Websticker of the Week

If that doesn’t say more about the level of blind ignorance of the hard Left, I don’t know what does. Well, other than the site I picked it up from, Prissy’s Pinko Palace.

Don’t forget to check out the rapidly-forming Pirate Armada over at Dread Pirate Pundit Bluto’s place. Avast, mateys, it’s time to go looting and plundering on the Liberal Main.

Sphere: Related Content

16 Responses to “Websticker of the Week”

  • I prefer the “stupid sticker” over at prissy .. Cuz Dems stuck on stupid

  • Hey, your people are reading all kinds of my true stuff-keep ‘em coming…

    Hugs to the lost lambs,

    Prissy Patriot

  • The meaning of this bumper sticker is pacifism. What’s “stupid” about preferring negotiation and diplomacy to killing?

  • Hey Prissy, that’s the idea.

    Is Led By None — you again?

    That’s not what the sticker says, is it. You CAN read, can’t you? It doesn’t say “I’d prefer negotiations and diplomacy to killing” — it says “No matter what the circumstances, I’m against your stinking war”. What utter horseshit.

    Lambs, indeed.

  • Prissy’s Pinko Palace isn’t set up for comments. Guess they haven’t left the harbor yet–still trying out the training sails.

  • Yes, well comments would actually allow give and take, even if “she” could moderate/edit/delete them.

    I guess she’s just not ready for that kind of pressure. It can be hard to have your worldview questioned by *gasp* people who might disagree.

    It’s good enough that a few people get to see what a nitwit she is via my link. That makes me happy.

  • DustyNucks:

    I am a pottie mouth. Sorry I had to post this filth here, but I felt compelled. I’ll try to behave myself from now on, though.

  • Whatever….Just like I thought…Your a keyboard tough guy!

  • BTW, YOU are the DUMBSHIT OF THE WEEK!!!!!

  • If you are a pacifist, one who is completely against war (i.e., all of them, including the next one–no matter what it is), then you obviously prefer negotiations and diplomacy to killing.

    Try putting two and two together–or one and one if that’s too many numbers.

  • Dusty — OMG you so pwnd me. But keep the language clean, or you’ll get edited or deleted. That’s not too much to ask, I don’t think.

    “ISLED”: If you are a pacifist, and one who is completely against war, you are denying the reality of life on this planet, and are setting yourself up to be one of the lambs that Prissy refers to.

    That’s your choice, that’s your right. But be up front about it — don’t start going into all the reasons why this war is better than that war. I didn’t see anything on Prissy’s site talking about the evils of Clinton’s war on the Balkans, for example. I highly suspect she’s not a pacifist; she just doesn’t like it when someone she didn’t vote for takes us to war. If it were Kerry taking us, she’d be all over it.

  • It just makes sense to me that Prissy would be a pacifist. I doubt she was blogging back in 1999, but many liberals, including Michael Moore and Alan Colmes opposed Clinton’s war in Kosovo.

    On the contrary, your premise implies that Prissy is certain Bush or another Republican will take us into the next war. Your correct statement that Clinton brought the U.S. into the war in Kosovo proves, however, that Democrats bring the U.S. into war too. In fact, I think it was in the mid or late 70s Bob Dole blamed the Democrats for bringing the U.S. into all the wars of the twentieth century (and back then, he was right). Ronald Reagan coined the phrase “PEACE through strength.” When Bush-the-less-stupid got the U.S. involved in the first Gulf War, it was a real let-down to pacificist Republicans. The neo-con, chickenhawk Republicans in control now have changed the default setting from peace to war, and all Americans should be boiling mad about this.

  • Yes, that’s why we’re at war with North Korea and Iran, right? Because it’s the default setting?

    No one in their right mind wants war — it’s a last resort. For a pacifist, it’s not a possibility — and that’s just suicidal. Our argument is over when war is necessary, not that it’s not sometimes necessary. At least I hope that’s what the argument is.

    But to say that one is against the NEXT war, regardless, is specious at best and suicidal at worst.

    I’m done with this; we’re just going round and round. This isn’t a BBS; we each have blogs not running conversations.

    But thanks for being civil, unlike DustyNutz.

  • NB for Prissy, since she (he? it?) doesn’t let people leave comments on her (his, it’s?) site — I don’t believe I used the word “moonbat” in this post or comment thread; I very very rarely use the word; frankly, I think it’s kinda silly. I prefer leftie, or commielib, or other old-fashioned terms.

    But thanks for playing.

  • Prissy:

    Hey morons…remember this? Or are you still wearing your boyfriend Dubya’s jersey for his FUBAR in Iraq?

    10 years ago today….
    “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
    significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell
    us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes
    suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not
    credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”
    – George W. Bush, January 28, 2003, State of the Union Address

  • arth2014:

    Every week they introduce new things. A way to catch attention of people. – BentleyForbes

Leave a Reply

Comments links could be nofollow free.

    follow me on Twitter


    Previous Drivel
    Stuff and Such

    Bad Behavior has blocked 442 access attempts in the last 7 days.