Fuck its silent in here.......

[Oleg]

That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

The animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

Wait a second.  Did someone say monkey-God?  I've been a fool!

Call me MuhhamOleg!  AllOleg?  Whatever!  I'm in!

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

The animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

Wait a second.  Did someone say monkey-God?  I've been a fool!

Call me MuhhamOleg!  AllOleg?  Whatever!  I'm in!

Ali ibn Abi Oleg.

[Bort]

That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

The animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

Wait a second.  Did someone say monkey-God?  I've been a fool!

Call me MuhhamOleg!  AllOleg?  Whatever!  I'm in!

Ali ibn Abi Oleg.

Hazrat Isma'oleg Bey Effendi

[Gilgamesh]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

[Internet Apex]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

[Gilgamesh]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

I'm basically doing Yeti a favor at this point.

But sure.

[Slaky]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

I'm basically doing Yeti a favor at this point.

But sure.

I dig that new avatar.

[R-V]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

[PenPho]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

[Gilgamesh]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

[Bort]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

As much as I'd like to devote my entire life to destroying PenFoe, I have to admit that made me laugh. Heartily.

[Bort]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations.  

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

I plan to steal that image.

EDIT: DPD

[Slaky]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

Fuck, I'd forgotten about that. Good times.

[Yeti]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

I had that one good post that one time, dickblick

[PenPho]

In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

I had that one good post that one time, dickblick

I was really talking more about style than substance, but I'm certainly not sad it was interpreted the other way.