How The Right Wing AFA Would Like People To Talk About 9/11

12:22 am EST August 30th, 2006 | Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Some sterling comments on how the American Family Association would prefer Americans to speak about the 9/11 attacks when they’re done censoring the 9/11 documentary:

“Oh [fudge] those [nasty men] are crashing their [darned] airplanes into the towers. Oh, [stink] the [mucking] building is coming down on me.”

I just want the righties to work it all out amongst themselves and get back to me. Am I supposed to think we’re fighting (islamo-) fascists but we’re not supposed to swear while we do it this time? It’s hard enough trying to grasp one of their nonsensical world-views without having to try and reconcile them with each other…

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

15 Responses to “How The Right Wing AFA Would Like People To Talk About 9/11”

  1. factcheck says:
    August 30, 2006 at 7:45 am

    Oh fudge! Our leader’s family is in business with the family of the man who took down the towers!

    Well, I guess we have to let him get away then! Gosh darn it!

  2. Mike Cohen says:
    August 30, 2006 at 9:24 am

    The AFA can go fudge themselves and rot in heck.

  3. mm says:
    August 30, 2006 at 10:18 am

    yeah, they’re off base with their whining about profanity in a movie like this. Actually, I’d laugh if people started saying “fudge” when a plane slammed into skyscraper.

    but it’s no more ridiculous than wanting to give terrorists constitutional protection, as some far-leftists want to.

    Both parties have their idiots, unfortunately, one puts us at greater risk than the other just because they want to get back into power.

    saying “fudge” is harmless, even if it is ridiculous, but stifling intelligence efforts and giving terrorists taxpayer funded trials could be dangerous to all of us.

    It’d be nice to see everyone get their priorities straight for a change.

  4. Duros62 says:
    August 30, 2006 at 11:01 am

    So what are you saying, MM? Just string suspected terrorists up without any sort of trial? How does that makes us better than them?

  5. factcheck says:
    August 30, 2006 at 11:20 am

    That whole “we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is such a pre-9/11 mentality.

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 30, 2006 at 11:54 am

    Here’s another question for you, mm:

    Without a public airing of the evidence, who do you trust to decide who’s a terrorist and who’s just accused of an ordinary crime?

  7. factcheck says:
    August 30, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    Quaker, they’re MUSLIM, they must be terrorists. Like Eric Rudolph and Tim McVeigh, or Orlando Bosch. It would be easier to find the terrorists if we had some kind of method to identify Muslims- maybe they could have a special tattoo on their arm, or maybe they would be required to wear a crescent in public. Can’t be too careful, after all they are trying to kill us and convert us to Radical Islam (TM)!

  8. Duros62 says:
    August 30, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    That should be Radical Islamofascism©

  9. factcheck says:
    August 30, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    Looking forward to the battle between the Radical Islamofascists and the Christofascist Zombie Brigade. Heard that ESPN has the rights, they’re just looking for a place to hold it.

  10. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 30, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    Well, I just want to see MM tell us that the military or the state should have the power to make that decision.

    There’s a specific name for that form of government.

  11. factcheck says:
    August 30, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    The Bush administration?

  12. Duros62 says:
    August 30, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Looking forward to the battle between the Radical Islamofascists and the Christofascist Zombie Brigade. Heard that ESPN has the rights, they’re just looking for a place to hold it.

    Don’t forget the Evil Zionist Hoarde!

  13. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 30, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Yes, fact. But I was thinking more generically.

  14. Nimrod Gently says:
    August 30, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    You don’t have constitutional protection when you’re convicted as a terrorist.

    Before you’re convicted, you’re not a terrorist.

    It’s called innocent till proven guilty. It’s how you maintain fairness in a legal system.

  15. greenvw says:
    August 31, 2006 at 12:52 am

    I think fudge is a dirty word. shame on you.