Report: Chechens Grateful for Bombing of Grozny

Via Reuters, some details of Vladimir Putin's dodgy landslide victory in Saturday's election. According to recently released figures from the country's Central Election Commission, Putin managed a Saddam Hussein-like showing in Chechnya, a country not previously known for its slavish devotion to the Kremlin line:

Russia's volatile Chechnya, once President Vladimir Putin's biggest headache, ironically turned out to be a big success story for him in Sunday's election, according to official figures.

But the Central Election Commission's figures, showing that Chechens voted in droves for the Kremlin chief's party United Russia, had some locals scratching their heads.

[...]

The figures indicated that 99.2 percent of voters in the war-ravaged region of southern Russia had taken part in the poll and 99.3 percent of them had voted for United Russia.

This was the highest vote for Putin anywhere in Russia, where overall turnout was 62 percent and just over 64 percent of votes were cast for United Russia.

Full story.

(Hat tip: Rob W.)

Comments

tk | December 4, 2007, 11:46am | #

See everyone - "Trust Democracy."

Everything always works out ok...

Taktix® | December 4, 2007, 11:50am | #

Well, that break from the Cold War was nice while it lasted, huh?

Mayor Richard Daley | December 4, 2007, 11:51am | #

The figures indicated that 99.2 percent of voters in the war-ravaged region of southern Russia had taken part in the poll and 99.3 percent of them had voted for United Russia.

Damn, that's good.

joe | December 4, 2007, 11:52am | #

tk,

What makes you think a place where they rig elections and kill journalists is a democracy?

gaijin | December 4, 2007, 11:53am | #

Democracy isn't just about elections...but even dictators and dictator-wannabes know that.

As to this:
Caucasus people had a "tradition of respect for power" he told a phone-in news conference and the result was a "reflection of this respect towards Putin, his party and local authorities".

'Respect' and 'fear' would seem to be synonyms in the new Russian thesaurus of democracy.

joe | December 4, 2007, 11:54am | #

Something tyrants count on these days is for people not to know the difference between legitimate, fair elections and trumped-up charades.

Way to go, tk.

Taktix® | December 4, 2007, 11:56am | #

joe,

What makes you think a place where they rig elections and kill journalists is a democracy?

Are you really saying this after all the Venezuela stuff yesterday?

OK, they don't kill journalists, but they sure do lock a lot of them in prison.

Grand Chalupa | December 4, 2007, 11:58am | #

So what? Why should Russia have democracy? So third world rabble can immigrate to their country, molest their women and then have people talk about the problem being not enough tolerance?

When the time comes for the final showdown with the Islamics, it'll be nice to have one state on our side that hasn't been completley emasculated.

Al Haig | December 4, 2007, 11:59am | #

Well at least they know who is in charge.

joe | December 4, 2007, 12:01pm | #

Are you really saying this after all the Venezuela stuff yesterday?

You mean the place where the "dictator" lost his election and won't be able to expand his power?

After a campaign that featured mass rallies by the opposition (how is Gary Kasparov, anyway?), public defections by the "dictator's" allies (how is Alexandr Lebed, anyway?), and opposition newspapers and television stations urging people to vote against the wishes of the ruling party?

Yes, I'm saying this after events in VZ this weekend. I'm shouting this with a warm, fuzzy feeling of vindication, after the events in Venezuela this weekend.

Illiterate J | December 4, 2007, 12:04pm | #

The people of Chechnya, like George W. Bush, looked deeply into Putin's soul and saw an honorable and patriotic man. They voted accordingly.

J sub D | December 4, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Chalupa, FYI

Schizophrenia Drug Checklist

Start off with a low dose high-potency antipsychotic medication.

Treat side effects of antipsychotic medication.

If no positive response in one to two weeks with a low dose high-potency antipsychotic medication, increase the dosage. However keep the dosage as low as possible while still controlling the symptoms.

If no positive response after four weeks try a new antipsychotic medication.

If Akathisia develops try Inderal, Valium, or Ativan.

A psychiatrist should see the patient at least once a month. With regular examination for Tardive Dyskinesia.

Guideline for length of drug treatment:
One episode: One year.
Two episode: Two or more years.

Taktix® | December 4, 2007, 12:11pm | #

You mean the place where the "dictator" lost his election and won't be able to expand his power?

OK, joe, fair enough.

Let's make a bet.

If Chavez doesn't expand his power by the end of his term, and steps down peacefully, I will re-register Democrat, volunteer 24 hours to whomever is the Dem candidate, and I will post "joe is my hero" once on every thread for a week.

What will you bet? Put your money/labor where your mouth is...

Your women | December 4, 2007, 12:12pm | #

Please, Grand Chalupa, save us from the third world rabble! We want to be molested by you, not by some filthy brown person.

Taktix® | December 4, 2007, 12:14pm | #

When the time comes for the final showdown with the Islamics, it'll be nice to have one state on our side that hasn't been completley [sic]emasculated.

Putting aside the rest of the ridiculous statements in your post, what exactly makes you think Russia will join the U.S.? Bush's little fellatio job on Putin?

Episiarch | December 4, 2007, 12:14pm | #

Seeing how huge Putin's cogliones are, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a hi-larious "HA HA, FUCK YOU DUDES" to both the world (99.3% turnout? Come on), and to Chechnya for being a pain in his ass.

'Cuz there's no fucking way this was a real result.

Dangerman | December 4, 2007, 12:17pm | #

Please, Grand Chalupa, save us from the third world rabble! We want to be molested by you, not by some filthy brown person.

I have never seen a chalupa that wasn't brown. And greasy.

Kent Brockman | December 4, 2007, 12:18pm | #

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.

jkp | December 4, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Thanks, joe, for clarifying that Augusto Pinochet was also not a dictator.

joe | December 4, 2007, 12:28pm | #

Taktix,

I wouldn't take that bet. Of course Chavez is going to try to expand his power. That's what politicians do.

All this time, all this venom you've spewed at me, you still don't have the vaguest clue what my position is. Sad.

Jozef | December 4, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Typical Putin, organizing such overkill. He should learn from American democracy where only as many people are prevented from voting as to have the preferred party win a slim majority. Putin prevented way too many people from voting, hence the lopsided results.

joe | December 4, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Seeing how huge Putin's cogliones are, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a hi-larious "HA HA, FUCK YOU DUDES" to both the world (99.3% turnout? Come on), and to Chechnya for being a pain in his ass.

Exactly. Putin goes out of his way to do things that people say he wouldn't dare try, just to make the point that he can and will do whatever he wants.

jkp,

Pinochet ruled as a dictator for years - shutting down the vote, shutting down the opposition media, killing political opponents and banning demonstrations. He was very much a dictator during this period.

Then, when the Chileans changed their governing structure, he ceased to be a dictator and reverted to operating as a politician.

R C Dean | December 4, 2007, 12:39pm | #

You mean the place where the "dictator" lost his election and won't be able to expand his power?

joe, you can't really beleive that it is now impossible for Chavez to expand his power base.

PinochetChavez ruled as a dictator for years - shutting down the vote, shutting down the opposition media, killing political opponents and banning demonstrations. He was very much a dictator during this period.

Except for allowing periodic elections (which is hardly a disqualifier for being a dictator, as we know), how is this sentence not true of Chavez as well? Aren't the political police still active and presumably under his control? Haven't there been assassinations of opposition figures? Haven't (anti-Chavez) demonstrations been met with violence?

I'm not clear, joe - do you, or do you not, classify Chavez as a dictator? If not, why not?

Remember, dictators win elections all the time, so having the blessing of the mob is hardly definitive.

Episiarch | December 4, 2007, 12:40pm | #

See, joe and I agree, which means that our supposition must be correct. HIGH FIVE

joe | December 4, 2007, 12:53pm | #

RC,

joe, you can't really beleive that it is now impossible for Chavez to expand his power base. Nothing is eternal in politics, but he's been shut down for now.

Chavez ruled as a dictator for years - shutting down the vote, shutting down the opposition media, killing political opponents and banning demonstrations. He was very much a dictator during this period.

Chavez never shut down a vote. Chavez restored the democratic system after the oligarchs' coup, and has held internationally-certified elections throughout his reign, including the one he lost Sunday.

Chavez didn't shut down the opposition media - there are loud, boisterous anti-Chavez newspapers, radio, and televation stations in Venezuela.

Chavez does not appear to have had anyone killed during his rule - at least, that's what HRW says. As opposed to Pinochet, whose orders to torture and disappear people are well-documented.

Chavez has not banned demonstrations - loud, boisterous demonstrations were held frequently in the runup to this election.

do you, or do you not, classify Chavez as a dictator? You mean personally, or in terms of the position he occupies?

As an individual, Chavez certainly demonstrates many of the personality traits of a dictator. Did you see that he's starting a program of building "self-sustaining model cities" in the jungle? Never a good sign.

But in terms of how he has governed in the Venezuelan government, Chavez is better characterized as an authoritarian president than a dictator. He has acted within the rule of law, made himself subject to the constitutionally-prescribed election system, pursued his political agenda through legal and democratic means, and oh yeah LOST AN ELECTION WHILE HE CONTROLLED THE MACHINERY OF THE STATE.

You tell me dictators lose elections all the time. Name one dictator who was in control of the government and lost an election.

The Great Ape | December 4, 2007, 12:56pm | #

Has Jimmy Carter declared the Russian election valid yet? Those Chechen results are typically the only quality of confirmation he needs.

thoreau | December 4, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Why should Russia have democracy? So third world rabble can immigrate to their country, molest their women and then have people talk about the problem being not enough tolerance?

When the time comes for the final showdown with the Islamics, it'll be nice to have one state on our side that hasn't been completley emasculated.

Chalupa is cool with a boot stomping on a human face forever as long as the person getting stomped is a Muslim.

I know an Iranian dentist, if you're interested, Chalupa.

Anonymous | December 4, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Can't those people just settle down and enjoy the iron fist of democracy?

joe | December 4, 2007, 1:02pm | #

As a matter of fact, Ape, the Carter Center and frequently denounced the state of democracy in Russia and declared its elections to be unfree and unfair.

Jamie Kelly | December 4, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Name one dictator who was in control of the government and lost an election.

Jimmy Carter.
Har.

Isaac Bartram | December 4, 2007, 1:23pm | #

As an old 50s Mad Magazine cartoon had it (about Tito IIRC), Putin wins elections by running on his record.

His record that everyone who opposes him gets shot.

I suppose now you can update that by adding:

...or gets Polonium poisoning.

Grand Chalupa | December 4, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Putting aside the rest of the ridiculous statements in your post, what exactly makes you think Russia will join the U.S.? Bush's little fellatio job on Putin?

Imagine 50 years in the future. The American Southwest and California are basically our own independent Kurdistan. America has fractured among ethnic lines, the growing non-white population has produced a permanent Democratic majority. Hispanic America is run like any other Hispanic country and turns into a shit hole.

Europe keeps importing Muslims, their birthrates stay at suicidal levels and 30% of the continent looks like the Gaza strip. They're firing missiles at the European population without any retaliation.

America is the new Balkans. Europe slips into fascism or goes quietly into the night but either way the population tide is too great to overcome. Like South Africa today, whites slip into their gated communities but can't walk the streets without getting raped and killed. They are surrounded by poor masses who've been taught that the pale folk are responsible for all their problems.

European countries already have to conceal rape statistics out of sensitivity to Muslims. They have hang ups about cartoons and teddy bears but none about enjoying infidel whores. The fact that there isn't large scale anti-Muslim riots is the symptom of a sick society, on its last legs. Look at the black on white crime rates in America and yet blacks are the "victims". The Western mind is sick.

Where does Western civ start over? Will their be a country not so beaten over the head by the PC thought police that they can stand up and say "Islam is incompatible with our culture. We are interested in cultural, and yes racial preservation." If it can happened anywhere it will be Russia.

joe | December 4, 2007, 1:30pm | #

The fact that there isn't large scale anti-Muslim riots is the symptom of a sick society, on its last legs.

And you say you find yourself attracted to Russia?

Maybe we should drag them behind horses.

J sub D | December 4, 2007, 1:31pm | #

Imagine 50 years in the future.

You would be worm food by then, Chalupa. Cool.

Jamie Kelly | December 4, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Grand Chalupa:
That is actually a very well-reasoned -- and dare I say -- appropriate argument you put forth there. I remember first reading it here.

Episiarch | December 4, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Imagine 50 years in the future. The American Southwest and California are basically our own independent Kurdistan. America has fractured among ethnic lines, the growing non-white population has produced a permanent Democratic majority. Hispanic America is run like any other Hispanic country and turns into a shit hole.

So is this the intro text on the opening frame in your upcoming movie? Does it scroll into the distance, Star-Wars style?

thoreau | December 4, 2007, 1:38pm | #

The fact that there isn't large scale anti-Muslim riots is the symptom of a sick society, on its last legs.

Chalupa: Just so we're clear, you want to see Europeans in the streets rioting against ethnic minorities? And not just any Europeans, but the French? You really want to see the French rioting in the streets?

I'd like to think that Chalupa is just a uniquely diseased person, but sometimes I wonder if he speaks for the 19% dead-enders.

. | December 4, 2007, 1:51pm | #

"If it can happened anywhere it will be Russia."

Isn't Russia is one of the more ethnically diverse countries in the world?

Juan | December 4, 2007, 1:53pm | #

Chavez didn't shut down the opposition media - there are loud, boisterous anti-Chavez newspapers, radio, and televation stations in Venezuela.

Chavez does not appear to have had anyone killed during his rule - at least, that's what HRW says. As opposed to Pinochet, whose orders to torture and disappear people are well-documented.

Chavez has not banned demonstrations - loud, boisterous demonstrations were held frequently in the runup to this election.

You must be fucking kidding me....

highnumber | December 4, 2007, 1:54pm | #

Grand Chalupa,

Has anyone ever listened to you? Do you share your thoughts with family, friends, folks you meet on the street? or do you just get off on putting this type of crap up on the internet? There's no point in telling you off, because, obviously, that gets you off. You have a problem. I'm guessing that you need someone to love you and listen to you. You're hurting. That much is clear. I'm very sorry for you, but I think you need to try again with real people. Stay off the internet for a while. Take some kind of class, not a college course, but something kind of mind numbing, like at a community center or park district or YMCA. Go into it without expectations of human contact. Just let things take their course. You're shy, I'm sure. That's okay. Just be friendly to the people and they'll be friendly to you. I'm dead serious about this. Your life's not over yet. Good luck.

Ali (aka iih) | December 4, 2007, 2:03pm | #

Thanks Michael C. Moynihan for the post.

joe | December 4, 2007, 2:07pm | #

If I was fucking kidding you, Juan, I would have written something untrue.

Geotpf | December 4, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Putin does have huge stones, I'll give him that. Too bad he has a lot of actual popular support, and his opposition is both disorganized and overmatched.

Chavez is the same, but his methods, while teetering on the brink of dictatorship and thuggery, never quite get there. Changing a 51-49 result into a 51-49 result the other way around is not that difficult-Chavez could have stolen the recent vote if he wanted to go that route. His tactics remind me a lot of Bush's-he gets right up to the line, and maybe tiptoes over it when he thinks nobody is looking, but he never really bounds across it. He will step down when his current term is up (2012, I believe), just like Bush will.

As for Grand Chalupa's ranting, he's way far off. Fifty years from now, the United States will be less white, but no balkanization will occur. His racism prevents him from seeing that while first generation immigrants tend to hide in thier own little barrios and Chinatowns and Little Italys and the like, second and third generation immigrants tend to act like, well, Americans.

hale | December 4, 2007, 2:23pm | #

Grand Chalupa,

I think you're trolling. That bit about racial preservation is the sort of clue trolls usually leave that they're not being sincere.

Nevertheless, in the case that you're not:

Disregarding for the moment any argument about the plausibility of the narrative you've just offered, it's precisely the sort of national-death nightmare that has been the stock-in-trade of fascists since Mussolini. If we aren't stupid, we should be reluctant to accept any prescriptions on the strength of THAT sort of diagnosis.

de stijl | December 4, 2007, 2:31pm | #

It's like the draft outline for Act I of The Turner Diaries II: Islamic Bugaloo.

joe | December 4, 2007, 2:34pm | #

If the United States had stood up for electoral democracy when Chavez's opponents closed the parliament, put tanks in the streets, and drove him from office at gunpoint, we'd be in a much better position to hold his feet to the fire now that he's lost.

But we've got a 200 year tradition of letting greed, power-lust and stupidity overcome our better natures in dealing with Latin America, and you certainly don't break out of patterns of greed, power-lust and stupidity by electing George W. Bush to office.

Warmongering Lunatic | December 4, 2007, 2:36pm | #

The key to the Venezuela thing is Chavez faced an intra-faction revolt; General Baduel opposed the changes to the Constitution. So Chavez had to play the election straight. If he had rigged it, he'd have had quite likely faced a coup led by the guy who saved him from the 2002 coup.

Now, would Chavez have played it straight without General Baduel's guns oh-so-decorously hovering in the background? Good question. It's possible he would have, of course.

But the Venezuela result does not show that Venezuela is a democracy; it merely shows that at the least, Chavez has not managed to fully consolidate his rule. Khrushchev fell for a similar reason, we may recall.

Tacos mmm... | December 4, 2007, 2:45pm | #

Imagine 50 years in the future. The American Southwest and California are basically our own independent Kurdistan. America has fractured among ethnic lines, the growing non-white population has produced a permanent Democratic majority. Hispanic America is run like any other Hispanic country and turns into a shit hole.

Isn't that the plot of the _Turner Diaries_?

Geotpf | December 4, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Warmongering Lunatic-Good point, although, assuming the election was always going to be fair, that would explain the result as well.

That is, let's assume Chavez truly has the support of, say, 55% of the population of Venezuela. It's therefore not unreasonable that 6% out of that 55% would be convinced by the Baduel faction of Chavez's camp that the changes to the constitution were bad ideas, resulting in a fair 51-49 result (with all previous elections also being fair).

Grand Chalupa | December 4, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Ok, this article came out just in time to make my point. See what your kids are learning these days...
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_12_03/article.html

Also, Pat Buchanan makes the case pretty convincingly.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312302592/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196798234&sr=8-1

The thesis is...

A lot of Muslims + No sign the Muslims are being assimilated + fall of birth rates by western populations + giant birthrates by non western populations in Western countries and abroad + culture of political corectness = death of Europe.

Now look at the above equation, just substitute "Mexican" for "Muslim", "America" for "Europe", and "partition" for "death" and you'll get the same thing.

The two equations together = new dark age

ChicagoTom | December 4, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Methinks some people are throwing the word "dictator" around too willy-nilly. The bar seems to be set rather low when it comes to Chavez. He is hardly a dictator. He is a left-wing populist that has an authoritarian bent, but a dictator he is not. Oddly, many of the same people who go nuts about Chavez' actions seem to be A-OK with the anti-democratic authoritarian actions of our current leader.

It's also a bit odd to to witness the level of pious screeching about Chávez's authoritarianism from people who think the dictators ("emirs," etc.) of Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. should be treated with nothing but the utmost respect.


Putin is much more of a dictator than Chavez ever was and likely ever will be-- yet our President looked into his soul and deemed him a good guy.

Personally, I don't see Chavez too much worse than Dick Cheney.

J sub D | December 4, 2007, 3:28pm | #

A lot of Muslims + No sign the Muslims are being assimilated + fall of birth rates by western populations + giant birthrates by non western populations in Western countries and abroad + culture of political corectness = death of Europe.

Well I'm convinced. Let's start forcing "western" women to have more babies AND start a sterilization program for the "non western populations". The only problem is who would be strong enough, brave enough, and wise enough to lead us on to this final solution of our immigrant problems?

Tell us Chalupa! Who will lead us through the impending crisis? Who?

Warmongering Lunatic | December 4, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Yep. The observable facts certainly don't exclude the possibility that the elections are fair as a matter of course, and that Baduel plus PODEMOS tipped the electorate simply by persuasion.

So, you know, it's mostly an individual's sense of cynicism and/or degree of like/dislike for Chavez that determines whether he's more likely to interpret the known facts as a normal operation of democracy or a wannabe dictator held in check by the implicit threat of a coup.

hale | December 4, 2007, 3:42pm | #

This birthrate foolishness is one of the biggest specters to haunt nationalist thinkers, and I'm not sure why. It shouldn't be difficult to see how many other factors are capable of influencing the currents of national events besides the relative birthrates of various ethnic populations, particularly in the era of mass media and global trade, but throughout the modern era nationalists have fixated persistently and disproportionately on birthrate as an index of national health. I wonder if perhaps this is a byproduct of a worldview where nationality is an essential characteristic with intrinsic moral value.

Seamus | December 4, 2007, 3:57pm | #

Then, when the Chileans changed their governing structure, he ceased to be a dictator and reverted to operating as a politician.

You mean, when *Pinochet* changed the governing structure of Chile, he set in motion a transitional process under which he ceased to be a dictator and reverted to operating as a politician.

joe | December 4, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Ah, Great Man Theory vs. Social Theory of History.

It never gets old.

Tacos mmm... | December 4, 2007, 4:22pm | #

I wonder if perhaps this is a byproduct of a worldview where nationality is an essential characteristic with intrinsic moral value.

It's much older than that. Birthrate has been a fixation of militaristic principalities and city states since the dawn of civilization. It's really quite simple - more children equals more solidiers, and therefore more power. It's ironic that people like Buchanan who claim fear a return to the dark ages embrace fundamentally dark age ideaologies about birthrate and authoritarian government.

Ali (aka iih) | December 4, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Ali (aka iih) | December 4, 2007, 5:06pm | #

preview... preview... preview...

Tell us Chalupa! Who will lead us through the impending crisis? Who?

A socialized system headed by "Grand" (aka "leader") Chalupa.

Episiarch | December 4, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Tell us Chalupa! Who will lead us through the impending crisis? Who?

Jesus. But it turns out...he's Mexican! OH NOES

highnumber | December 4, 2007, 5:54pm | #

"You know Charo and Chavez and Chachi and Chico,
Roberto and Rosa and Rita and Rico,
But do you recall the most famous Mexican of all?"

(Richard Cheese "Personal Jesus 2006")

thoreau | December 4, 2007, 7:10pm | #

Jesus. But it turns out...he's Mexican! OH NOES

Even worse than that: Jesus is a radical preacher from the West Bank, at he received funding from 3 senior Iranian officials.

TEH JESUSJIHAD!!!! OH NOES!!!!

BakedPenguin | December 4, 2007, 9:23pm | #

...he received funding from 3 senior Iranian officials.

It's worse than that - a group of Israeli judges believe he's a terrorist. Clearly, his followers need to be watched.

late to the party | December 5, 2007, 2:19am | #

also, chalupa realizes that ethnic russians have about the lowest birthrate in the world, right?

tsehov | December 5, 2007, 8:13am | #

I probably can't avoid a bit of debating with a friend from Moscow when he comes with his family for a xmas visit. He's a great guy, but with Putin he has one huge blind spot. And don't forget that a good load of people in Russia would even take Stalin back, if it was possible. What is it with Russians and their love for authoritarian rulers?

Jennifer | December 5, 2007, 10:23am | #

So what? Why should Russia have democracy? So third world rabble can immigrate to their country, molest their women and then have people talk about the problem being not enough tolerance?

Democracy causes women to get molested? Damn. Last time I went to the polls, I couldn't even find a guy willing to finger me. What am I doing wrong?

joe | December 5, 2007, 10:38am | #

It's worse than that - a group of Israeli judges believe he's a terrorist. Clearly, his followers need to be watched.

There are also indications that he's developed a cooperative relationship with an official in the Syrian government.

joe | December 5, 2007, 10:40am | #

Democracy causes women to get molested? Damn. Last time I went to the polls, I couldn't even find a guy willing to finger me. What am I doing wrong?

Voting in Connecticut.

Jennifer | December 5, 2007, 10:41am | #

Voting in Connecticut.

Thank God. I worried it might be a hygienic issue, like maybe the insufficient use of Chalupa-style douchebags.

Grand Chalupa | December 5, 2007, 11:48am | #

Thank God. I worried it might be a hygienic issue, like maybe the insufficient use of Chalupa-style douchebags.

HA! Let me be the first to say that was funny.

A lot of women do get raped by blacks in America and Muslims in Europe though. At a rate of something like thousands of times more than white men rape the darkies.

Jennifer | December 5, 2007, 12:29pm | #

A lot of women do get raped by blacks in America and Muslims in Europe though. At a rate of something like thousands of times more than white men rape the darkies.

And doing away with democracy will solve this problem?