For some time now it has been the standard operating procedure for some on the left to equate “climate-change deniers” to Holocaust deniers. We’re not sure whose clever idea this was. We are sure that it really wasn’t all that clever.
As is often the case with the progressives this rhetoric could only exist for so long before it was no longer progressive enough. Now, it seems, there is at least one guy willing to ditch the talk of Holocaust deniers and fantasize about incorporating the tactics of the very guys that brought that particular horror about.
Australian Broadcaster and Sydney Morning Herald columnist Richard Glover explains:
Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies. Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”
On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …
Achtung non-believer.
– Written by Kip Hooker at TheVitaminPress.com
Source: Sydney Morning Herald
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (102)
Did I say that? No really, point it out to me if I did. Did I ever say that conservatives couldn't express humour or satire? If you going to attack me, attack the points I make, not what someone else is saying.
LOL. Typical. Anyone that reads your original post will get that the liberal who said it, is funny, and those that read it and do not recognize the humor are non-intelligent. You cannot take back what you wrote. You knew very well what you were saying, don't try to act all innocent now.
You said "When liberals are cruel it is only humor, when conservatives are being funny they are dumb. Yes indeed that is something that only a “sane” person can come up with."
Then you said "LOL. Typical. Anyone that reads your original post will get that the liberal who said it, is funny, and those that read it and do not recognize the humor are non-intelligent. You cannot take back what you wrote. You knew very well what you were saying, don’t try to act all innocent now."
So, are you implying that I think the people attacking this guys statement are idiots or don't have a sense of humour? First you implied that I said they can't make jokes (which I didn't, hence why I responded as such), but now you're saying my response is implying that conservatives are dumb. Which one do you want me to say?
I'll make this clear. I think conservatives can be funny too, I just think people on here that are attacking these obviously satirical remarks are dumb.
If it helps, I'll extend the field to include those who can't keep their own argument on point to being dumb too. If this is still unclear, I specifically mean you.
You are trying too hard to bactrack. You are being far more than dumb. You are pathetic. I implied nothing...
Your post was clear:
"Good to see everyone here is intelligent enough to recongise humour, irony and sarcasm when it’s in front of them. Also, well done on being clear minded enough to read the entire article this was from and notice that this writers article takes a stab at environmentalists as well."
You may not consider this an insult to us here, you may consider this to be a compliment, but at best it is a backhanded compliment. Don't try to say now that you meant nothing by that. You are being disingenious and a hypocrite. You wanted to belittle us for not finding the humor that you found in the article. It is there in black and white!
I implied nothing I TYPED IT without implication, it was a very clear statement. You were the one that implied that we lack intelligence due to our inability to find the humor in this. You implied both things we lack humor and we are not intelligent.
Don't act innocent and hurt and that I am attacking you when you "attacked" us first. You came in here and insulted the posters right off. Get off your insincere indignant high horse, it is ridiculous.
"I’ll make this clear. I think conservatives can be funny too, I just think people on here that are attacking these obviously satirical remarks are dumb." Thanks for reiterating your initial post which is my entire point. Just because we don't agree that he was being "obviously satirical" doesn't make us dumb. Thanks for proving my point.
A cruel comment by a liberal is funny, the same comment from a conservative would have been hateful and racist. Deep inside you, you must know that I speak the truth. You would not be laughing you would be outraged if this came from a conservative.
"If it helps, I’ll extend the field to include those who can’t keep their own argument on point to being dumb too. If this is still unclear, I specifically mean you." No, no. I think you are mistaken. You are speaking of yourself.
You take offence at the suggestion you don't understand humour. And then quote a clearly satirical comment as the reason you're offended?
Sorry meant that as a thumbs down. You have no idea what is happening. He came in here looking for a fight and insulted us without knowing us making ASSumptions about our intelligence. He was not being humorous, he was being insulting, HE EVEN ADMITTED it. That was my whole point. Just because we may not agree with him on the content of Mr. Glover's discourse it doesn't make us stupid.
"Sorry meant that as a thumbs down. "
That's okay. I did it for you.
You are being exposed to a classic Commonwealth fit of smug superiority. I have to live with it every day.
What's the alternative?
"What’s the alternative?"
Having some of that smugness wiped off their superior mugs. Each poll showing that Canadians and Americans are losing interest in the cult of global warming is one more nail in the coffin of the alarmists. As Martha says, that's a good thing.
"...superiorists (pretty sure I just made that word up)..."
You did, but it's a great word. Well done.
What is America made of? Certainly not humble modest mice, you're right. But not ugly haters, either. I hear anti-American rants and raves every day and I find it disgusting.
For all their faults, the American people are, I believe, THE most generous and big-hearted people on this planet.
You may snork and disagree, but I've seen both sides, and I like their side best.
I mean what’s the alternative to us? If the commonwealth is full of smug superiorists (pretty sure I just made that word up), what’s the US full of? Cause it’s not humble, modest mice.
I've never said I agree with the content of his remarks. I'm talking about it's meaning, what he was saying, and the fact that people believed Richard's 'ideas' were genuine.
"I just love how there is an equation of climate change deniers to holocaust deniers while AT THE SAME TIME asking for the climate change deniers to be treated like Jews during the Holocaust."
You said it.
All Lellie has to do is read through the comments above these ones and she'll know exactly what has been going on here. None of our argument is hidden. Don't ASSume she hasn't already done so.
Whatever. Have a good life. I am bored with this.
Touche.
See, that's where you are so wrong. I have a lot of time for conservative ideas. I am in the middle of two extremes on this issue, and where I sit on that spectrum changes constantly. My problem is not with conservatives. I find a lot of what is being said here to be quite clever and funny. It's the (to borrow a phrase) bone headed people who immediately react to statements like these and don't for a second look to even understand it's context or desired effect that frustrate me. That is stupidity. That is ignorance at it's purist, and the sort of non-thinking that puts our world in danger.
At the moment Australia is deciding whether or not to instigate a carbon tax, but the more people I talk to about it, including friends and family, the more I realise they don't actually understand the facts of either side of the argument. People are too ready to follow the herd, to make snap judgements based on lack of or misinformation, and that's what I want to address. As I said in another comment, it's blogs like this that are half the problem. They aren't giving you the full picture, so people react, sometime violently, as proven by the threatening emails Richard received after his article was published, because they didn't bother to understand the context.
But, returning to you, proof of stupidity:
"You may not consider this an insult to us here, you may consider this to be a compliment, but at best it is a backhanded compliment."
What? Are you serious? How could you possibly find my statements complimentary? Do I need to tag my statements with a sarcastic tag from now on? Oh course I was trying to insult you! That was the most thinly veiled facetious comment I've ever written. But the implication isn't that you lack a sense of humour, it's that you lack an ability to see this statements in the context they were meant to be seen. All you seem to see is the context that this blog has presented them in.
You're right, I attacked first, and as the days have gone by now and my initial rage from reading the disgusting emails that were sent to Richard has subsided (this is the reason I came looking for places like this), I look back and admit my initial statements were over the top and inflammatory. Barb R in particular has been completely reasonable and clear minded in this discussion, and I have nothing but respect because of that. But don't assume anything about me, particularly where I stand on the GW debate. NONE of my comments have been as a GW supporter. They've all been about the unreasonable, unintelligent reaction to Richard's comments.
LOLOLOL
"What? Are you serious? How could you possibly find my statements complimentary? Do I need to tag my statements with a sarcastic tag from now on? Oh course I was trying to insult you!"
That comment of mine was sarcastic the fact that YOU didn't get it amuses me greatly. It proves my point even further that you have no business coming to us with that attitude regardless of what prompted you to come in here, which you admit was to go looking for a fight. So when someone gives you the fight to act all high and mighty failed and made you look like a hypocrite.
In any case, I made my point. You attacked us first and I called you on it and then you were trying some fake indignation about how I am attacking you which failed. Thanks for admitting that I was right about your initial post. In the end we can agree to disagree about the CONTENT of the Mr. Glover's discourse, but you came in with guns blazing and I called you on it. That is the whole point. It was not appropriate, you could have disagreed without being disagreable and not pretend that when you are called on it that the person is indicating they are stupid because that was not the case.
All in all you owe us all an apology.
“You may not consider this an insult to us here, you may consider this to be a compliment, but at best it is a backhanded compliment.”
I'm not familiar with this branch of 'comedy'. Is it the one that is ultimately unclear and lacks any real meaning? I didn't realise 'opposite day' was considered funny.
"...but you came in with guns blazing and I called you on it. That is the whole point. It was not appropriate, you could have disagreed without being disagreable..."
On that point you are right. I apologise for being so heated straight off that bat. It was a reaction to the disgusting hate-mail Richard Glover had received, and it was inappropriate of me to act like that to you and the other commenters straight off the bat.
But know that I stand by my ultimate point, that this man is receiving criticism inappropriate to his intention and his execution. For a lot of that, websites like this one which present his statements completely out of context are to blame.
Okay... I was being sarcastic. It amuses me that you didn't get it, yet you wanted us to find Glover funny. Whatever you know Sane? You can excuse your behavior anyway you want to. I am not going to read that entire post it is boring to me already. I am going to leave it as it is. You were wrong. You came in here with a bad attitude and I called you on it, and you didn't like it and now you want to prove that you are better than me and everyone else who disagree with you. You are a liberal, I get it. I am done with you and and I done with this conversation. I am sick of people like you and Olivia who come in here looking for a fight and then complain because they get it and then go into these interminable and boring ass rants about nothing. You are boring to me. I hope that you and Barb have a merry good time together then. Have a good life.
All you had to say was 'I'm only interested in flinging shit at each other and not having a proper discussion'. No worries.
"At the moment Australia is deciding whether or not to instigate a carbon tax..."
The Australian government is also considering killing wild camels as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
For real. Seriously.
The camels don't have natural predators and are apparently tearing up the Outback, causing a lot of damage. So yes, they need to be harvested in order to restore balance. Why is the Australian government so cowardly that they don't just say that? Probably don't want to deal with outrage from the animal lovers.
But since anything "green" is a winner, let's sell a camel slaughter by saying it's good for the environment! Brilliant! Is the Australian public so naive and gullible that they truly believe controlling the number of feral camels will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions?? Apparently that's a "yes".
And you wonder why we didn't immediately recognize Mr. Grover's column as "satire"?
Killing camels or tatting nonbelievers. Which one is the joke?
Where does the line form for a CamelBurger? I haven't tried that yet.
I've honestly heard great things about camel meat. Kangaroo is one I can completely recommend. It can be a bit tough if it's overcooked, but if done right it's delicious, and very lean! Get on it.
I 100% agree with you on that, the camel culling is totally absurd. And yeah, the term 'green' and 'enviro-friendly' is overused and abused in the name of other agendas. But I'm not trying to say that all these schemes are on the level, especially those proposed by the government.
But these are completely separate and very different parties. One is an opinion piece written in a newspaper, the other is a federally funded 'green initiative'. Their ultimate goal is completely different, and you can't assess their merits on the same scale.
You have to be careful. You took my mention of a real world situation as a way to attack my credibility. My point was about judgement based on a lack of information or information that lacks context (in this case, I was using the context of the proposed carbon tax). If you want to address this other issue, that's fine, but you have to abandon the other. They aren't one in the same.
And don't forget the free pajamas. Really nice striped ones.
When liberals are cruel it is only humor, when conservatives are being funny they are dumb. Yes indeed that is something that only a "sane" person can come up with.
Good to see everyone here is intelligent enough to recongise humour, irony and sarcasm when it's in front of them. Also, well done on being clear minded enough to read the entire article this was from and notice that this writers article takes a stab at environmentalists as well.
F--k I'm glad places like this exist so dick heads like you lot can spout stupid, racist, fascist, ignorant, hateful bullshit at each other and the rest of us don't have to suffer it.
"Good to see everyone here is intelligent enough to recongise humour, irony and sarcasm when it’s in front of them."
Uhm, did YOU read the article, Sane Person? If you go back and read it, Mr. Glover admitted to going a bit over the top out of his frustration with those who refuse to bend to his will.
Sarcasm, I recognize. Irony too, as discussed above (see above Cate Blanchett buying waterfront property on an island currently in death throes of rising ocean levels), but I believe hypocrisy is the more appropriate word.
As for humor, sorry, I just don't see it. I guess Commonwealth humor just escapes me.
Got to agree with Sane Person here - the article is 100% satirical humour.
If you don't understand that, then you've missed the whole point of the article. The original article was directed at a primarily Australian audience, and it's therefore assumed that they get the humour.
He only mentions it in the apology because so many Americans seem to have misinterpreted the whole thing.
Couldn't have said it better.
What is the best way to make something become socially acceptable? Make it funny.
I understand you point, but please keep the above in mind also.
"That is an incredibly cynical and pessimistic way to view humanity"
Yes, but do you have to teach a child to be bad? Or nice? Humanity is born into a selfish state, it only changes when taught to be better, or nice towards others.
I just read this article again and I you can't seriously tell me you think he is being serious about tattooing and buying property at sea level can you?
The fact that he DOES say it was a bit over the top is recognition, and a plane-as-day signal to the reader in case they haven't already understood it, that his statements are not meant to be taken literally. They are an extreme description meant to stir up a visual joke in ones own mind.
"The fact that he DOES say it was a bit over the top is recognition, and a plane-as-day signal to the reader in case they haven’t already understood it"
Except he didn't say that in the story. He said it in his apology.
"On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy."
That to me, in the context of the ongoing picture he is painting, sounds like a clear sign that he is not being serious.
And to go back to the discussion we are having further up this comment tree, I don't understand how you could jump to the conclusion that a journalist would or could even begin to foster these sorts of ridiculous ideas in reality. That is an incredibly cynical and pessimistic way to view humanity if just because someone uses a provocative statement to get attention he must automatically actually be interested in doing so. In my mind, that's like saying the creators, and perhaps players, of Grand Theft Auto are actually harbouring a desire to run people over in cars and beat prostitutes. They use that imagery to create an extreme scenario and provocative context to sell games, not because they actually want to do this sort of behaviour.
Hell yeah he's frustrated with those who can't see his point of view, but he also touches on the problems with GW extremists too:
"Not that the other side isn't frustrating. There's a type of green zealot who appears to relish climate change. Every rise in sea levels is noted excitedly. Every cyclone is applauded and claimed as a noisy, deadly witness for their side.
Suddenly, it's as if they have the planet's assistance in their lifelong campaign to bully everyone else into accepting their view of the perfect world. One without any human beings. Except for them. Living in a cave. Wearing an unwashed T-shirt that not only says ''Support wildlife'' but actually does."
The bottom line for me is you are seriously judging to extreme judgements on a man based on one article if you think he literally wants to tattoo people against their will.
Our favorite liberal troll has repeatedly assured us that the left never says rude, obnoxious, hurtful things that create images of violence and death. Maybe she shold read this article. NOT COMMENT, just read and digest.
Maybe you should read this article and not just the out of context expert that was fed to you. Also, if you develop a sense of humour and irony maybe you would understand what the article was trying to accomplish.
Would you like to try that again?
Lets tattoo people we don't agree with so we can categorize them easier. Better yet lets drown them! Hahahahahah, that is some excellent humor and irony. I love jokes about physically disfiguring people for not espousing the correct think!
It is if you're not being serious and discussing the pitfalls of all extremists, yes, you're right. I'm glad someone else finds this funny too...
Actually I was just kidding about finding such things as funny. For the record I don't find tattooing people against their will or drowning them for holding different views than mine to be funny . . . not even when presented as a joke.
Subtlety is a lost art form. As is comedy. I now understand why Two and a Half men is so popular.
Don't give up on Two and a Half Men just yet. I hear they're debuting a new character that runs around burn wards yelling "fire". It is so totally subtle.
Who fed an 'expert' to Deb? You must mean 'excerpt.' Hey Sane Person, if you're going to insult us with sophormoric drivel, at least spell the key words correctly.
***********
F–k I’m glad places like this exist so dick heads like you lot can spout stupid, racist, fascist, ignorant, hateful bullshit at each other and the rest of us don’t have to suffer it.
*********** (a little trick I learned from Olivia)
Do you dorks ever read your own posts?
You're 100% right, I did make a spelling mistake. I noticed that once I'd already posted, but I figured those reading wouldn't have a problem understanding what I was saying. I guess I was wrong.
In the meantime, did you want to address the point I made, or would you prefer to just point out spelling errors?
Okay Sane Person, I went back and read the entire source article. So what was your point?
Did you want us to notice the hypocrisy of Mr. Glover holding Cate Blanchett up as a global warming beacon of light?
Rather ironic given her recent purchase of a waterfront property on Vanuatu, an island that has been in the news because it is supposedly succumbing to rising sea levels. Real "soon" the island will be under water, as surely an environmentalist of Ms. Blanchett's stature knew before she bought her new tropical digs. Lucky for her and her beautiful friends, the inconveniently located native islanders were relocated to a "safe" place, far far away from the rising sea levels.
She's quite a giver, that Ms. Blanchett. hahaha
I can agree with what you're saying actually. The Cate Blanchett situation does appear hypocritical. I concede that point.
But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that this website and the commenters who read the post took words that were undoubtedly meant to be satirical as being someone's 100% actual opinion. People seem to think this guy is seriously talking about practically tattooing people or forcing them to buy property at sea-level. That too me is unbelievable.
Though dramatic imagery he is talking about the lack of historical consequence for those who single-mindedly oppose a point of view or opinion. Obviously this guy is a GW believer, yes, and I understand that clashes with the beliefs of people who come to this site, but the irony is that Richard Glover's name is forever attached to his article or whatever else he writes about climate change. If GW never happens, he won't be able to escape his stated opinions. For those who remain anonymous (much like myself) on forums such as this however, their will be no consequence. Whichever way this thing goes, there will be those who will mosey on through life having potentially been part of a damaging movement or anti-movement, and they will have risked nothing in doing so.
". Obviously this guy is a GW believer, yes, and I understand that clashes with the beliefs of people who come to this site"
I get where you're coming from, but I think you misunderstand us, Sane Person. GW isn't what we strongly disagree with. It is Anthropogenic GW that we mock, and the snake oil salesmen who preach it and live like kings from their ill-gotten carbon trading gains.
Since Mr. Glover had to issue a clarification and an apology, apparently we weren't the only ones who found his comments mean-sprited rather than satirical.
Ok, but how does Richard Glover fall into that category?
You're right about that, you weren't the only ones. But it's actually the apology that sent me here, and to places like this. The reason he had to apologise, well, I don't really want to call it that, the reason he had to readdress his article is because he was basically receiving threats of physical violence and murder. Now, someone is going to call me out as this being no different than his suggestions of tattooing GW deniers, but I do see an inherent difference between that and personally directing threatening phrases like ''can't wait to meet you'', ''[I have] a couple of 9mm hollowpoints with your name on them'' or ''I will kill you so dead that your rotting body will do nothing but energise the worms and maggots that will do their part in saving the planet from morons like you.'' (Actually, that last one is pretty funny, but you get the idea).
Now you have to ask, how do comments like Richard's, which are obviously, and I do mean obviously, meant to be taken as absurd and satirical and do not contain any sort of strong or abusive language generate such hateful responses? Well, unfortunately, as far as I can tell, its blog posts like this one that take comments completely out of context and present words in a way they were not intended. And, even more unfortunately, people take this on face value, don't analyse the actual article and start to swamp the man with hateful, evil messages.
I'm not saying you should agree with Glover's GW beliefs. I'm not even saying that you shouldn't take exaggerators and extremists to tasks when they make stupid and misleading comments. More power to you. What I am saying is that you have to know what you're actually arguing, and that starts with not reacting to this sort of blog post without investigating a little bit further. It doesn't help anyone, and, if anything, makes your cause look bad.
I'm not directing this specifically at any commenters here, but I am directing this to the author of this blog post. It's their responsibility to present stories in a truthful and factual way, and by not doing so, they are doing a disservice to you and the things you stand for.
If it had been the intention to paint Mr. Glover's statements as serious the phrase "On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy." would have been omitted and there would have been no hyperlink.
I am sorry if you don't find Glover's own words to be defense enough for his sick fantasies and jokes. Or that you find such things as forcibly tattooing those you disagree with as ironic and witty.
The man is imagining a situation in which an objective of his is being achieved. He runs through a number of scenarios in which that goal can accomplished. That is not an unusual mechanism for fantasy. I’m certainly glad that he used varying degrees of qualifiers to distance himself from these ghoulish and disturbing images. A better method would have been to refrained from sharing these impulses with the world. I’m sure he doesn’t inform his significant other about every time he imagines a situation in which an objective of making it with someone else can be accomplished. Even if he never seriously considered any sort of infidelity at all. This is not to suggest I would to stop him from making these things known to the world. I welcome targets so ripe for ridicule. Especially when those targets think it irresistibly hilarious to ponder the mutilation of my body just so I can be forced to show some responsibility for my beliefs.
You are incorrect to suppose that I dislike the comedies that you mentioned. I am a fan of all of those. But none of them are grossly similar to the supposed humor of Mr. Glover. Eric Idle on a cross singing “Always look on the bright side of life” is funny because it is absurd and utterly impossible. Were we living in 80 AD this certainly would not be the case and I must admit to a certain amount of era insensitivity in this example. However there it is. Vogon’s are funny Schindler’s list is not. Vogon’s are not real but may serve as an analog for something worthy of spoofing. The holocaust was real. Nazi’s used the power of the state to control the behavior of individuals. They also used to the power of the state to plunder property subvert liberty and deprive persons of their lives. They did it in the name of the communal good and more fairly overseeing resources that had unfairly been retained by only some of the citizens. That’s why suggesting that non believers should be tattooed doesn’t work so well as a joke. In the realm of possibilities it is an outlier right now. But a state that has assumed the authority to tax the air is not lacking the authority to tattoo the citizens. It has happened before. It can happen again. And the fact that its been suggested, even so slyly, that it should happen to me is something that I do not at all consider to be funny.
Well, his defence wasn't posted here, so I stepped in to rectify that.
Fantasies? I see no evidence of this. Jokes, definitely.
Hey, it's not 'haha' funny, but he's making a point through extreme imagery that is not meant to be taken seriously. I'll admit it, I do see the ironic and amusing side of people being unable to escape from the fanatical statements they make and having to suffer any consequences their bloody-mindedness may lead to. It's effective at conveying his point about how, depending on which way the ball rolls on this issue, those from either side won't necessarily have risked anything by opposing progress of the other.
You must have a very narrow sense of humour. The best of Monty Python, The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy and comedies that include physical violence, like Faulty Towers (all examples of British humour, I know, but all highly acclaimed) must be completely wasted on you.
"What I am saying is that you have to know what you’re actually arguing, and that starts with not reacting to this sort of blog post without investigating a little bit further. "
Sane, I understand your point of view on this - you read it and automatically took it as satire. I read it and automatically took it like if this guy had the power, he really truly would do this.
He veils his true feelings in "satire" but you know he would do it in a heartbeat if he could. The buffoons like the Gore-acle we can dismiss without a second thought (other than to mock him).
But it's guys like Mr. Grover, the warmist true believers, who would do whatever it takes to make us change our minds and join in lock-step with their cause.
Sure, Warmingologists, I'll get my tattoo.YOU get to carry this around.....Heeeeeere's your sign!
I'll make a deal with the AGW crowd: I'll tattoo "global warming denier" on myself (and that's a BIG step, because I think tattoos are for thugs and shmucks) if they'll tattoo their 20-year climate predictions on themselves.
20 years down the road, if their tattooed predictions are B.S., then we get to surgically shut off their voices, take away their right to vote, and then the serious grownups can get on with the business of running a civilization.
I have four tattoos, but you'd never know it to meet me. I don't THINK I'm a thug or a schmuck, but I could be wrong.
None of us think of ourselves as shmucks. We are all wrong.
Is Vanuatu a low lying island...? If it is Cate Blanchett made a bad investment there. Is she getting a tattoo soon?
I just love how there is an equation of climate change deniers to holocaust deniers while AT THE SAME TIME asking for the climate change deniers to be treated like Jews during the Holocaust. The funny part is when a lot of the characteristics on how to punish deniers, liberal eco-fascists are actually doing themselves. Liberals are insane.
Yes, it will probably be one depicting cute little bottlenose dolphins gayly jumping from one ass cheek to the other!
She has no ass to speak of though.
I see the invisible cowardly stalker is back... Or maybe it is a Cate Blanchett fan that loves her ass?
An ass has to be big to be beautiful? Maybe they'll just be small dolphins jumping back and forth.
...or how about a coupla shrimp doin' it.
Did I say that? She has NO ass to speak off. That is what I said. Not even a perky small ass. Board ass. Decorations can only go so far.
... but hey you like board asses? good for you.
Not me. I like some shape to the backyard. Mmmmm. Hmmmm.
I hear you. I don't want a man that has nothing going on back there.
I don't want a man at all, but I can appreciate a pretty woman with a large rear, or a little tiny one. Either way, I prefer that the pretty woman not be a raging liberal. So Cate is out.
"I don’t want a man at all." I expected nothing less.
That's why she'll need the decorations!
Hey! That might be cute!
You're very clever with words, Mister Fly. But I graduated from an Ivy League school with a degree in advanced Medieval poetry. And I am not a LIFER. I am a LOVER
Liberal
Oligarchy
Vacuous
Early (When I leave work)
Retirement (Probably at 55)
You have been served Coddington-style!
Dear Coddy,
Pardon the informality but I feel I know you so well. You are my hero! Do you need another Third Assistant Brassworks Polisher in your office? If you do, I'm free. Or I will be in another 3 weeks, when all my unemployment, welfare, and food stamp benefits will be exhausted.
Kisses --
Finally some signs of intelligence on this board!
I am glad to see you embrace the intrinsic good of government jobs. Since you are familiar with Welfare, it shouldn't be difficult for you to adapt. Government work is like Welfare, but without all the unkempt neighborhoods and ill-dressed women.
However be prepared, the Brassworks polisher is expected at work at 11-ish and you will remain on the job until 2. You are permitted a long lunch.
R.
Ah, I see, an Ivy Leaguer, degree in advanced Medieval poetry. A PhD (Pile it Higher and Deeper) perhaps? Means squat to me. Is your character just another educated idiot? Your anagram of 'lover' isn’t making much sense to me, and I’ll be the first to admit it, but I seem to be missing something. It doesn’t flow smoothly, looks to be ambiguous. So, lets take it apart and see.
Lover
L - Liberal - libre - free man
O - Oligarchy - oligoi - few; arkhein - to rule
V - Vacuous - Vacuus - empty
E - Early - ahead of time
R - Retirement - seclusion
Ok, I can readily see the following. A free man, lacking thought or intelligence, prior to an expected time going into seclusion. This part makes sense, somewhat. Am I looking at this correctly so far? It’s the word ‘Oligarchy’ that doesn’t seem to fit. As I see it, a ‘free man’ wouldn’t want to rule the few, or to serve the few that rule, in a ‘previous empty seclusion’, the ‘void before time’. Are you by chance, considering yourself and death synonymous? Or are you trying to rule over death in the ‘void before time’? Both seem equally futile. Enlighten me, so I can better understand your affliction, so that we can put aside our differences and work together to stem the tide of evil rearing its ugly head in the world today!
Either that or it’s all just FUBAR’d. In that case DILLIGAF!
Have a nice day!
Returned serve.
ROFLMAO
I've always wondered how I'd look in striped pajamas.