If Pete Carroll had read up on football vs blaming Jews for 911 he might've won the #SuperBowl

As a Steelers fan, I rooted for the AFC team in the Super Bowl so that the Steelers would be in the strongest Conference.





Regardless, I would've rooted against Seattle Seahawks because their coach is an evil 911 Truther:

Hey Pete Carroll was losing #SB49 an inside job? #Seahawks #NEvsSEA #911truther
— N4CER (@n4cerinc) February 2, 2015

From BW 1 Feb 2014 "Breitbart" article "PETE CARROLL NOT ASKED ABOUT POSSIBLE 9/11 TRUTHERISM BEFORE SUPER BOWL NEAR WTC ATTACKS"

"'In particular, Carroll wanted to know whether the attack on the Pentagon had really happened. Chiarelli–who was the top-ranking Army official inside the Pentagon when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into its western side–explained that it had. He said he had lost many colleagues. But Carroll didn’t stop there. He ran through the whole 9/11 truther litany.

' Every 9/11 conspiracy theory you can think of, Pete asked about,' said Riki Ellison, the former NFL linebacker who now runs the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance and introduced Carroll to Chiarelli. Ellison, along with Seahawks offensive line coach Pat Ruel, was at the meeting as well. 'And he didn’t stop at 9/11–he had lots of questions about the role of the military today.'" 

Ironically, if Pete Carroll had spent more time reading up on football versus coming up with conspiracy theories blaming the Jews for 911, he might have noticed an old article pointing out the risk of interception during big championship games. Mwa ha ha!!!!!

From an old children's magazine "St. Nicholas", February 1890 edition article written by Walter Camp "Intercollegiate Foot-Ball in America":

p 321:

p 322:

page 323

bottom text of p 323:

zoom in of image:

page 324:

bottom of p 324:

zoom of image:

zoom of image caption:

p. 325:

David Letterman has a history of telling child rape jokes

A PUMA blog has reposted from a Team Sarah blog the history of child rape "jokes" Letterman has told over the years.

Reposting the background of the dispute from a Fire David Letterman Facebook group discussion (where you need to be registered in order to read):

Dave's "joke" was about a 14 year old

While Letterman CLAIMS he was talking about her Sarah Palin's OTHER daughter, the 18 year old and not the 14 year old, only an extremely naive person would take Dave at his word.

Dave's monologue is not ad libbed, it is scripted by a staff of paid, union writers. They had the time & ability to research & fact check their story before recording the show. All the stories that listed Palin's entourage included the name & age of the daughter accompanying her to New York

A story published 7 June:

"Accompanying Palin on the trip is her husband, Todd, and the couple's 14-year-old daughter, Willow"

A story published 6 June:

"She's traveling with her husband, Todd, and her 14-year old daughter, Willow"

Dave & his staff of writers knew that he was attacking Willow, the implication being that Palin is a bad mother & that all of her daughters are promiscuous. Dave somewhat miscalculated in thinking that no one would call him on it & that his leftists friends in the media would have his back. He certainly appears to have guessed correctly on the latter assumption.

Countering the defenders of Letterman

Letterman defenders seem to make two general points:

1) GOP talk show hosts, specifically Limbaugh, have said mean things about Democratic politicians' children, aka implying Chelsea Clinton is a dog. Ergo, complaining about Dave is hypocritical.

Counterpoints

Whilst being rude, Limbaugh never advocated raping Chelsea Clinton. Limbaugh clearly apologized in a timely manner, aka immediately afterwards versus waiting an entire week. Limbaugh clearly apologized on his accord versus waiting for sponsors & lawyers to compel him to pretend to be contrite. One can quibble over Limbaugh's & Letterman's level of sincerity but one can't refute the ultimate outcome: LIMBAUGH NO LONGER HAS A TV SHOW & ONLY WORKS ON AM RADIO. I wouldn't have a problem if the same fate befell Letterman.

2) Democratic talk show hosts have a history of telling child rape "jokes". Ergo, everybody does it, so it's OK.

Counterpoint

Has anyone tried using that rationalization to weasel out of a speeding ticket? "Golly, officer, everybody else is speeding, so you are forbidden from giving me a ticket." It's not an all or nothing proposition. The traffic cop isn't obligated to hand out tickets to everyone who is speeding. Similarly, critics are focusing on Letterman now. We reserve the right to go after other perverts who tell child rape "jokes" in the future. I thank the Letterman defenders for doing the grunt work & turning up ammunition to potentially use against O'Brien & Leno for any future boycott against them once we're done punishing Letterman. However, perhaps Letterman's treatment will serve as a cautionary tale to others & they'll eschew from ever telling child rape jokes again.

Hillbuzz has great advice for writing boycott letters, plus points of contact & address information for people who want to write hard copy letters. Hillbuzz is using the strategy of targeting Dave's biggest sponsors with a family friendly brand image. They are now focusing on Mars, Kelloggs, Johnson & Johnson.

& PUMA PAC have great boilerplate letters that you can tweak before sending.

A sample business letter to use as a format guide.

Letterman is still a pervert who thinks that statutory rape is funny but just not economically profitable to talk about on television

I still find David Letterman to be an annoying pervert; however, his obot rapist apologists not only annoy me, they give me nightmares. A blog entitled Truth Conquers Nothing: Spin is Everything , but translated into carp Latin to make the schmo who writes it sound pseudo-intellectual, through the employment of sophistical logorrhea, attempts to justify the legitimacy of statutory rape. I, personally, disagree that statutory rape is totally cool & awesome & voiced my belief on their comment section. This resulted in the following well reasoned syllogism:

A) All left thinking progs think statutory rape is totally cool & awesome
B) Adagio does not think that statutory rape is totally cool & awesome
C) Ergo, Adagio must be a home schooled creationist who wants to ride around on a dinosaur all day long & must be liquidated like the uppity kulak she is.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I, like all right thinking people, do support the outfitting of dinosaurs with laser guns and jet packs as part of the US missile defense shield against NORK attacks. However, I don't want to ride around on carnivorous dinos, since they'd want to eat me, nor do I want to ride around on herbivorous dinos, since they'd want to squash me. As a compromise, I'd settle for riding around on a genetically engineered Woolly Mammoth in order to invade Canada & squash all evil prog rapist apologists.

If you don't want to just accept this trend of "defining deviancy down" and want to do something more productive than just fantasizing about crushing evil Canadian prog rapist apologists under the furry feet of G.E. Woolly Mammoths, a good place to start is to peruse the posts at Hillbuzz where there are numerous tutorials on the subject of boycotts and protests.

UPDATE

It was perceptively pointed out that my drawing style is an homage to the great Frank the Artist of IMAO. Frank's most pertinent creation that informs this post is his commentary on the Saul Alinksy Wing of the Democratic Party's response to rape victims being stoned to death: