How neat, this was written at 4:20 in the morning. Get it? 4:20? Like the time the pot smokers get excited about! lol I will definitely be telling the gang about this. What a hoot!
"Dude, what should we do with all these seeds?"
"I dunno, man. Lets toss them in the garden and see if they grow."
Goofy wouldn't actually be so stupid as to believe that the point of planting those seeds was to harvest, rather than to see authorities and news reporters get their panties in a bunch.
CCP should have run the ad. It's not like this site/paper is a shining example of unbiased political reporting, nor is it a place where mocking candidates is a rare occurrence. I am not saying CCP should change anything about the articles they publish, because I do enjoy them. However, the judgement call on this ad seems a little hypocritical.
Hope the weeds were not too high, ba dum bum. Thanks,
will be here all night.
Larry Flynt, you pompous, self-aggrandizing horse's ass, this is not a First Amendment issue. You do not own these papers and you are not being censored just because the owners decided not to run your ad. As a publisher yourself, you should be ashamed to even suggest that someone declining to publish material, regardless of its content, is somehow a violation of the author's FA rights. In a society where FA rights are actually being violated on a daily basis, you should be defending those without a voice. Instead, you childishly flail about in your temper tantrum because someone refused to pay attention to you. Congratulations, you have officially joined the ranks of such irrelevant hacks as "Dr." Laura.
Noel, drop the false piety, mocking candidates has a long and proud history in this country and your paper does it on a weekly basis.
It appears that Bill Rogers is the only one without his head planted firmly up his ass in this story.
"Character, how does it work?"
So you're saying that you bootstrappy conservatives should only be held to the same standard as filthy liberals? You must not have much faith in your beliefs.
I admire a lot of Flynt's opinions, but he seems to be forgetting that the First Amendment applies to government censorship and not the whims of a private company, such as the P&C or CCP.
"Flynt said he wrote a check for the maximum allowed amount, $2,600, to Sanford's campaign, but a spokesperson told Daily Caller the check won't be accepted."
Is this going to be like when Mark Sanford said he was against stimulus money, but took it anyway because he's a hypocrite?
To Flynt's point of endorsing Sanford "because he is America’s great sex pioneer for exposing the sexual hypocrisy of traditional values...", I say fuck you Flynt. Sanford's Christian family values shtick works in direct opposition to his actions, and follows a time-tested traditions of Republicans saying "moral rules for thee, reckless inhibition for me."
Makes me want to go on out & buy some HUSTLER swag now! Hahahaha! Larry Flynt's endorsement whether Sandford accepts it or not, is a nail in his political coffin! Even if this is all coincidence or staged by the opposition, it's simply BRILLIANT STRATEGY or just dumb luck timing! Thank you Larry Flynt for saying what you did - you certainly painted a clear portrait of Sandford's character.
Go Lu-Lu! I bet the Colbert-Busch folks are grinnin from ear to ear over this! I know I am!
Larry Flynt should just buy this paper.
"bflosue, no, by my reasoning the Green Party did not reach the 10% polling threshold in part because last years Green Party candidate went on to commit criminal acts."
So, people did not vote for him because in the future he was going to commit a crime?
I had no idea local voters were all turning into pre-cogs. WHERE IS THE MINORITY REPORT?
It could not possibly be a better ad than this one:
bflosue, no, by my reasoning the Green Party did not reach the 10% polling threshold in part because last years Green Party candidate went on to commit criminal acts. My concerns were how well did the Green Party embrace and know this candidate Larry Center? Am I supposed to just assume there is no association with the party he ran for? That's not how it works. Also, I don't see how running a spoiler campaign is good for green goals. You have ingnored most of the issues raised, and history. I don't think it's Patch's fault your party only had 3% of the vote. It's your own parties fault for just running spoiler campaigns. Times have changed since 1990. Even Sanford was endorced by the Sierra Club. There is nothing original or constructive about you or your party.
Jebediah Bush looks like a bot, but is just a troll.
I agree with Stephanie that you should have run the ad.
So is that the "official" Republican viewpoint now? That the party of family values now says it's alright to dump the mother of your children because she has "let herself go"?
This was all Jenny’s Sanford's fault, she let herself “go” and forced
Mark to outsource their martial relations to Argentina. Now Jenny is one
of the “takers” that Mitt warned us about with her excessive alimony
and so called “child support” demands! Typical lazy and unmotivated US
worker that Mark so often talks about! Besides, Nikki supports Mark Sanford - Adulterers are US! or is it "Birds of a feather?"
Mark only used our Tax Dollars because he could get some hot Argentina
poontang, and any red blooded family values guy can understand that, I
understand why his hysterical and emotional opponent does not.
Further, his son put Mark in a bad situation by wanting to leave the
Superbowl party. What was Mark to do – the only place this new
technology called “Television” is available is in downtown Charleston
and Jenny’s house.
Eugene is not Larry - should Eugene be guilty by association? By your reasoning, Sanford should also be excluded - he is guilty of leaving his post without out telling anyone and using state monies for personal use. And Colbert Busch should be excluded because Alvin Greene was charged with showing inappropriate material to a USC student. Might as well cancel the debates altogether.
The Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by the national Democratic and Republican parties and their corporate backers - they have no interest in opening up the debates to other points of view.
I wish I could remember the name of the fella who thinks the long-lived should be tested for something or other. But, alas, my seasoned mind has learned how to filter out the inconsequential and trivial bleatings of today's youngsters.
"Getting remarried 4 years after a divorce is NOT being a single mom especially since you must factor in the dating time which makes it maybe two years."
I would call that being a single mom for 4 years. Dating really means nothing. When was the last time you saw the boyfriend of a single mom jump right in on day one and play father? I mean there are a lot of stepfathers that have trouble playing father.
Some of the comments on here are just downright silly.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper