Got to admit...

[Kiwon]

...that's a great photo.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/092308_billpalin3.jpg

[Iron Mike]

http://idhitit.org/gallery/general069.jpg

[Iron Mike]

http://idhitit.org/gallery/general039.jpg

[Iron Mike]

http://idhitit.org/gallery/general045.jpg

Headed str8 for t3h GC.

[SkinBasket]

Headed str8 for t3h GC.

Nah. You need sarcasm or lesbians to end up there.

[Freak Out]

Speaking of pit bulls...it's nice to see this bitch got a longer sentence.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8TSKa-2ZJrsKxEwXgeqRNQZ13iAD93C4P6O0

[Kiwon]

Speaking of pit bulls...it's nice to see this bitch got a longer sentence.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8TSKa-2ZJrsKxEwXgeqRNQZ13iAD93C4P6O0

It took seven years to finally settle this case.

San Francisco justice?

I'm not kidding. I was wondering whose life, rights took precedence in the eyes of a San Fran judge and jury - the ultra-left hetero couple, the lesbian couple, or the dogs?

[falco]

Speaking of pit bulls...it's nice to see this bitch got a longer sentence.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8TSKa-2ZJrsKxEwXgeqRNQZ13iAD93C4P6O0

It took seven years to finally settle this case.

San Francisco justice?

I'm not kidding. I was wondering whose life, rights took precedence in the eyes of a San Fran judge and jury - the ultra-left hetero couple, the lesbian couple, or the dogs?

maybe nobody? there isn't a fucking slant to everything that happens, no matter how much you want to read into it

[Kiwon]

Speaking of pit bulls...it's nice to see this bitch got a longer sentence.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8TSKa-2ZJrsKxEwXgeqRNQZ13iAD93C4P6O0

It took seven years to finally settle this case.

San Francisco justice?

I'm not kidding. I was wondering whose life, rights took precedence in the eyes of a San Fran judge and jury - the ultra-left hetero couple, the lesbian couple, or the dogs?

maybe nobody? there isn't a fucking slant to everything that happens, no matter how much you want to read into it

San Francisco: Sanctuary city for illegals, anti-ROTC, anti-Marine recruiting station, anti-Navy ship memorial, pro-impreach Bush, gay porn capital, Folstom Street Fair, the city that pays for employees that want a sex change operation, home to The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence that mock, go into churches and disrupt others taking Mass.

Oh yeah, San Francisco is just as much Main Street, USA as Crandon, Wisconsin.

http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/images/homepage_slides/06Fol_8787.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Photo_Shoot_For_Halloween_1995_Poster_Photo_by_Bri an_Ashby.gif/180px-Photo_Shoot_For_Halloween_1995_Poster_Photo_by_Bri an_Ashby.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/SistersPerpetualIndulgenceHunkyJesusCompetition.jp g/180px-SistersPerpetualIndulgenceHunkyJesusCompetition.jp g

http://www.folsomstreetfair.com/images/fsf_theme/slides/three_poster_theme_CA_FR_583px.jpg[/img]

[falco]

keep fighting the good fight kiwon :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is like he doesn't even bother to read the article. I guess appealing to the supreme court is a San Fran thing as well. :roll:

[Kiwon]

keep fighting the good fight kiwon :five:

"Never give up, never surrender!"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1f/Galaxy_Quest_poster.jpg/200px-Galaxy_Quest_poster.jpg

And you keep living on Planet falco.

[falco]

unfortunately kiwon, i live in the real world...where your brand of prejudice, intolerance, and hate is all too common.

[Kiwon]

unfortunately kiwon, i live in the real world...where your brand of prejudice, intolerance, and hate is all too common.

Yes, liberals like you have your own unique brand of prejudice, intolerance, and hate. It's centered in academia, the media, and the Democratic Party.

Then there's the rest of us.

What is "unfortunate" about living in the real world?

[falco]

you've got me pegged all wrong kiwon - but it doesn't bother me in the least. your judgment is typically lacking in all other matters.

[Freak Out]

Fuck a duck Kiwon....my point was that justice was served. Sometimes it takes a little longer because of appeal but the Judge did the right thing in the end and made sure the bitch sits behind bars for as long as possible. Does it matter if it's in SF or Scranton? Oh wait.....the victim was a lesbian?

[Kiwon]

Fuck a duck KiwonI'll leave that for someone at the Folsom Street Fair to do this Sunday.



....my point was that justice was served. Sometimes it takes a little longer because of appeal but the Judge did the right thing in the end and made sure the bitch sits behind bars for as long as possible. Does it matter if it's in SF or Scranton? Oh wait.....the victim was a lesbian?

I've followed this case a little since it happened. Yes, it was a big deal in San Francisco that the victim was a lesbian. She was well-known and since it was before gay marriage was legal anywhere, an interesting undercurrent focused on the rights of the surviving partner and her loss/suffering as compared to those of a lawful spouse.

In addition, since San Francisco is the haven for individual rights and champions freedom of expression, it has naturally become balkanized into a place of competing factions each seeped in a psyche of victimhood. This case brought several of these into conflict in the most leftist judicial city in America where laws are selectively enforced.

That the woman was violently killed by the dogs was not in question. That it took seven years to assign the blame and then finally mete out the appropriate punishment is remarkable.

Why did the San Francisco Superior Court judge arbitrarily disregard the jury's verdict, rule on his own and overturn the second-degree murder conviction?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/18/MN142223.DTL

I say his decision reflects the problematic non-judgmental climate existing in San Francisco today. (If you recall, there were protests by animal rights folks over putting these dogs down even though they ripped this woman to pieces. BTW, they were Presa Canario/mastiff mixes, not Pit Bulls.) It took the California State Supreme Court to bring a reasoned perspective, reinstate the original conviction and send it back to the San Francisco Superior Court.

I'm glad justice was eventually served as well. It should not have taken seven years. In other communities this case would have been settled in a 1/3 of the time. Bottom line, I think San Francisco is a very screwed up place (no pun intended) on many levels. That's the point I'm making.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It would be nice if you actually knew what you are talking about.

The first trial was in LA...oops. So, all your lesbian, undercurrent, etc...doesn't even apply. Of course, i'm sure to you, that LA is also a den of inequity.

[Freak Out]

Fuck a duck KiwonI'll leave that for someone at the Folsom Street Fair to do this Sunday.



....my point was that justice was served. Sometimes it takes a little longer because of appeal but the Judge did the right thing in the end and made sure the bitch sits behind bars for as long as possible. Does it matter if it's in SF or Scranton? Oh wait.....the victim was a lesbian?

I've followed this case a little since it happened. Yes, it was a big deal in San Francisco that the victim was a lesbian. She was well-known and since it was before gay marriage was legal anywhere, an interesting undercurrent focused on the rights of the surviving partner and her loss/suffering as compared to those of a lawful spouse.

In addition, since San Francisco is the haven for individual rights and champions freedom of expression, it has naturally become balkanized into a place of competing factions each seeped in a psyche of victimhood. This case brought several of these into conflict in the most leftist judicial city in America where laws are selectively enforced.

That the woman was violently killed by the dogs was not in question. That it took seven years to assign the blame and then finally mete out the appropriate punishment is remarkable.

Why did the San Francisco Superior Court judge arbitrarily disregard the jury's verdict, rule on his own and overturn the second-degree murder conviction?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/18/MN142223.DTL

I say his decision reflects the problematic non-judgmental climate existing in San Francisco today. (If you recall, there were protests by animal rights folks over putting these dogs down even though they ripped this woman to pieces. BTW, they were Presa Canario/mastiff mixes, not Pit Bulls.) It took the California State Supreme Court to bring a reasoned perspective, reinstate the original conviction and send it back to the San Francisco Superior Court.

I'm glad justice was eventually served as well. It should not have taken seven years. In other communities this case would have been settled in a 1/3 of the time. Bottom line, I think San Francisco is a very screwed up place (no pun intended) on many levels. That's the point I'm making.

I had to go with the Bull Terrier breed because this is a Palin thread. :)

[Freak Out]

Found this on NRO. I was somewhat surprised.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

— Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist.

[Freak Out]

NRO as well.

Free Sarah Palin!
A plea for authenticity in the veepstakes.

By Kathryn Jean Lopez

I absolutely refuse to watch another Sarah Palin interview.

It’s not because I don’t like the lady and don’t want to hear what she has to say. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. It’s because I want to hear what she’s about and what she believes in and that’s why I won’t listen anymore.

I’ve watched her with Charlie Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric since she’s become the vice-presidential nominee. I’ve gotten a sense that she can take a fight. That she has some good instincts. That she clings to her Bible and her Second Amendment and the Obamas wouldn’t get her. I like all that about her.

But I also watch these interviews and I cringe a little. That Russia answer with Couric. Oy. It was a loaded question to be sure. But I thought a certain governor of Alaska had told us this was a time for no blinking. For (Uncle) Sam’s sake. You’re Sarah Palin. You’re governor of Alaska. You’re the mom of five. You’re married to a tough guy. You can handle America’s Former Sweetheart. And yet, you didn’t. She may have come off catty, but you came off hesitant and unprepared. What happened to the pitbull? I see the lipstick.

I don’t know Sarah Palin. Having missed the last cruise to Alaska, I’ve actually never met her. National Review wasn’t on her list of stops this week in New York. So I can’t pretend to know what her wiring is all about. But I know I like a lot of what I’ve heard her say. I also know a lot of what I like about her could be projection. I’m not where my friend Kathleen Parker is — wanting her to step aside to spend more time with her family and Alaska — but that’s not a crazy suggestion. She's right to say that something’s gotta change.

My guess — based on nothing but hope for a change — is that Sarah Palin just needs some freedom. I don’t know who is holding her back but if John McCain wants to win this thing it had better not be him and his staff. When I watch these interviews, I see a woman who looks like she’s stayed up all night studying and is trying to remember the jurisprudential chronology of privacy vis-a-vis reproduction, the war on terror, and public figures (add 12 more things, described in the most complicated way possible, to the list to be more accurate). She looks like a woman who’s been cramming talking points and great Matt Scully lines and Mark Salter-McCain war stories and Steve Schmidt marching orders into her head since that first plane ride from Alaska. She looks like a woman who has ceased being the confident, successful executive who got herself elected governor of Alaska without the full force of her party behind her and managed to have an approval rating of which most can’t even dream.

This seems wholly unnecessary. People love Sarah Palin when they see her. When she’s firing at full force, she comes off as authentic, self-possessed, and ready for a fight. If that is Sarah Palin, that’s the Sarah Palin who should be talking to everyone she can. That’s the Sarah Palin who should call up Rush Limbaugh. That’s the Sarah Palin who should go on The View. Heck, I thought she should have dropped in on Keith Olbermann while she was in the Big Apple and charm his official Bush-Derangement-Syndrome socks off or be cheered for trying.

Conservatives are inclined to love Palin. Hard-working, all-American family men and women who don’t have their head full of left-wing theories about Republicans are frequently warm to her — if not outright excited. Even the Left knows the attraction or they wouldn’t be going so insane over her.

She’s a rapist! She’s a fascist! She’s not a woman!

If Sarah Palin is John McCain’s secret weapon, let her go, whoever is holding her back. And, frankly, if it turns out that the “authentic” Palin of rallies and the Republican convention is just good speech delivery in a woman with some good spirit, I want to know that sooner rather than later. (Mitt’s still available. Someone in Washington who can actually run a business and knows something about the economy will come in handy once the federal government owns the U.S. banking system.) But if the Palin we know and love and have projected our hopes for sanity in American politics is the real Sarah Palin — then come out from the shadows, woman. You’re the one who is going to win this election. Be yourself. Otherwise, what’s the point?

— Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I hated Parker when i lived in Orlando, now i think i'm in love.

The lipstick is off the pig!