September 28, 2012
— Ace Obama put out a cloying note to "Mom" begging her for an $18,000 loan to cover her birth control costs.
$18,000 to pay for birth control?
This is human birth control, right? Not like birth control for, I don't know, Ringworld?
CBS, NBC Embargo
— Ace Newsbusters' piece.
I would link Tapper's report on the ABCNews website but their website seems to be hiding it.
I can't find it. Can you?
Here's how Newsbusters digested his report:
Tapper pointed out during his report that "the White House first suggested that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous, the result of that anti-Muslim video inciting mobs throughout the region." He emphasized the administration's talking point by playing a clip from September 14, 2012 press briefing, where White House Press Secretary Jay Carney underlined that "these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region." When the ABC correspondent himself raised Benghazi, Carney continued by claiming that "we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack."
The correspondent later added that "sources tell ABC News that intelligence officials on the ground immediately suspected the attack was not tied to the movie at all....Some administration sources tell ABC News they were concerned after the White House began pushing the line that they attack was spontaneous and not the work of terrorists."
Make sure you click on Tapper's print report (and read it, too). I'm pretty sure I got that link directly from Tapper on Twitter -- as I said, the ABCNews website sure isn't trying to advertise it.
And how did NBC handle it? Well, they trotted out elderly fool Tom Brokaw to claim that the media's failure to report on a major security scandal with a bodycount of four was Mitt Romney's fault.
"Romney turned out to give the President air cover. There are serious questions about what happened in Libya and the absence of security and what is our Middle East policy, but Romney's missteps really have given the President more camouflage than he would have expected."
Gee, we'd love to ask about how four Americans were butchered by Al Qaeda but Mitt Romney is distracting us by asking about how four Americans were butchered by Al Qaeda.
Kristen Powers is pretty outraged by the media -- and says they're "complicit" in the next terrorist attack, due to their absolute refusal to question how this last one happened.
This Isn't Bias Anymore. This Is Simply the Communications Arm of OFA. See the end bits, about "ethics" as a justification for denying the public highly relevant information.
Bret Baier's Report... was, commenters say, "devastating." I'll put it up when I can find it.
— Ace Suppose you accidentally click on a link and wind up seeing the raunchiest, most grotesque pornography imaginable.
What do you do?
You probably close the link and perhaps bark at whoever linked you to it.
But do you attempt to have the site shut down?
In all likelihood you do not. And that doesn't mean you approve of the pornography, or even tolerate it.
You don't attempt to have the site shut down, or stir up a rage, because you know it will be futile. The law has spoken on this point; and where the letter of the law hasn't spoken, the actions of thousands of LEO's and politicians have. There will be virtually no action taken against pornography, ever.
So you don't attempt to get the site shut down because the letter of the law, and the actions of those enforcing it, have informed you that it is a situation you'll just have to live with.
The law has become normative. You may not agree with it (or, of course, you might). But you have internalized the teaching of the law, just as a student internalizes the real rules of his school, what he can get away with, what he can't.
The law has taught you what you will have to accept, what you will have to work around, what you will have to teach yourself to ignore and come to peace with.
The law is normative. It establishes our norms.
The law is currently establishing a new norm. Some -- liberals, chiefly, are quick to line up to embrace the new norm.
The new norm is that certain religions -- oh, why be coy with the plural? One religion -- shall have the protection and sanctification of state power.
One religion, and one religion only.
Piss Christ is being shown in New York City again. There are few calls for the exhibit to be banned, and none for the artist to be arrested -- or vigorously investigated to find if there are any breaches in his past to be arrested for.
Because we know the law and the action of government in executing the law would not be responsive. Not even a little bit.
The law is normative. We have learned there is no point protesting Piss Christ, or any thousand "slanders" against the Prophet of Christianity. We have learned that we will just have to live with it, and, if such things offend us, learn to control our tempers, and learn to avoid certain things that might otherwise give us pleasure, like museums.
What norms are the laws currently teaching the most extreme and intolerant members of Islam?
That they must respect other people's rights to engage in free speech? That they must accept that their religion, like any other, is subject to critique, disrespect, and even hate?
No. They are learning that threatening violence, or actually engaging in violence, is not futile at all, but rather achieves the precise goals they seek (a de facto prohibition against Islam or Mohammad, and no other religion).
The law is normative. This is what it is teaching. This is the lesson it is currently filling minds with.
Violence works. Intolerance -- at least intolerance with a brown face -- is justified and even noble.
And Islamic values are superior to American ones. After all, when the two come into conflict, which values win out?
Why would an Islamic immigrant choose American values over Salafist ones when the American government itself (and lesser governments within America) proclaim that Salafism is superior to Americanism?
The law is normative. It teaches. It compels. It forbids. And its compulsions and prohibitions become internalized.
The law in America is championing Salafism.
If our goal is encourage a more moderate, pluralistic, freedom-oriented brand of Islam, why would our government champion Salafism? Why would it emasculate the more moderate style of Islam, and create a Conquering Hero out of Salafism?
The law is normative. The law creates certain expectations of behavior, and rewards those within the law, and punishes those without it.
What expectations of behavior is the law currently creating? That we should all respect each other's rights to express our beliefs, or that we should engage in violent behavior to suppress others' rights, knowing if we destroy enough property, or kill enough human beings, the American government will begin championing our beliefs, making them part of the official legal code of the nation?
A fire dies without oxygen. It is the expectation of government action -- of "winning" a government sanction or concession-- that drives these protests and these riots. And this jihad.
Drama is the anticipation of action. It has been so since before the Greeks. Drama is not the action; drama is the question of whether the action will be taken, and what consequences it will have.
As Hitchcock observed, a bomb's detonation isn't drama; that's just spectacle. The drama comes with wondering if the bomb will be detected before it explodes.
Human beings are driven by drama. Millions watched that stupid car chase today because they didn't know how it would turn out. Millions watched a boring static helicopter shot of a not-terribly-fast-moving car for hours, because they didn't know how it would turn out.
Drama feeds the emotions.
When Rush Limbaugh made a joke about Sandra Fluke being a "slut," the story was kept alive for weeks.
How? Dude called a 30-year-old activist a "slut" for humorous effect. How does that turn into a three week storyine?
Drama. The quip itself cannot sustain interest, but the invented, contrived jumped up drama around it can.
Will Rush apologize? That's a two day story. Now we can anticipate whether he will Stay Strong or Buckle Under Pressure. Drama -- the anticipation of action.
Two days later -- will the people who will never accept his apology accept his apology? Drama -- wondering whether this apology will be deemed adequate by people whose livelihoods depend on their deeming it inadequate.
A week after that -- will sponsors drop his show? Will it drive him off the air? Drama -- will he win or lose? Will MMFA win or lose?
And thus a three-second sentence, without any consequence whatsoever, becomes a storyline for a month.
Drama. Unscripted morality plays for the politically invested.
Now, why has this YouTube video remained a story? Why do people continue to demonstrate over it?
Drama -- will they win? Will they prevail in getting the United States to impose blasphemy laws? To arrest and prosecute the blasphemer?
It's that drama that sustains their passions.
If they knew the answer -- if they knew from the first moment the answer would be "No" -- there would be no drama.
They would realize their actions were futile, and therefore silly, and therefore unmanly, as serious men do not indulge in childish tantrums that accomplish nothing.
But what if there is a genuine hope that their actions could shape US policy, US free speech law, and US law enforcement action?
What if the Administration gave them just enough encouragement to let them know: If you keep this up long enough, we just might wind up tailoring the Constitution to protect your religion?
Drama. It feeds the passions. It creates interest. It invests what would otherwise be a childish (or thuggish) bit of acting up with heroic purpose.
And that's what Obama has done: He has poured the gasoline of heroic purpose onto the flames of anger.
He has invested the demonstrators with stature and nobility.
He could have just said "No." He could have made it plain that in no universe would a US president ever betray the Constitution in order to appease a mob.
Instead, he told them just the opposite: Maybe we will.
And, in fact: We now have.
Will this lead to fewer demonstrations, and less violence, or towards more?
When you reward a behavior, you get more of it.
That seems a well-settled point.
The law is now rewarding those who would break it.
The law is normative.
It's teaching people that terrorism is justified.
It is teaching people that the future must not belong to those who slander The Prophet of Islam.
And it is teaching, finally, that 9/11 was, like any other spasm of violence against those who do not bow to Islam, a justifiable expression of dissatisfaction with United States policy and American values.
— Ace They've rewritten their blasphemy laws to try to fit them into the "Fighting Words" exception to free speech, as Allah admirably explains.
This means that if you would like to exercise your peaceful right to free speech, and someone else wishes to unlawfully exercise his non-peaceful non-right to engage in violence over your statement, your right is limited by his non-right.
Now, I suppose even liberals would understand the problem with this, if this "rule" were being generally applied. But they know it's not-- this "rule" shall only be applied to protect the de facto state religion of the US (the only religion afforded any sort of protection from "slander" and "provocations" in our laws), Islam.
There is a confusing aspect to this article that kept me from mentioning it earlier. I still cannot figure it out.
First the article says that ads like Pam Gellar's will be "prohibited," because violent people might use them as an excuse for illegal violence. So her rights will have to be taken away from her, so that violent thugs' non-rights aren't exercised.
But then it says this:
The authority said it believed the new guidelines adhered to the courts ruling and would withstand any potential First Amendment challenge. Under the new policy, the authority will continue to allow so-called viewpoint ads, but each will be required to include a disclaimer noting that the ad does not imply the authoritys endorsement of its views.
Allah thinks that means other viewpoint ads will be required to run this disclaimer, whereas Gellar's will simply be prohibited.
I think that's right. I certainly don't think the NYC council voted 8-0 to keep her ad (with disclaimer). I think the statist fascists voted 8-0 to take away her (and your) right to free speech, depending on the political clout, and willingness to engage in violence and terrorism, of the group whose feelings you're hurting.
I say once again: I cannot think of any move which encourages Islamic tendencies towards violence and jihad in the name of "God" than actually sanctifying Islam's protected place in our own goddamned laws.
I also cannot think of a more effective recruiting tool for the more bloody-minded, intolerant strain of Islam.
If you were a Muslim, choosing between a more moderate form of Islam that accepted the ideals of pluralism, freedom, and secular (not religious) rule, and the bloody-minded sort that proclaimed Sharia for all, and those who insult The Prophet shall be beheaded...
...which of the two forms do you see the world's governments bowing down to?
One thing religions tend not to have is tangible, real-world proof that they're the One True Religion.
But when the governments of all the world bow down to one form of Islam (and not the other)... Well. That is at least a demonstration that one form has real power, an undeniable ability to make nonbelievers and opponents kneel and bow with respect.
We might as well just start putting up ads that say, frankly, "The Salafist, violent, close-minded, intolerant form of Islam is the True Form of Islam."
Because that's what our actions are saying.
Irony: Pam Gellar's ad is "demeaning," it is asserted, because it implies that violent, intolerant Salafists are "savage." Her ad states something like, "In a struggle between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man."
Now, the MTA says she can't run that ad because some people will be unable to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence and mayhem.
— Ace But, but, but -- the crowd said "Ryan!"
An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that no threat assessment was conducted before U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team began "taking up residence" at the Benghazi compound -- describing the security lapses as a "total failure."
The claim comes more than two weeks after Stevens and three other Americans were killed in what is now being described officially as a terror attack possibly tied to Al Qaeda.
The source told Fox News that there was no real security equipment installed in the villas on the compound except for a few video cameras.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, the intelligence source said the security lapses were a 10 -- a "total failure" because Benghazi was known to be a major area for extremist activity.
These are the stories the media will not report.
Thanks to @johnekdahl
— Ace I'm not sure I have any opinion on this. There will be the typical scolding of Fox for covering sensationalistic events; but, what the funk, they broadcast for like 15 hours a day, they have to fill the hours.
I don't find this interesting. They're all the same, aren't they? But other people, I guess, watch these things. Or else they wouldn't be on the air.
End of the day, the drama of desperation is compelling. For good or for ill. 30% of all shows on primetime are now "reality" shows trying to ramp up contrived circumstances to produce some watchable "real-life" drama of desperation.
The guy offs himself at the end. I'm embedding the video below You don't have to play it if you're squeamish. But it's a fairly long distance helicopter shot so while you can see, with no ambiguity, that he shoots himself in the head and dies, you can't see much more than that.
Shep Smith starts yelling "Get off, get off, get off" at the end -- actually, well after the end, but perhaps his feed was a little less delayed -- to tell the network to stop airing the suicide. He sounds a little self-righteous about it, like he's the Thin Blue Line protecting the public from its own appetites for sensationalistic fare.
But as Jim Geraghty asks, aren't crashes and deaths what people are watching these things for? They're sure not watching them for the typical denoument-- guy on the ground, cuffed behind his back.
Given Shep Smith's self conception as a righteous liberal bien pensant, I imagine he'll have a big fight with the Higher Ups about the propriety of running these car chases on TV. I imagine he'll have a long faux-thoughtful but mostly self-justifying and self-congratulating televised essay on it tonight or tomorrow.
I... also don't care about that. He'll try to distance himself from the sensationalist, lurid footage, shifting blame to the audience and, more subtly, to the "requirements" of cable news (which is his way of insulting his bosses in a passive-aggressive way he won't be called on).
I really don't know what to say about this except it happened. There are no larger truths here, at least none that aren't perfectly obvious: Desperate people do desperate things, and people like watching this, and people also like engaging in self-congratulatory elevations of themselves as being "above such things," unlike the brutish mass of common humanity.
Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann and the rest of the left-wing all-stars will preen from their perches, which, in Matthews' case, is a little-watched legacy show on NBC, and in Olbermann's case, is Twitter.
We will shout and accuse and Look Within Ourselves and pretend all sorts of Lessons Have Been Learned all the rest of the predictable stupidity.
Guy shot himself. People like seeing sudden violence. It's all very shocking if you have the innocence of a five year old, or like pretending you do.
— Ace ABC only did 21 seconds on it; only CBS did a real story.
NBC? Embargoed it entirely.
It's time for a boycott. Now that Glenn Beck is calling for one, maybe this will actually happen.
NBC is in a precarious position as far as exposure to a boycott: Their shows are awful, they're cancelling half the shows they once had high hopes for, one of their semi-draws, The Office, is ending this season (after four bad seasons and creative exhaustion), and they are the most obnoxiously liberal network on TV.
They long have been. They long ago decided their demographic would be the "Smart Urban Set," by which they mean "liberals."
Someone has to pay. Let's make it NBC.
— Ace This is MSNBC, but if NBC considers them part of their "news family" than this is their baby, too.
NBC is doctoring audio a lot. Aren't they?
In this case, they are using the tactic I've noted quite a few times. They did this with Zimmerman, too, if you remember.
If you are given a chyron of text telling you what the speaker is ostensibly saying you will hear the speaker saying it, even if he is not in fact saying it at all.
It's an interesting demonstration of suggestibility.
Which apparently NBC doesn't know about, despite internet partisans using this trick over and over and over again.
CNN exposed this trick when the target was Clinton aide Mickey Kantor.
But when the media had the chance to lynch George Zimmerman, they forgot all about it, and permitted the suggested words to stick in people's minds. They began to walk their claims back when the only person they will accept criticism from, Jon Stewart, pointed out that Zimmerman's words did not in fact sound like "f***in' coons" at all. (Relevant portion starts at 4:23.)
So: CNN did not fall for the trick when it was directed against a liberal, Mickey Kantor. In that case, they exposed the trick and ran a segment on the chicanery.
But when the left uses the trick, CNN just runs with it.
So here we are again. Leftwing partisans make up a story using this technique -- suggesting you should hear words that weren't actually said -- and of course NBC reports it, because they don't mind being suckered by leftwing blogs and leftwing YouTube dirty-tricksters.
Watch the video, and see how a trick from a leftwing YouTube blogger became, without any fact-checking whatsoever, a nationally televised "fact" within hours.
At what point will "Real Journalists" grasp what lowly amateur bloggers have been explaining for six years?
— Ace From @benk84.
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that Al Qa'ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events. Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.
I bolded the last part just to knock down the liberals' inevitable spin about "concerns" about dates being some kind of sober warning. The bolded sentence immediately dismisses "concerns" as arising chiefly from increased media attention -- that is, paranoia.
This was on the State Department's website. Now it's gone.
I don't know what you'd call this psychology, but there is something that could be called the Dishonest Retroactive Perfectionist. A psychology where the subject defines himself as "perfect," and will not accept anything less than perfection from himself. Now, when numerous proofs of imperfection arise, the subject simply lies about the past in order to "delete" them from reality. Thus, in his own mind, maintaining "perfection." And looking a bit of a lunatic to anyone else.
It hardly needs be said that most people with this condition are not even close to perfect, and their "perfection" is a debilitating delusion. One could guess that the more certain one is of one's "perfection," the more likely one is to be utterly incompetent.*
Which then requires an awful lot of revising of the past.
Meanwhile, not that the media or US Government should be interested, but these threatening "protests"/nascent riots are still going on at many of our embassies.
The media doesn't run footage of these, or play them as if they are still going on.
Why is that, I don't really wonder.
* I had a rule about American Idol which was always right -- if the auditioner was good at anything else, be it archery or piano or whatever, he'd be a good singer.
Why? Because if you're good at one thing you've learned the habit of self-criticism and self-improvement. If you've become a champion archer, you will know whether or not you're a good singer, for the same reasons you know you're a good archer, and will not embarrass yourself on stage (if you've decided to go on American Idol in the first place).
Which leads to the question: Did Barack Obama ever actually get good at anything?
Or is he just another self-deluded fool embarrassing himself in front of an audience of millions?
What Barack Obama is chiefly skilled at is convincing himself he is skilled, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
— Ace I thought that deranged woman was like Peggy Joesph -- imagining skittles-flavored unicorn shit.
Obama really gave her a free cell phone.
— DrewM Team Obama is out with another one of its annoying "show your support for Obama by doing something really ridiculous" stunts.
This time it's an E-Card that women can use to announce to their mother's they intend to sleep with every man in the US military.
Is that $18,000 for a year? For a lifetime? What? Also note the card says "to help pay for" birth control. So that's not the total? What's the actual cost?
Since you can get birth control pills for like $9/month, $18,000 worth of them would be good for over 160 years. That's....a lot of sex.
— DrewM Yesterday Ace blogged about the upcoming anti-fracking movie Matt Damon is staring in and it's problems keep the good guys and bad guys straight.
Well, it turns out there are some interesting money folks behind the movie. Namely the people that run the United Arab Emirates.
Now I wonder, why in the world would some of the world's largest exporters of oil have an interest in demonizing domestic oil production in the US? Oh right, they want to shut down a major source of product not under their control thereby weakening their cartel's ability to control supply and pricing.
Matt Damon: Useful idiot for the biggest of Big Oil.
— DrewM Oh. My.
Related: I'm going to start focusing on House races in the next few weeks. Back in 2010 we did a bunch of profiles on candidates leading up to the "Be the Wave" effort. It's obvoiusly a little diffferent this time but there are now seats to defend and maybe even a couple to pick up. If you have a good race in your area, leave it (and some links to news/websites, etc) in the comments or email me at DrewMtips AT Gmail DOT COM. Please only mention competitive races. You know, John Boehner is going to win and whoever is running against Stenny Hoyer is going to lose so let's skip those.
— Open Blogger
- Netanyahu To Speak With American Leader Today
- Campbell Soup Shutting Down Sacramento Plant
- Obama Admin Caught Deleting State Dept Memo After Benghazi Attack
- Poll Shows Romney Winning The Libertarian Vote. Suck It Reason
- Obama Admin Quadrupled Warrantless Wiretaps
- Fred Savage Remembers The Princess Bride 25 Year Later
- Apparently This Concept Free Speech Does Not Mean What We Think It Means
- Democrats Darkening Mia Love's Image In Ads
- Freedom Of Expression, Without Expression
- France Institutes 75% Super Tax
- Why Aircraft Carriers Sail On
- Netanyahu's Speech To The UN
- The Great Bacon Scare Was B.S.
- Real Disposable Income Has First Drop Since November 2011, Savings Rate Tumbles
- As School Kids Go Hungry, Moochelle Chows Down
- Is MSNBC Editing Videos Again
- South African Mine Strikes Getting Worse
- American Incomes Have Fallen $3,040 During Obama Recovery
- SNL Finally Gets Around To Mocking Obama And It's Still Not Funny
- Israels Red Line Vague No Longer
- 2012 May Be The Worst Non-Recession, Non-Depression Year In The History Of The United States
Bleg: Can you take off work on election day? If so, you should volunteer to either be a poll watcher or work in the phone banks. Each polling place is allowed to have a poll watcher from each party. They tend to serve two purposes.
If you are in a heavily Democrat area, then your main job will be to prevent fraud. Make sure they judge of elections(supposedly neutral, but often not) is following the election law rules. Normally, your county committee will give you a phone number to call if you see fraud. They have lawyers standing by to deal with any situation.
The other job is to work a strike list. A strike list is three identical pieces of perforated paper. On each piece of paper is a voters name, party ID and phone number. You cross off the voters name from your list as they come in. Then aat a designated time, a Republican volunteer will come in and take one of the three pieces of paper back to a call center where a phone bank is busy calling up people who haven't voted. The Republican volunteer will come back for the other pieces of paper again later in the day.
If this sounds like something you'd be interested in, then please contact your local Republican committee and let them know. This is how we get out the vote. This is how we will prevent fraud in heavily Democratic areas. Make sure you do everything you can to ensure a Romney victory.
Follow me on Twitter
— Gabriel Malor Happy Friday.
Communications intercepted just after the Benghazi attack show that members of the radical militia Ansar al-Sharia bragged about it to Al Qaeda in North Africa. They were not gloating about any dumb YouTube video.
Bo Xilai, the former Communist Party leader in China will face criminal charges for corruption, abuse of power, bribetaking, and improper relations with women.
I'm not sure I linked this yesterday: incomes in red states are rising nine times faster than incomes in blue states. Coincidence, I'm sure.
79 percent of Americans believe that everyone should pay at least some income tax. Oh, but Romney saying so was just a career-ender, hmmm?
September 27, 2012
I was pleasantly surprised to be able to get most of these without having to think too hard. How many can you name?
(Answers below the fold)more...
— Ace Not a hack, but an accident.
A lot of articles have a "Tweet this" button above them. If you hit it, I think it uses whatever account you have open to tweet out the article.
So, that is actually probably what happened. I think that because when you hit "Tweet this" it sends out the same tweet that the DCBOEE did ("Really, Scott Brown?" or whatever).
I assume this would have been done accidentally, or the person who hit "Tweet this" thought it would be tweeted out of her private twitter account.
— Ace Praise Allah we have captured the infidel and ceased his lies and slanders.
The future must not and will not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam, Allah be praised.
According to TMZ, the guys probation report is sealed. Question for criminal defense attorneys: Is there any way to force it to be unsealed, or is that at the discretion of one or both of the parties? Theres a public interest at this point, I think, in knowing why theyre sending him back to prison. Did he commit a serious crime that we dont know about, or are they using a technicality to punish him for blasphemy?
Anyone want to bet he'll be released on condition he stops slandering The Prophet of Islam and removes the video?
And if that happens -- who can argue this isn't precisely what it obviously is?
Meanwhile... The FBI still hasn't been to the scene of the crime in Benghazi.
Claims They Were #Hacked!
— Ace The DC Board of Elections and Ethics is responsible for, context clues inform me, elections and ethics in DC.
Their Twitter account posted a link to the liberal blog Talking Point Memo, getting all mad that Scott Brown dared to bring up Elizabeth Warren's non-existent Indian heritage.
Someone went to the trouble, you see, of hacking their account, and only posted a short tweet directing people to Talking Points Memo.
See, that's what hackers do. They invest hours to crack your password, then post brief political tweets linking people to liberal blogs.
"Somebody must have hacked into our account and posted that," Raper added. "Anybody who had worked here previously who had access to the Twitter account could have posted it or either someone posted it by accident."
The agency has since changed the account's password.
Yup. That's what I call Classic Hacker Behavior. Runninrebel agrees: "Whenever I commit a felony I like to do it for no real reason other than to share information of little importance. "
SD Tom adds:
The "hacker" didn't change their Twitter account password too after all that time and effort to crack the original password? So they were able to just jump onto their Twitter account and immediately change their password then? Really?
Like I said, a classic hack.
Thanks to Gabe.
...may have been hacked by an Unknown User's penis. That's the best explanation I can provide, given the information available to me.
No, I'm not going to check my own penis. I have ruled my penis out as a suspect.
An impartial source has corroborated my penis' alibi. Who? None of your business, Ms. Noseypants.
— Ace So... I'm not getting the PS3 I actually asked for, huh?
Also, the worst death scene ever put in a movie. It's from the Turks, of course. more...
43 queries taking 2.8789 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.