Ted Cruz attack ad on Marco Rubio pulled because of appearance by porn actress.

Courtesy of Fox News: 

Ted Cruz's latest political ad turned out to be too hot for TV. 

The Texas senator's campaign confirmed late Thursday that it had pulled a commercial hitting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio over illegal immigration because one of the actresses had previously appeared in pornographic films.

The actress, Amy Lindsay, as you might imagine is unhappy with this decision.

Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in... #moretocome #myvotecounts

— Amy Lindsay (@amylindsayLA) February 12, 2016

Boy they really screwed over this young lady.

Which is something that she is not used to because she only does soft porn.

Personally I am disappointed in Ted Cruz.

I mean here is this attractive young woman who has made a living bringing joy to men everywhere, and he degrades her by putting her in a sleazy political attack ad.

Now every time somebody sees one of her movies, instead of this...

they're going to see this.

And that could kill every boner in America.

Sarah Palin and Franklin Graham are all pissy that Target is not going to tell you which toys are for girls and which one are for boys.

Sarah Palin showing off her feminine side.

So last week Target announced that they were no longer going to give store aisles with bedding and toys gender specific labels in response to some criticism on social media.

For instance.

Don't do this, @Target pic.twitter.com/cfh3cp5Nqa

— Abi Bechtel (@abianne) June 1, 2015

If you are the parent of a girl you also might have been offended by the fact that the girl's toy aisle is all pink and full of dolls and stuffed animals while the boy's toy aisle is full of awesome Lego sets, remote control trucks, and action figures.

I know I was.

Well apparently there are some people who are terrified that taking down signs pointing out where the boy's toys and girl's toys are located in Target will lead to a breakdown in society and rampant homosexuality.

And who would be so ignorant? Why Franklin Graham of course:

And as you know if Franklin Graham is going to get his righteous panties in a bunch over something, that means Sarah Palin totally has to throw her crusty panties in a wad right beside them.

Holy shitballs kids, sure God made the two genders with handy dandy "don't need no fucking science" hocus pocus, but there is no earthly WAY to tell them apart if Target does not label the bedding aisles now is there?

Thanks to Target the entire country will be filled with little boys falling asleep on Barbie bedsheets, and little girls having tea parties with GI Joe's and Ninja Turtle action figures.

And you know what that leads to don't you?

No seriously do you have any idea what that leads to, because I am at a loss.

Less misogyny maybe?

Boys playing with stuffed animals? (They already do, or haven't you seen Ted 2?)

Less frustration for kids not being allowed to shop in the cool toy aisle?

Am I getting warmer?

Look in all seriousness I worked with young kids for most of my life. Their sexuality is in no way tied to the kinds of toys they play with, or which color they prefer. (Plenty of little girls fucking hate pink, but fucking love little boys.)

Little boys playing with dolls, just means they are boys who play with dolls. And little girls who play with Matchbox cars are not necessarily destined to become grease monkeys who love the poonanny.

Personally I applaud Target for moving forward with the times. And they should remember that any decision they make which causes Franklin Graham and Sarah Palin to lose their shit, is undoubtedly the right decision.

After all, that's my criteria for decision making.

FBI would like to hire computer experts to help fight cyber crime, if they could only find some that don't smoke pot. Good luck with that.

FBI Director James B. Comey

Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:  

Monday was a big day for the nation’s cyber police. The Justice Department charged five Chinese military officials with hacking, and brought charges against the creators of powerful hacking software. 

But FBI Director James B. Comey said Monday that if the FBI hopes to continue to keep pace with cyber criminals, the organization may have to loosen up its no-tolerance policy for hiring those who like to smoke marijuana. 

Congress has authorized the FBI to add 2,000 personnel to its rolls this year, and many of those new recruits will be assigned to tackle cyber crimes, a growing priority for the agency. And that’s a problem, Mr. Comey told the White Collar Crime Institute, an annual conference held at the New York City Bar Association in Manhattan. A lot of the nation’s top computer programmers and hacking gurus are also fond of marijuana. 

“I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview,” Mr. Comey said. 

Mr. Comey said that the agency was “grappling with the question right now” of how to amend the agency’s marijuana policies, which excludes from consideration anyone who has smoked marijuana in the previous three years, according to the FBI’s Web site.

Let's face it, the new methodology for fighting crime in the 21st century, has less to do with marksmanship and kicking in front doors, and more to do with killing viruses and finding the backdoor that leads past computer security systems.

And the people who are best trained to do that are not likely to be a straight arrow, g-man type as played by Efrem Zimbalist Jr. in the old FBI television series and instead be more like this guy.

 In other words our ability to defend ourselves against devastating cyber attacks from Iran, China, and of course Canada, may be put at risk by the idea that marijuana is a dangerous drug like heroin instead of a socially accepted mood modifier like beer.

Tea Party leader says that "Sex is not about fun." I think I finally understand why these people are so angry all the time.

Tea Party leader Jerome Corsi

This is a quote from Captain Cock blocker up there, "Our founding fathers knew that if we went this direction, there was no more moral compass and you won’t be able to explain to your children — you’ll have to face the fact that we lost holding the line on one of the most principle issues in the Bible, and that is sex is not about fun. If you want to have fun read a book."

Yeah okay, now either this idiot has NO idea how to actually have sex, or he is reading some incredibly good books.  I am guessing the first one.

And does he REALLY believe that the Founding Fathers did NOT have sex for fun?

Has he not read about Benjamin Franklin? Or Thomas Jefferson?  I really don't think they shared his view on sex.

This idiot seems to believe that early Americans were these religiously upstanding monks who were completely celibate unless they were married. When in fact we know that they were simply men, and that many of them drank heavily, gambled their lives away, and had quite a lot of sex outside of the bonds of holy matrimony. (You know the BEST kind of sex!)

Hell if sex were not fun we as a species would have died out long ago.


Personally I feel sorry for this asshole's wife. How much pleasure do you think he ever gave her? (You know, before he slid his bulk off of her and let her finally catch her breath and start dealing with the shame of having to actually touch him?)

Gee no wonder these Teabagger's are always waving signs attacking the President and bitching about everything under the sun. They are sexually frustrated.  I also think it kind of explains that whole fixation on guns as well.

If you know what I'm saying.

(H/T to Liberal America.)

"The pornography of Anne Frank." Wait, what?

Courtesy of Christian Post:  

The Anne Frank Diary is 'pornographic' according to one mother who has lodged a formal complaint over the book being used in school to educate her own child. 

Mom, Gail Horalek, has filed a formal complaint against her daughter's school district over its use of the Anne Frank Diary, saying that many of the passages contained in the book are far too graphic for seventh graders like her daughter. 

The mother highlights one part of the book in which Frank discusses discovering her genitalia, and Horalek has said it is akin to pornography, and is completely inappropriate for her child and her schoolmates. 

She has complained that Meads Mill Middle School should have asked parents to sign a permission slip before they assigned the book to the children to read, due to the content. 

She has said, "The problem is the school is giving the seventh graders inappropriate material and not explaining it to the parents," according to the Northville Patch. 

Horalek has explained that the school has sent permission slips home for parents to sign when they have looked to use various other books and films that may contain strong material that some could deem "inappropriate." 

Apparently the part of the book that has so offended this lunatic is this portion:  

“What’s even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris … When you’re standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you’re standing, so you can’t see what’s inside. They separate when you sit down and they’re very red and quite fleshy on the inside.”

Okay look I think I know a little something about pornography, after all I am immoral, but if reading about the terrible fate of this young woman gets your juices going, you may have MUCH more to worry about than appropriate reading materials.

This is simply an honest description of a young woman writing about discovering her body parts. and in no way does it come off as salacious or prurient. At least no in my world.

This mother is obviously deeply disturbed and it makes me wonder how she handles all of those Donald Duck cartoons where the foul fowl is constantly running around without any pants on?

Here is the part that REALLY get me:

Horalek has now demanded that the book be removed from the curriculum: "It doesn't mean my child is sheltered, it doesn't mean I live in a bubble and it doesn't mean I'm trying to ban books." 

Yes, yes it does! If you are demanding that a book be removed from a library, then you are by DEFINITION banning books!

You know if this idiot would spend more time on her reading comprehension, instead of focusing all of her attention on combing books for the mention of genitalia, she MIGHT have been able to figure that out for herself.