Wonder Woman Deploys Transformers At “Middle-America Super Bible-Beaters”

9 06 2009

I’m not a stalker and I’m not violent.

But ever since I saw Megan Fox, I’ve wanted to hunt her down and club her like a cavewoman.

Let me clarify.

I don’t really want to club her like a cavewoman…that sounds misogynistic and weird.  What I mean is I want to club her like a caveman who bonked sexy cavewomen over the head and dragged them by the hair back to their caves.

Seriously, where the f*** does she get off looking like that?

Anyways, she’s said some pretty interesting things lately like wanting to strangle a mountain-ox with her bare hands because certain women were so darned appealing to her…

This is good for at least two reasons and especially because, I’m guessing she’ll totally understand the good-natured club to the dome.

Fox, a tolerant Tennessee girl went after you throwback conservatives and judging by her comment, it’s almost like she’s asking for it!

Newsbusters has the dish:

When asked how she would stop the ruthless Megatron from demolishing the world, Fox first said that she would “barter with him.” She then, however, went on to say, “… and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”

Ugh.  You can try to make me hate you Megan, but it’s gonna take a lot more than that.

megan-fox_club

megan_fox_tattoo

megan_fox_wonder_woman

megan-fox-black

I’m not sure about that zombie in the background, but Egotastic.com has tons of Megan Fox photos if you can stand it.

Advertisements




Bitter Gun Clingin’ North Dakotans Have Reason To Be Proud

5 01 2009

As Newsbusters reported the other day, nearly twice as many Americans were murdered in Chicago than Iraq (in 2008).

Now OutOfTheBlu has learned that of the two (2) murders in North Dakota, neither involved a gun.  The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has ranked North Dakota 44 out of 50 in gun control.

And while we’re far too lazy to research homicide rates in America to compare red states (or red cities) to blue.  We’re quite capable of generalizing that guns don’t kill people. Crowded urban centers, that win elections for Democrats, do.

Thanks Instapundit





Liberal Cheapskates And High Taxes

21 12 2008

When liberals aren’t stereotyping conservatives for being “backward rednecks,” you can usually find them stoking the flames of class warfare against “rich Republicans.”

Nevermind the contradiction of pairing those two insults, and the fact that Obama easily won the affluent vote in 2008.

How do the bleeding hearts treat the less fortunate when they’re not being forced through taxation?

Like how Obama treats his African relatives apparently.  A New York Times article says, they give 30% to 50% less than conservatives.  This is probably because, “Red States are the most likely to give charity and Northeastern states are the least.”

Maybe liberals want high taxes and government intervention because of their own guilty souls.  Certainly conservatives have shown their ability to be charitable on their own, even in the face of high taxes.  The article also suggests that even lower earning conservatives give substantially, whereas most of the liberal donations come from their elite.

Sure, liberals like to berate conservatives for giving a lot to their churches, but the article shows that liberals often give cash to universities and museums where they rarely help the poor anyways.

Naturally, the miserly nature of liberals is universal.

European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

The author behind the study didn’t want to believe his staggering results, but couldn’t deny any longer, after repeated attempts to alter them.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

What excuse will the mentally diseased invent to explain this away?

Good job to the Times for publishing this.