« Sinful?  Moi??? | Main | Stop me if you've heard this before... »

May 23, 2005

Spewsweek  at it again

Cowards.  Craven cowards.  Limp-wristed, anti-American craven cowards.

Fellow blogger and Denizen Delftsman has alerted the Realm™ to a post by Riding Sun concerning another piece of treasonous shit cranked out by the cowards over at Spewsweek.

These bastards spew their jounalistic methane, to Hell™ with the consequences - then, like little brats about to get the shit knocked out of them, they go hide behind Article I of the Bill Of Rights as if it were their mommies' skirts.

First it was the lies about our troops desecrating the Qu'ran. (Not that I'd mind that much - I mean, how many stories have we heard about shitheads - particularly those in Shoddy Arabia - doing unspeakable things to the Christian Bible and nothing's ever happened to them, hm?)

Now it's this bullshit about "the day America died", complete with a pic of the American flag in a trash can, its staff snapped in half.  A cover, I'd point out, that Spewsweek  didn't have the balls to publish over here.

Frankly, I'm sick & tired of it.  It's a damned miracle that the offices of Spewsweek  aren't burning at this very moment, its chickenshit employees, editors & publishers lined up against a wall, firing-squad style.

What I want to know is this:  How much longer are we going to let this get away with this bullshit?  How much farther are we going to let them push us before we take their abject abuse of the First Amendment and shove it right back up their asses from whence it came?

And with all due respect to some, please spare me the line about "well, we can boycott them".  How many right-thinkers do you personally know who subscribe to this crap?  I know very damned few myself - if any.

How much more are we expected to take before a few thousand Lame Stream Media (and other liberal) types develop holes where, perhaps, they weren't designed to be?

Before a few of them are swinging, if you catch my drift?

Before they go the way of the average armadillo, if you know what I mean?

Personally, I think they, and the nancy-boy Demoscum in whose pockets they reside, are tiptoeing that line even as I write this.  We're a tolerant bunch - but only to a certain point.

God help them if they push us too far - because we  won't...

UPDATE:  Spewsweek  isn't the only treasonous fuck in the LSM.  The LA Slimes  is getting in on the act, too - by whining that they don't have enough pictures of dead GIs.

The paper explained:

"Many photographers and editors believe they are delivering Americans an incomplete portrait of the violence that has killed 1,797 U.S. service members and their Western allies and wounded 12,516 Americans."

During World War II, the Roosevelt administration strictly prohibited news outlets from printing photos of dead U.S. soldiers because of the obvious blow it would be to American morale. And the press willingly complied.

Unfortunately, that was back when the press actually gave a damn  about this country.  That the Welfare King™ was in office didn't hurt things any.

The same sensibility largely prevailed during Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War.

But with many in today's media opposed to the Iraq war, some say it's time to change the rules.

BS.  What it's time to do is to change the photo-propagandists.  With a short rope and a tall tree.

"There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," veteran war photographer Chris Hondros told the Times. "I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war."

That so, dumbass?  Are you willing to show the bodies of the 18 or so who died needlessly in Afghanistan due to the lies perpetrated by your butt-buddies over at Spewsweek?  If were were to torch your offices and beat your staffers within inches of their pathetic, America-hating lives, would you be willing to publish those  pictures, hmmmmmm?

(*crickets chirping*)

No, I thought  not...

Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., agreed, telling the Times:

"Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead."

By censoring the photos of GI's as they lay dying, Van Hemmen said, "We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there."

Oh, yeah, here we go - the old Demoscummic saw:  We didn't win the election because we didn't do a good enough job of getting our message out to the electorate.

Has it ever occurred to you bozos that we understand what you people are all about?  And that's why your readership losses keep spiraling downward, out of control?

Or are you short-bus types just too obtuse to get that through your thick-assed heads?

Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Times, also thinks the public needs to see more photos of dead American soldiers.

"I feel we still aren't seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of the war," he explained.

Michele McNally, New York Times director of photography, concurred, observing: "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war . . . It's our responsibility to bear witness to these events."

That so, you shitheaded bastards?  Then how about you traitorous pissweasels start posting pictures like this:

Naw, couldn't post those.  Those are too violent, too disturbing  for the American people to see.  But pictures of Abu Ghraib - yeah! let's run those every  day!!!

Mark my words:  You liberal bastards are begging for it.  And you're going to get it - sooner rather than later.

Don't say we didn't warn you.

Posted by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant at May 23, 2005 02:49 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: