group of zombies that had gathered in the parking lot below.

    Hey, I would absolutely shut down the gun turrets long enough to let you into my mansion. I would even order a couple extra Grande Burritos from Del Taco flown in by helicopter and fire up a couple networked vintage 386 PC’s so we could settle our debates with some Quake (preferably House of Chthon). : )


  44. ZOMG. I remember chasing you down in the House of Chthon and shooting you in the back with my shotgun.

    Of course you pwned me way more than the other way around. That made each frag so much sweeter.

    I’ve never found a gaming experience since then that even comes close, even with all of the advancements in gaming and technology. Nothing else remotely compares.

    Here’s a little trip down memory land for you:
    Quake: House of Chthon


  45. Gee, I had no idea I was going it ignite a firestorm between you two guys when I mentioned tea bags, ha, ha. I still don’t quite know what they are, if there’s more to it than was in the linked article, but maybe I don’t want to know.

    It still fascinates me that Anderson Cooper is the descendant of Cornelius Vanderbilt, known as the first U.S. tycoon. Descendants of the super-rich tend to feel guilty and pretend to be egalitatian even if they cling to the prestige and opportunities their inheritance brings them.


  46. Sok. I actually know Raiko from way back. He is literally one of the coolest human beings I’ve ever known. We don’t always see things eye to eye, though. 🙂

    Anderson Cooper? Wasn’t he the original host of ABC’s The Mole? Back then those of us on the forums used to call him Android Cooper. He’s come so far since then. 🙂

    I look forward to checking out your link.


  47. LOL. Hilarious. I had forgotten how cool that squishing sound was when you got fragged by a rocket.

    Ahhh…the good ole days.


  48. Likewise.

    Maybe not eye to eye but definitely rocket launcher to shotgun (in the back of course). o_0


  49. We’ll get to 100 comments here!

    Party on!


    1. Whew. I’m getting backed up on my toobin. I’ll do my best to get caught up, I promise.


  50. Woot. Finally got a chance to watch the video.

    Cute video. Without all the window dressing it really is nothing more than an ad hominem response to the point made by Olbermann. Step 1, attack the person who made the point. Step 2, show a few clips of diversity without providing any substantive data of any kind. Sure the video is effective but it is also potentially misleading.

    Olbermann’s hypothesis (for lack of a better term) is still out there. Does the tea party movement disproportionately represent whites? I personally have no idea but I wouldn’t mind seeing answers that involve actual data. 🙂


  51. OK, on to the Feinstein hand notes. According to the link, Feinstein violated a televised debate rule that she had apparently agreed to as part of the debate format. That’s a slightly different animal and clearly in the wrong. Palin was just a private citizen at a podium and had agreed to no such rules as far as I know.

    The author of the article who is bewilderingly “perplexed” by the Palin “kerfuffle” (and others like him) is missing the point. The point isn’t that Palin had the audacity to write notes on her hand. The point is that she had the audacity to do so after ripping Obama a new asshole for the last year because of his teleprompter use. That’s the context that gives credence to the hypocrisy.


Bringeth forth thy pith and vinegar

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: