Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From one of the quintessential dumbasses of our time, Chuck Norris, waxing eloquent about the 9/12 protest in Washington:
What I loved about the 9/12 idea is that it was a non-political, non-partisan movement. The 9-12 Project was designed to bring Americans back to the place where we were on Sept. 12, 2001 - the day after America was attacked by terrorists. We were not concerned then with red states, blue states or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect our nation.
Yes, and what better way to unite us as Americans than to rail against the president, voted in by more than half the voters in this country, as a terrorist-loving illegal alien communist fascist out to destroy liberty, kill grandma and eat Sarah Palin's baby.
Oh, and guess what? This uber-patriot is actually advocating staining American flags!
So what do you say we make a statement by flying a different flag, and educate our neighbors when they ask us, "Why are you flying that flag instead of the contemporary stars and stripes?" (If you insist on posting a modern U.S.A. flag too, then get one that has been tea stained, to show your solidarity with our founders).
The link, of course, goes to a page where you can buy tea-stained American flags from the Worldnutdaily (because patriotism, as we all know, is really about marketing). Can you imagine if some liberal deliberately stained a flag to make a political statement? They would be condemned as heathens, traitors and, at the very least, probably French.
Personally, I couldn't possibly care any less what anyone does to any flag as long as they own it. Stain it, burn it, hang it upside down, strain cheese through it for all I care (even French cheese). But this is the kind of thing the loopy right would go apeshit over if it was done by a liberal.
Politics
Comments
Someone needs to give the written exam for US Citizenship to all WND commentators. I think the average immigrant would out-perform them.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | September 22, 2009 9:27 AM
Based on what my wife had to learn for her US Citizenship test, I would say that the average immigrant would out perform most Americans with ease.
Posted by: James | September 22, 2009 9:33 AM
Isn't it weird how when a liberal says a war is unnecessary, or that workers should have a fair wage, he or she is a traitor, but when conservatives openly advocate secession and wave about the symbols of people who actually tried to destroy our federation to benefit themselves, they are patriots?
Liberal says religion should be kept out of schools: Traitor
Conservative advocates shooting policemen, hoarding guns, and training to overthrow the government: Patriot
Its almost as if they define civic loyalty and love of one's country as agreeing with them.
Posted by: Julian | September 22, 2009 9:50 AM
From WND:
I can't find a reference for this, but right after the Boston Tea Party didn't Ben Franklin insist that the owners of the destroyed tea be reimbursed? And if that's true then I have to ask, why does Ben Franklin hate America?
Posted by: Imrryr | September 22, 2009 9:58 AM
My daughter and the foreign exchange student we hosted from what used to be East Germany took a high school AP US History class together and when I took our visitor to Washington DC, we went to the national archives building where she stood in the rotunda and pointed out nearly every document on display. She knew what it was and why it was there. The room was full as it usually is and I would estimate from the stares and blank looks she was one of only a handful who knew what half the documents were. Or cared.
I'd be surprised if good ol' Chuckie can find his ass with both hands.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 22, 2009 10:03 AM
Somehow I'd bet that the "different flag" will be a Confederate one. Most of the teabaggers, birfers & such already seem to have them.
Posted by: Rob Jase | September 22, 2009 10:04 AM
I thought you were supposed to keep your flag clean as a patriotic gesture. Chuck-o wants us to stain it with tea (which doesn't even come from the USA)?
Posted by: wheatdogg | September 22, 2009 10:08 AM
Well, at least the stained flags are attractive. To me at least.
Posted by: Abstruse | September 22, 2009 10:30 AM
Hey Chucky - you want to stain the Ol' Glory with Camellia sinensis? Doesn't 'sinnensis' mean Chinese, one of them commie countries?
Why do you hate America so, Chucky, WHY??* - DJ
______________________
*Personally I'd show solidarity to my Muslim Brothers and Sisters by using Coffea arabica, but mainly 'cause I prefer the taste. Hmmm ... coffee & doughnuts. Why do cops hate American so? :)
Posted by: DIngoJack | September 22, 2009 10:44 AM
I just wish that Chuck would spend his time working on a "Bowflex for the brain". His has obviously atrophied from lack of exercise.
Abstruse:
Are you any kin to "Killer Abs" (one of Chuck's best friends)?
"Its almost as if they define civic loyalty and love of one's country as agreeing with them.
Posted by: Julian"
"They define civic loyalty and love of one's country as agreeing with them."
There, fixed that for ya!
Posted by: democommie | September 22, 2009 10:48 AM
"Yes, and what better way to unite us as Americans than to rail against the president, voted in by more than half the voters in this country, as a terrorist-loving illegal alien communist fascist out to destroy liberty, kill grandma and eat Sarah Palin's baby."
Lol, silly Ed. The whole point of the 9/12 project is to unite real Americans against both the enemy without (basically every every nation but Israel, and that last only because the 'old Israel' is doomed to destruction when Jebus returns to uplift the 'new Israel', and one guess where that last is) and the enemy within (Barack Hussein Muhammed al-Kenya Jose Cuervo Sotero X, of course). What good is being unified if you don't have an enemy to oppose?
"Personally, I couldn't possibly care any less what anyone does to any flag as long as they own it. Stain it, burn it, hang it upside down, strain cheese through it for all I care (even French cheese). But this is the kind of thing the loopy right would go apeshit over if it was done by a liberal."
The American flag represents conservatives; they get to use it as political speech, liberals don't.
/
Posted by: mad the swine | September 22, 2009 10:51 AM
Visions of Chucky bring to mind the exact type of person who would listen to him. really. Does anyone expect an intelligent person to listen to Chuck Norris? I mean come on the man is apparently not aware that his hair looks like baby puke...and he must like it because he keeps paying to have it colored baby puke Norris.
The man is a joke and does more harm to the tin hatters than they realize.
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | September 22, 2009 11:13 AM
I'm beginning to think that NunChuck Norris believed most of his Hollyweird work to be historical re-enactment and documentary.
Posted by: democommie | September 22, 2009 11:21 AM
LOL ed.. They would be condemned as heathens, traitors and, at the very least, probably French.
hahahah french... love it.
Posted by: L. stanley | September 22, 2009 11:36 AM
Chuck Norris Fact:
Chuck doesn't need to wear hats because he keeps his head warm by keeping it firmly lodged his rectum.
Posted by: question evil | September 22, 2009 11:45 AM
As someone who drinks a lot of tea I'm getting kind of sick of this tea=patriotic thing.
Of course those of us who actually drink the stuff instead of a good ol' American cup of joe are considered foreign liberal fancy lettuce-eating hippie elitists...
Posted by: deep | September 22, 2009 11:52 AM
Love this:
This is idiotic on more levels than I can count. Norris has taken far too many kicks to the head.
Posted by: Dr X | September 22, 2009 11:52 AM
Mad the Swine,
Your poe-ness has been dropping lately. On your recent posts I can see the tongue planted firmly in your cheek. Step it up to your prior level, where you had us railing against you, again!
Posted by: James Hanley | September 22, 2009 11:53 AM
@James Hanley #18
I agree. I was ready to throttle mad over in the "Fire Chief shot" thread.
The last day or two, I find myself nodding and giggling. Frankly, it's disconcerting.
Posted by: Ranson | September 22, 2009 12:11 PM
The word the right-wing invariably apply to those who would deface an American flag is "desecration." Except in this case, of course....
Posted by: flatlander100 | September 22, 2009 12:19 PM
Imrryr,
Did Franklin make that suggestion while an ambassador in London or Versailles? That unAmerican liberal peacenik.
Posted by: Schmeer | September 22, 2009 1:05 PM
The American flag represents conservatives; they get to use it as political speech, liberals don't.
That is so anti Christian. That false idol thing at all.
Funny how the perceived party of secular atheist commie nazis is the party who runs its political party closer to the way the Conservatives claim as theirs.
Posted by: theroachman | September 22, 2009 1:33 PM
(If you insist on posting a modern U.S.A. flag too, then get one that has been tea stained, to show your solidarity with our founders).
It's good to see ol' Chucky is advocating a violation of the U.S. Flag Code. He's probably got a pair of American flag boxers, too...
Posted by: Geds | September 22, 2009 1:50 PM
I have to admit, I kind of miss the crazy, over the top poe-piggy. ;o)
Though #11 was accurate and amusing...
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 22, 2009 1:52 PM
It's just great that these people can look back with such fond nostalgia on 9/12/01. The uncertainty, the fear -- and if you were friend or family to someone who died or was still missing in the aftermath of the day before, it was such a magical day.
These idiots should be kicked in the ass, since that's where their brains apparently are.
Posted by: Chayanov | September 22, 2009 1:53 PM
Chayanov- yeah, the eerie silence in the skies over the entire country, the incessant replay of the impacts on every news channel, the stifling horror of the first attempts to come to grips with the tragedy....
9/12/01. Yeah, good times. *sniff*
Posted by: Rick R | September 22, 2009 2:41 PM
Has anybody brought up the flag code and desecration to the morons at WND? I haven't gone there except by accident in a long time, and was just curious. I am not sure what part of the flag code might apply - there are several relating to "soiled" or "damaged", and maybe the few about marketing? Anyone have any concrete idea if this is actually illegal or just in poor taste?
Posted by: Badger3k | September 22, 2009 3:07 PM
Teabaggers take their inspiration from Rex kwan do:
"You need somebody watching out for you against danger at all times. Secondly, you're going to learn to discipline your image. Do you think I got where I am today because I dressed in an effeminate way, like Kip over here? Take a look at what I'm wearing, people. Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face while I'm wearing these bad boys?"
The right doesn't care about the American flag; it has become a Napoleon Dynamite character.
Posted by: Chuck | September 22, 2009 3:22 PM
It's exactly like that.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 22, 2009 3:43 PM
The tea-stained flag reminds me of something that happened back in the early 90s. The state rep for for my district made a big deal of his support for a flag desecration amendment to the US constitution. To show his constituents how much he loved the flag, he sent us plastic automobile trash bags emblazoned with the flag--a flag to hold our trash.
Posted by: Dr X | September 22, 2009 3:57 PM
Posted by: Taz | September 22, 2009 4:53 PM
Rex Kwan Do is weak. Ti Kwan Leep is the wine of purity, not the vinegar of hostility. Allow me to demonstrate... boot to the head.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 22, 2009 5:17 PM
So, Chuck wants the US to return to "the place where we were on Sept 12, 2001". Maybe he means, confused and scared so shitless that we were willing to let the (Vice) President do whatever he wanted, run roughshod over the Constitution, and ramrod any legislation through a spineless Congress to repeal any and all civil and human rights?
That place?
Uh, no thanks. I don't think I want to go there again. Didn't work out so well the first time.
Posted by: Scott | September 22, 2009 5:47 PM
Poor Chuck just can't get past his attraction to little boys so he has to find ways to keep busy.
Posted by: Lynn McDaniel | September 22, 2009 5:58 PM
Chuck Norris Fact: He can put his foot in his mouth, and his head up his ass, and still lick his elbow.
Posted by: MarkusR | September 22, 2009 6:11 PM
Calling these people teabaggers cracks me up. Over here in Australia, teabagging is placing ones (male) genitals on the head of another person while said person is sleeping, as a form of insult. Similar to turkey slapping.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | September 22, 2009 9:54 PM
MarkusR wins.
Posted by: Velociraptor | September 22, 2009 9:57 PM
Does anyone know who really writes the articles under Chuckie's byline. I would put him in the Sarah Palin level of literacy.
Turkey slapping??!!!???
Posted by: wrpd | September 22, 2009 10:00 PM
My husband joined the Marine Corps in 1961. He's mellowed a lot since then, but he's still picky about the flag. My father is a WWII vet and he can get picky too.
We had a flag flying in our front yard long before 9/11/2001. My husband can't stand for it to tangled around the pole by wind and replaces it before it becomes noticeably frayed.
One argument we had was whether the flag should be flown when it's raining. He says, "Of course, a little rain isn't going to harm the flag." I was taught in elementary school that when the weather turns sour, the flag should be lowered.
But I have come to admire his stance. The flag can stand a lot and it's sort of wimpy to put it under cover at the first sign of adversity.
I'm quite sure that many commenters here will think us rabid right wing rednecks, but I don't really mind. Think what you will. The flag is a symbol and like all symbols, it can be perverted in directly conflicting ways.
Thirty years ago I noticed the perverted commercial use of the flag by car dealerships in Dallas. You'd think there was a contest going on to see which one had the biggest flag on the tallest pole with the most powerful spotlight.
Fifteen years before that I witnessed flags being burned and stomped on. I thought that was a fairly silly way to make a political statement, but it wasn't quite as revolting as the commercial displays. Unless the flag-burning was held in conjunction with a bra burning.
But then, I always thought running a bra up a flag pole was funny.
Though I consider myself a conservative, I don't think of myself as a Republican or right-wing. Socially, I align with liberals in most ways, though I think some aspects of feminism have jumped the shark.
As for Chuck Norris, I've always considered him an unaware comedian. I mean, did you ever watch "Walker"? Good grief, what a silly show. They couldn't even get the landscape right when they actually shot on location. How inept do you have to be to screw that up?
However, I can say that he's not entirely wrong about the feeling of the country on 9/12. We were united, but in grief, not non-partisanship.
The tea party movement (or as I like to call it, the tea party happening) is not related to the terrorists attacks at all. It is primarily a revolt against excess government spending and the bailouts. Like every happening in the 60s, there were fringe nuts (I can't categorize them as wings...) who were there for attention only.
Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are the fringe nuts in the tea party movement. They are trying to take credit for something they really had nothing to do with. Chuck Norris is just another hanger-on too.
Fortunately for the "left-type" pundits they present great false targets. It's too easy to ignore the real message of disgust with government spending when you've got someone flapping their wings and shouting "look at me" on the edges.
Overall, I think I'm damned lucky to live in a country where we can have national, rather petty, political disagreements based on what self-proclaimed celebrities utter.
There was nothing petty about the attacks on 9/11/2001 and that's when we, as a country, as a people, as humans, united. We feel rather safe again now, thus free to resume the somewhat petty partisan disagreements.
Posted by: Donna B. | September 22, 2009 11:03 PM
Donna B.
I appreciate you sharing your view point, but I have to ask....where was the tea party movement when G W Bush was spending money out the wazzoo? Iraq war, tax cuts, running up the debt? Funny how the tea partiers start complaining now with a Dem in office. The "left-type pundits" point out the hypocrisy of the tea partiers and question their true motivation. Because they don't care about money being spent when a Republican is in charge. Until the tea party movement is consistent in its demands on both D and R administrations, they will be considered hypocritical and partisan.
Posted by: Boudica | September 22, 2009 11:57 PM
Donna B. @ 39:
I think you have a very distorted view of those who oppose conservatism. I happen to despise conservatism because I love my country. I proudly fly a flag on the front of my home.
And to pile on to Boudica's point, the last President and a Republican-majority Congress went on a spending spree that went un-protested by the tea baggers. The results of both their copious spending using borrowed money, coupled to creating future debt with new initiatives (Medicare Plan D) was far greater than any agenda on the current Democratic leaders' table. For example, President Bush inherited no federal deficit, the deficit is the amount of money the government will outlay relative to the revenue it will receive for a specific period of time, normally measured in years. Our federal budget for 2010 - 2020 includes a $600 billion a year deficit that is directly attributable to the Bush years.
Another example is the Democrats' health insurance reform efforts - their plans range from about a $800 billion to $1.75 billion deficit over ten years to subsidize their efforts to create universal health insurance coverage. The total cost to the total economy however would see health care costs not go up relative to inflation, which is far slower growth in costs than we've experienced since the 1960s in spite of 14,000 people a day currently losing their insurance. President Bush and a GOP-majority created a drug plan for Medicare, Part D, that they never even attempted to fund. That unfunded liability is $8 trillion dollars a far greater cost than the Democrats health insurance reform efforts with a far narrower benefit and which wasn't even funded.
The last President inherited $20 trillion in unfunded debt when he took office in 2001, this figure represents future liabilities with no budgetary plan supported by law to fund these liabilities. By the time Mr. Bush left office that number had swelled to $56 trillion, about $36 trillion is future Medicare obligations (which includes the $8 trillion mentioned previously). Those obligations start to become booked debt in around 2015 - 2018; booked debt is debt that is realized and therefore interest payments start.
The current President appears serious about insuring that we do two things when it comes to fiscal discipline:
1) Address root cause issues that will cause future economic stagnation if not addressed, e.g., entitlement reform, energy and therefore environmental policy, health insurance reform, and education. If we don't get these sorts of reforms right, our private economy won't grow as fast and our current taxation schemes will not be adequate to fund our future spending obligations in Defense and entitlement spending and obligations.
A prime example is that America is starting to see a brain drain of legal immigrants going back to China and India. These are people who were educated here and get paid high salaries. We need more of these people to: a) reduce the ratio of baby boomers retiring relative to the number of people working and paying for their retirement and health care, and b) spread the risk of health insurance from an aging demographic given these people are younger and healthier, and c) leverage their intellectual capital by having their innovations seed future economic growth here in the U.S. rather than their country of origin.
All of these initiatives make it easier to fund future obligations without increased taxes by growing the economy. President Bush actually put policies in place favored by tea baggers than made this situation worse, not better, which is one reason this brain drain is occurring for the first time in the U.S.
2) The current President is attempting to do this by funding all his current- and he says, future initiatives without raising the deficit, leaving only Bush's $600 billion per year structural deficit.
One way to eradicate Bush's stuctural deficit is to cut Defense spending or raise revenues via its services. The former by scaling back, the latter by charging our clients in Asia and Europe for our protecting them. Given Obama is a liberal Democrat, he has no political capital for such a project. Even Sen. McCain lobbied for defense spending reform when running for President, it is only one of two cost items that can have an effect on our debt (the other is entitlement spending, i.e., Social Security and Medicare). If the teabaggers were truly serious about the debt, they would be protesting Obama not reforming defense spending quickly enough to bring down future debt, yet we hear nary a peep on this matter from them.
So it seems odd to me that the very President who appears to willing to risk his political capital on taking on the hard task of meeting our future liabilities on entitlement spending and out of control health care costs is the one being protested for prolificate spending while hearing nothing from the teabaggers when most of this debt was being created by the very elected officials they supported who either helped create this mess or ignored it when in power. Something else must be in play.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 23, 2009 8:23 AM
Michael Heath:
"Something else must be in play."
A mix of the burning stoopid and hypocrisy will cover that.
Posted by: democommie | September 23, 2009 11:53 AM
@Michael Heath #41 - I'm now strongly tempted to attend the next tea-bagging demonstration in the DC area. I'll be the one holding a sign which contains all of what you have said here in really small font. Seriously, that was well said.
Posted by: Imrryr | September 23, 2009 12:16 PM
I'm also thinking about leading chants at the next protest:
Me: "What do we want?"
Crowd: "We want Obama to eradicate Bush's structural deficit by cutting Defense spending or by raising revenues via its services! The former would be done by scaling back, the latter by charging our clients in Asia and Europe for our protecting them!"
Me: "When do we want it?"
Crowd: "Within a reasonable period of time!"
Ok, it's a dream, but that's my kind of protest.
Posted by: Imrryr | September 23, 2009 12:38 PM
The tea party sentiment began while Bush was in office. If you don't remember any grumbling and dissent from conservatives, you weren't listening/reading. The sentiment bubbled up to a boil with the bailout of the banks while Bush was still in office.
It bubbled over with the stimulus package and the bailout of GM & Chrysler. The cost of health care reform has turned up the fire a bit more.
Posted by: Donna B. | September 23, 2009 12:49 PM
Donna B.:
Ummm, nah. What happened towards the end of Bushco was that the idiots who are now Teabrains abandoned the Farreichwing of the GOP and became Palinistas. When that dead horse had had the stuffing beaten out of it, they wandered aimlessly until re-animated by Limpboy.
Posted by: demcommie | September 23, 2009 2:06 PM
Donna, you've indicated that you believe the media is being unfair by focusing on easy targets misrepresenting the teabag movement. Who do you consider to be a fair voice of what you actually believe the movement to be about? Why would this person be a more accurate representative of the "real" movement than, say, the protester's signs and statements that we regularly see? And would you mind linking to said person's equitable criticism of Bush, if you have a moment?
Posted by: Stephanie W. | September 23, 2009 2:08 PM
Donna @ 45 - you completely avoid the core arguments I made at 41 with a rhetorical diversion that doesn't reconcile to the facts.
The notion of starting a grass roots teabaggers revolt did not start with the bank bailouts as you claim. In fact, the astro-turfing efforts started in the summer of 2008, before anyone envisioned bank bailouts would be needed in the near term. Teabagging was a plan that was generated not by anything Bush started to do that was followed through by Obama, it was started by a few well-connected (within the GOP) business interests because it was foreseen that the Democrats would win the office of the Presidency and add to their seats in Congress. Research Dick Armey for one example.
The architects behind teabaggers were concerned about their losing certain discriminatory tax schemes that both reduced their tax liabilities and could knock down barriers to entry allowing others to compete against them in the marketplace (e.g., health insurance companies with oligarchies in several states) - which is fair enough to advocate for, but they do so in a deceptive way by riling up certain ignorant, poor, delusional populists who unknowingly advocate on their behalf and against these populists' very financial interests.
This phenomena was both observed and predicted by Thomas Franks in his seminal book, What's the Matter with Kansas? written several years ago. Franks observed how financial interests can get voters to support them even when the monied interests' objectives harm their target audience of voters. Franks' thesis has been validated several times in the past few years, the teabaggers merely being the most recent. The best example was getting 2004 poor, white Ohio voters to vote for Bush because of their hatred of gays in spite of the fact that Bush's tax policies were causing Ohioans to lose manufacturing jobs and Bush never intended to fight hard to after reelection to deny gays equal rights.
The teabagger astroturfing efforts have worked so well that the teabaggers are not even cognizant that their talking points can not be argued persuasively and these talking points reconcile perfectly with the talking points developed before the financial crisis in 2008 (e.g,. Rush Limbaugh started using them against Obama as soon as it was clear Obama was the Democratic nominee, he continues to call this recession, "Obama's recession" in spite of the fact that the recession started in the last calender quarter of 2007).
It's been repeatedly argued by credible economists of all stripes that not intervening with the banks, the auto companies, doing a stimulus plan, or reforming ever-spiraling health insurance costs would cause economic devastation in a far worse manner than what we're currently experiencing. When aggregate demand goes down, jobs are lost, which reduces the rate of revenues the government takes in since that's a factor of one's paycheck; coupled to increased expenditures given increased job losses for items such as unemployment and food stamps - causing not just a reduction in the size of the total economy, but the same amount of debt and a smaller economy to pay that debt back. The very demographic of people who teabag would have been hit the hardest if the government hadn't intervened in the financial crisis and recession. And while it's true that teabaggers are perfectly ignorant regarding elementary economic principles that were employed to defend our GDP, the debt we were are looking at defending in this recession in no way compares to the spending we saw out of Bush to fight the war in Iraq, his farm bill, his energy bill, not reforming Social Security and Medicare, creating a new unfunded Medicare Plan D. One should remember that much of the bailouts were invested, not expended, and while some losses are inevitable (the Chrysler bail-out), on a whole the Fed has actually made money on those. In fact The Fed made $28 billion last year including the last quarter of 2008.
So no Donna, there is no rational argument available to teabaggers if their intentions are as expressed. The math does not reconcile to their arguments.
If you actually love your country more than conservatism, I highly recommend your changing your news sources and try and bone up on economics. Your point of view would have us acting in a manner that would have caused global financial devastation, where wars would soon follow as they always do after such events. Fortunately for us Bush and Obama have trusted the economists on how to recover. Too bad for us that Bush ignored his prior to this mess (Bush's Budget Director warned him in 2003 that this scenario could occur if he kept creating additional debt that didn't grow the economy, though that is only one aspect for why the economy crashed, most was caused by events beyond the control of government with the exception of some legislation passed in 2000 allowing deregulated holding of assets by investment banks where they failed to adequately reserve liquid capital against these new assets.)
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 23, 2009 2:54 PM
My last point should have added that these investment banks also had no regulatory environment monitoring the legitimacy of how they valued these new assets (CDOs and CDSs) by adjusting their value over time (in addition to my noting they didn't adequately reserve for them).
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 23, 2009 3:00 PM
Jebus
Posted by: Bud | September 24, 2009 8:26 PM
Chuck Norris is an idiot. (This wacko thinks my fellow atheists and I are second-class citizens.)
I see he's been kicked in the head too many times.
Posted by: Katharine | September 24, 2009 11:05 PM
Wait, what?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "our clients in Asia and Europe" and by "protecting them"?
Because if you mean what I think you mean, I assure you it won't happen. At least, speaking as a European, not in Western Europe.
Posted by: catta | September 25, 2009 4:22 AM
Did a little research and you're wrong on this one Ed. If you read the article on World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=110452 , Chuck's first exclusive version of the column each week, he was obviously referring to a particular tea-stained-LOOKING flag that is sold on World Net Daily's store and is NOT actually tea stained! The words in his column are actually linked to the actual flag for sale http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2842 . Get a clue people! He's Chuck Norris--a staunch conservative! He wouldn't desecrate the flag!! But it's obvious a man like you is just looking for straws. Maybe next time?
Posted by: Dumbass OUT OF CONTEXT quote | September 25, 2009 9:52 PM
Hey, Dumbass . . ., do you really think the bit about a tea-stained flag was the dumbass part of the quote? Try re-reading the first part Ed cited and read the comments. Maybe you'll be able to figure out why what Chuck said was asinine.
Posted by: Taz | September 25, 2009 11:25 PM
Dumbass OUT OF CONTEXT quote* - and what, pray tell, IS the flag stained with?
Coffee? Mud? Potassium Permanganate? Or perhaps some kind of 'precious bodily fluid'?
Evidently, we are to believe that the Chuckster thinks some stains are magically less desecrating than others, they only 'seem to stain', and so only 'pretend to desecrate' the "American Flag*™.
This is the Chuckster we're talking about!
To him a stain is a stain, admitting anything less would be 'moral relativism'. That way leads to 'dogs and cats living together, 'gunfights on every street corner', 'same sex marriage', 'the sky falling in' and *shudder* DANCING! (at least in his eyes).
Except when there's a AstroTurf to lay, and money to be made, then it's 'Liars for Jesus' all the way down! -DJ
_______________
*Just the first word of your handle maybe more appropriate here.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 25, 2009 11:35 PM
Dumbass OUT OF CONTEXT quote, #53: He's Chuck Norris--a staunch conservative! He wouldn't desecrate the flag!!
Well, actually he desecrates the flag by pissing all over what it's supposed to stand for. Pretty much like most of those who pass as conservatives these days.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 25, 2009 11:46 PM
Dumbass - And what Taz said too.
I was so focused one set of idiocy, I ignored the even greater set. But, then again, The Chuckster is a whole different blackened kettle of fish. - DJ
_________________________
PS: "It's just A FREAKING CRACKER!!!"
Posted by: DingoJack | September 25, 2009 11:50 PM