Friday, April 04, 2008

Absolut nonsense

Here is the disturbing ad you heard about on Lars' show yesterday:


Obviously any beverage that advocates the overthrow of portions of the United States should not be consumed by Americans.

For the record:

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

For the record:


Miglavs gets amnesty. Convicted of gang-banging, drug dealing and weapons charges.

No jail time served.

FILED: May 20, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Respondent on Review,

v.

DANIEL PAUL MIGLAVS,

Petitioner on Review.

(CC C000009CR, C000111CR; CA A111137 (Control), A111138; SC S50279)

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted March 3, 2004.

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**

DE MUNIZ, J.

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.

*Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Timothy P. Alexander, Judge. 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003).

**Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

DE MUNIZ, J.

The issue in this criminal case is whether a police officer lawfully engaged in a precautionary patdown (1) of defendant in accordance with the officer safety rule set out in State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 747 P2d 991 (1987). Because there were multiple charges against defendant arising out of separate police patdowns and a subsequent search of defendant's residence, we first set out the procedural history in some detail.

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm based on evidence uncovered during a patdown (the patdown at issue here) conducted in August 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence that the police discovered during that patdown. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress that evidence.

The same indictment also charged defendant with two other counts of unlawful possession of a firearm as a result of evidence uncovered in a patdown that the police conducted in September 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that patdown, and the trial court granted that motion.

Finally, the police executed a search warrant at defendant's residence in December 1999 and seized evidence that led to defendant being charged separately with seven other weapon and drug-related crimes. Defendant moved to suppress that evidence as well, and the trial court denied that motion.

The court consolidated all charges and tried them at the same time. Defendant ultimately was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized as a result of the August patdown and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized during the December search of defendant's residence.

Defendant appealed, contending that the police had relied on the evidence that they discovered during the August patdown to obtain the search warrant that led to the discovery of the evidence seized during the December search of defendant's residence. A divided en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motions to suppress evidence discovered during the August patdown and the December search of his residence. State v. Miglavs, 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003). We allowed defendant's petition for review. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the August patdown was lawful and, therefore, affirm the trial court judgment and the decision of the Court of Appeals.

We take the following facts from the Court of Appeals majority opinion:

"Just after midnight in August 1999, Officer Brown, who was on patrol alone, saw defendant and another man standing outside a car, talking to a woman seated in the car, in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Beaverton. They were below an apartment overhang, which caused the area to be fairly dark. Because Brown suspected that all three individuals were under 18 years of age and possibly violating curfew, she approached the group. On approaching, she saw alcohol in the car. She asked for identification so that she could determine if any alcohol-related or curfew violations may have occurred. Defendant and the woman in the car gave Brown their identification, which she kept while she ran a records check on them. The other male said that he was 17 years old and gave his name and date of birth in lieu of other identification. The dispatcher reported that defendant was a possible runaway, but defendant told the officer that he had recently turned 18. He also told the officer that he lived in the apartment complex, even though his identification listed a different address. He was unwilling to tell the officer in which apartment he resided.

"Because she was on patrol alone, Brown called for backup while she was checking the ages and identities of the three individuals. Two backup officers arrived within a couple of minutes. By the time they arrived, Brown had determined that the driver of the car was 21 years old and therefore lawfully in possession of alcohol. She also had determined that defendant was 18 years old and therefore not violating curfew. Brown returned defendant's and the driver's identification to them, making no overture to cite or hold them. They were then free to go, but Brown did not expressly tell them that. They remained while Brown continued her investigation of the 17-year-old for a possible curfew violation.

"At that point, Brown was concerned for her personal safety and that of the backup officers. Defendant and his male companion were wearing distinctive clothing commonly associated with a gang called the '18th Street' gang. Typical of that gang, defendant had a shaved head and was wearing baggy tan pants and a baggy black shirt with the term '18th Street' printed on the back in large white letters. Defendant's companion also was wearing baggy gang-style clothes and had a three-dot tattoo under his eye that is associated with gang membership. The baggy style of the clothing concerned Brown because, in addition to signaling gang affiliation, the clothing permitted easy concealment of a weapon. Within the preceding year, Brown had come into contact with a similarly attired gang member in the parking lot of the same apartment complex who, on a patdown search, was found to have a weapon concealed in his waistband under his baggy clothing. Also, based on her training and experience more generally, Brown knew that members of the 18th Street gang commonly carry weapons--in particular, guns.

"One of the backup officers, Officer Cockreham, shared Brown's safety concerns. His concerns arose because of defendant's 18th Street gang-affiliated clothing, as well as the way in which defendant's shirt was draped over his waist. Cockreham had personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members in the same general area (i.e., along Allen Boulevard between Hall and King); one such encounter occurred 'just previously to this incident' and the weapon he found on the gang member was a gun. Brown directed Cockreham to patdown defendant for weapons. On doing so, Cockreham found a gun concealed in the waistband of defendant's pants."

186 Or App at 422-24 (footnote omitted).

In affirming the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun, the Court of Appeals majority relied on this court's earlier decision in Bates. There, this court held that

"Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present."

Id. at 524. The Court of Appeals majority began its analysis by characterizing the basis for the officers' particularized suspicion of defendant:

"The officers' safety concerns here were not stereotypical in the sense that they derived only from a generalized and oversimplified view of how all members of a broad group behave in all circumstances. Rather, Brown and Cockreham had particular training in and experience with members of a particular gang--the 18th Street gang--and its local activities. The officers, based on training and experience relating to that particular gang, knew that its local members commonly carried concealed weapons. They knew, moreover, that guns were often the weapon of choice for members of the 18th Street gang."

Miglavs, 186 Or App at 427 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that several factors contributed to the officers' reasonable fear for their safety:

"On whole, then, we have this: defendant was a likely member of not just an urban gang but of a particular gang known to operate in the area--the 18th Street gang--whose local members commonly carry guns; he was wearing clothes that could have concealed a gun; the officers had both longer-term and very recent experience with members of the 18th Street gang in the area who were armed with concealed weapons; it was late; it was dark; and defendant chose to protract the encounter with the officers. The totality of what the officers knew and the circumstances with which they were confronted went beyond a generalized understanding of the practices of urban gangs and encompassed a specific and particularized reality as to defendant and the 18th Street gang, of which defendant was a likely member."

Id. at 428. The court thus affirmed defendant's convictions.

Judge Haselton agreed with the majority, but wrote separately to clarify that the court's decision did "not authorize 'officer safety' searches based solely on a citizen's 'suspicious' appearance or possible association with a potentially dangerous group." Id. at 435 (Haselton, J., concurring). He further explained that "our holding does not write a blank check for 'officer safety' patdowns resulting from officer-initiated contacts with young men or women wearing 'gang style' clothing." Id. (Haselton, J., concurring).

Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong dissented in separate opinions. Judge Edmonds asserted that the constitutional right to associate requires that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply equally to "those who belong to gangs, wear baggy gang-related clothing, or identify with groups known to be violent" as they do to others. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). He opined that defendant's decision to remain at the scene after Brown concluded her investigation of him was the only fact that could have contributed to her concern that defendant might pose an immediate threat to her safety or that of others. Id. at 436 (Edmonds, J., dissenting). But that fact, Judge Edmonds asserted, was of little significance in light of defendant's cooperative attitude and the fact that Brown did not tell him that he was free to leave. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). Judge Edmonds further posited that Brown's failure to direct defendant to leave indicated that she did not perceive defendant to be a greater threat at the end of the investigation than she had at the beginning. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). According to Judge Edmonds, the majority's decision would permit the police to patdown "any person dressed in gang attire and present in a mall or other public place * * * even in the absence of individualized suspicion[,]" contrary to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. (2) Id. at 436-37 (Edmonds, J., dissenting).

Judge Armstrong similarly believed that the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang, and their prior experiences with that gang, were not "sufficient to give the officers a reasonable basis to believe that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang who, because of that membership, was reasonably likely to be carrying a gun." Id. at 439 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He also could not discern a difference between the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of a particular gang that was known to carry guns and their knowledge that members of a particular type of gang carry guns. Id. at 440 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). "In either case" Judge Armstrong observed, "the state seeks to rely on a syllogism that people of a particular group often carry weapons, that the defendant appears to be a member of that group, and that it is therefore reasonable to suspect that the defendant is carrying a weapon." Id. (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He noted further, as did Judge Edmonds, that Brown did not have a reason to fear for her safety because defendant was cooperative and because Brown had not waited for the backup officers to arrive to conduct her investigation of the three individuals. Id. at 440-41 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). In Judge Armstrong's view, defendant's failure to leave when Brown returned defendant's identification was of no significance because Brown should have understood that defendant merely wished to resume his encounter with his friends. Id. at 441-42 (Armstrong, J., dissenting).

In this court, defendant relies on the dissenting opinions by Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong and argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in its application of the Bates rule because Brown did not have a particularized suspicion that defendant was armed and might pose a threat to the officers' safety. He observes that, when Brown had concluded her investigation of defendant, she did not tell him that he was free to leave, from which he argues that his failure to leave should not have contributed to Brown's safety concerns. He notes further that he was "cooperative and unthreatening" and, thus, should not have made the officers feel that he presented an immediate risk to their safety.

The state responds that this court needs to decide only whether "the officers' belief that defendant might be armed and dangerous [was] a reasonable one." In its view, "the officers reasonably believed that this defendant might pose an immediate threat primarily because he had expressly affiliated himself with a particular gang, the local members of which operate in the immediate vicinity and, in the officers' training and experience, often are armed." Further, the state argues, "[t]hat suspicion was sufficiently particularized because it was based on characteristics shared by a narrow and well-defined category of persons with whom the officers had specific experiences and about whom the officers had received training." For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state.

We begin with a review of Bates. In that case, a City of Eugene police officer stopped the defendant for "'excessive vehicle emissions'" at 4:40 a.m. Id. at 521. The stop occurred in a "'high crime'" area and the officer called for assistance. Id. Two officers approached the defendant's vehicle and one officer asked for the defendant's driver license. Id. The officers noticed that there was a "television and a videocassette recorder [VCR]" on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle. Id. One officer also noticed "an object on the floorboard between [the] defendant's feet." Id. The other officer also took note of the object and "'asked [the defendant] if he would reach down and very cautiously pull that item from between his feet," so that the officer could see what it was. Id. The defendant refused and instead "reached under the seat and remained in that position" while the officer repeatedly asked him to pull the item into plain view. Id. The officer then pulled his gun and ordered the defendant to step out of the car. Id. The officer then obtained the bag from under the seat, felt something hard inside, opened it, and discovered "several rounds of live ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia." Id. at 522.

The court began its analysis by noting the state's reliance on the Supreme Court's analysis of officer safety searches in Michigan v. Long, 463 US 1032, 103 S Ct 3469, 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983), and this court's own previous analysis in State v. Riley, 240 Or 521, 402 P2d 741 (1965), in which the court had acknowledged that "police officers are entitled to take steps reasonably necessary to their safety." Bates, 304 Or at 523. The court then held, as set out above, that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution "does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion" that the suspect "might pose" a danger to the officer or others. Id. at 524. The court explained that

"it is not [this court's] function to uncharitably second-guess an officer's judgment. A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made."

Id. at 524-25 (emphasis added). See also State v. Amaya, __ Or ___, ___ P3d ___ (April 29, 2004) (same).

The Bates court concluded, however, that the officers had exceeded the permissible bounds of the rule. Id. at 525-26. It reached that result by assessing the significance of each factor that the officer identified as contributing to his conclusion that the defendant posed an immediate threat. Id. The officer testified that the vehicle's out-of-state license plates, the time of day, the high crime area, the defendant's appearance, the fact that there was a television and a VCR on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle, and the fact that the defendant did not comply with the officer's instruction to pull into plain view the item that he could not see fully, all contributed to his concern about the defendant's possible dangerousness. Id. at 525.

This court, however, concluded that none of the identified factors, even when considered collectively, supported a reasonable suspicion that the defendant posed an immediate threat to the officers' safety. The court observed that the suspicions of the officer who ordered the defendant out of the car

"may have been an excellent guess–-the kind resulting from a sixth sense that many officers develop over the years. But, again, there is no objective quality to them that entitles them to any weight, either individually or collectively, in the constitutional calculus. Neither the hour nor the 'high crime' nature of the area tells us whether this defendant is likely to be a criminal, unless there is some reason to think that everyone driving in that particular area at that time of night is up to no good[.]"

Id. at 526 (emphasis in original). As in Bates, our inquiry in this case is limited to whether the precautionary patdown was reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at that time.

Here, the officers testified that the following factors contributed to their determination that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety: (1) defendant "was wearing bagg[y] tan pants and a black bagg[y] shirt that had '18th' written on the back of the shirt in large white letters[,]" (3) which the officers associated with the attire of 18th Street gang members; (2) the young man with defendant also had a gang-related tattoo consisting of three dots in the shape of a triangle that Officer Brown knew meant "'[m]i vida loca'" or "'my crazy life' in English" and his shirt also had the number 18 on it; (3) both defendant and the man with him were wearing, "untucked[,]" "extremely bagg[y clothing that] could easily conceal weapons"; (4) the officers knew that 18th Street gang members operated in the vicinity of the encounter and that they carried guns; (5) Officer Cockreham personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members and had, just previously to this incident, had removed a gun from an 18th Street gang member; and (6) neither defendant nor the woman in the car chose to leave after Brown returned their identification.

Before evaluating the factors described above, we first address defendant's argument that his cooperative attitude and lack of suspicious behavior was sufficient to dispel any concerns that the officers had for their safety. Defendant is correct that those circumstances must be considered in the overall assessment of the reasonableness of the officers' decision to engage in the patdown. However, defendant's attitude and demeanor are just two circumstances that the officers and, ultimately, this court must consider in determining whether the totality of the circumstances justified the decision to engage in a precautionary patdown. See State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 83, 854 P2d 421 (1993) ("totality of the circumstances" are considered in determining whether officer's suspicion was reasonable). As we now explain, those countervailing circumstances, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, are not sufficient to dispel the reasonableness of the officers' particularized suspicion that defendant might have posed a danger to their safety.

Under Bates, a limited precautionary patdown is authorized under Article I, section 9, only when the initial contact between the police and the individual is lawful. Here, defendant concedes that Brown was engaged in a lawful contact with defendant. Brown had approached the vehicle to investigate possible curfew, and later, alcohol violations. She requested defendant's identification and, upon concluding her investigation, promptly returned defendant's identification to him. In other words, as noted previously, the police contact was not initiated solely (or at all) because defendant and his companion were wearing gang attire.

Next, Bates requires an evaluation whether the factors that the officers claim supported their belief that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety are sufficiently particularized to defendant as required under Article I, section 9. This court repeatedly has explained that a person's appearance alone never can support a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 628, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (explaining that "shined shoes, sharp clothes, neat 'Afro' haircuts and people who stand and stare at officers" cannot say much about those people engaging in criminal activity); Bates, 304 Or at 525 (explaining that fact that defendant was "an 'Indian' with long hair and beard" wearing black leather jacket could not support reasonable suspicion to believe that he was dangerous). A police officer's suspicion must be particularized to the individual based on the individual's own conduct. State v. Stanley, 325 Or 239, 245-46, 935 P2d 1202 (1997); Bates, 304 Or at 525; Valdez, 277 Or at 628. Regardless of the officers' belief that gang members wear baggy clothing, that type of clothing alone could not support a reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a risk to the officers' safety. That is, nothing about such attire alone could tell the officers anything about defendant, except that he liked to wear baggy clothing. Nevertheless, a particular style of attire may be a circumstance that, when considered in the overall context or totality of the circumstances of a police-citizen contact, contributes to the reasonableness of an officer's safety assessment.

Similarly, clothing that announces a gang affiliation does not, by itself, give rise to the kind of individualized suspicion of a safety threat required under Article I, section 9. However, officers reasonably may draw inferences about human behavior from their training and experience. See Stanley, 325 Or at 246-46 (in officer's experience, people who commit robberies often are armed); Ehly, 317 Or at 80-81 (in officer's experience, drug users often are armed). In this instance, the officers knew from training and recent personal experience that the gang identified on defendant's shirt operated in the immediate vicinity of the contact and that members of that gang carried weapons. Furthermore, one of the officers recently had removed a gun from one of the members of that gang. Under those circumstances, the officers' safety concerns regarding defendant were not based solely on generalized or stereotypical information about gang behavior but, instead, were sufficiently particularized, based on specific training about and recent personal experience with a narrowly identified group, viz., members of the local gang to which defendant and his male companion proclaimed their allegiance and which operated in the area where the officers encountered defendant.

Finally, in addition to defendant's self-proclaimed gang membership and the officers' training and recent experience with other gang members, there are other factors that contribute to the reasonableness of the officers' safety concerns. First, the contact with defendant and his two companions occurred at a late hour in a darkened area in the general vicinity where one of the officers recently had encountered armed members of the 18th Street gang. Defendant was uncooperative during the initial investigation when he refused to reveal the location of his residence in the apartment complex. See Amaya, ___ Or at ___ (refusal to leave purse-like bag in vehicle when requested to do so was one factor that heightened officer's safety concern).

Second, although defendant was free to move from the immediate area after his identification was returned to him, he chose to remain in the area near where the police were conducting an ongoing investigation. When defendant remained in that close proximity to the officers, the officers' safety concerns reasonably were heightened because the officers needed to focus their attention on defendant's companion and were not able to watch defendant as closely as they could before that time. As this court explained in Bates:

"A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations."

Bates, 304 Or at 524 (emphasis added).

Here, the combination of factors that the officers identified were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable and individualized suspicion that defendant might have posed a safety threat to them. That individualized suspicion justified the limited precautionary patdown of defendant that occurred in this case and did not violate defendant's protection against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. Our use of the term "patdown" is intended to mean "an external patting of a person's outer clothing," as described in ORS 131.605(3).


Return to previous location.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2. Judge Edmond's concern notwithstanding, this case is not about whether Article I, section 9, would allow the police to patdown a known gang member in a public place for the sole reason of performing a patdown for weapons. Among other differences, the patdown in this case occurred in the context of a lawful police investigation and took place at night in the general area where one of the officers had recently encountered an armed member of the same gang.


Return to previous location.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



3. Officer Cockreham testified that defendant's shirt "actually said '18th Street' on it[.]"


Return to previous location.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous said...

anon 6:566
give it a rest jackass

Anonymous said...

Do you know who at Absolut we can complain?

Anonymous said...

"...I’m trying to think of a group of people more Pavlovian, more ridiculously easy to manipulate, more incapable of interjecting editorial control between stimulus and response then the Miglavians.

Nope not coming up with any.

God bless Tancredo for giving these simpletons face time and an undeserved, but completely hilarious, sense of SELF IMPORTANCE.

Salud!..."

This ad was not produced by the Mexican government and it does not reflect it's views. "Reconquista" is a fringe ideal espoused by a fringe element of Mexican society, just as "white supremecy" is a fringe ideal supported by a fringe element in America. Reconquistas no more speak for the average Mexican than Aryans speak for the average American.

Absolut is famous for their niche advertising. Visit their website and you can view all of their ads, many of them controversial. This ad was created to run in a high-end Mexico City magazine and appeal to the bohemian/intellectual college student. It is a tounge-in-cheek "wink, wink" at a current topic and NOTHING more.

For Christ's sake: GET OVER YOURSELVES, MIGLAVIANS!

Anonymous said...

Funny. You have to at least give Absolut an A for creativity in their marketing. Lighten up , Francis.

Anonymous said...

God I love Miglavians! They actually believe that the United States, the world's largest power and global hegemon (at least for a little while longer) is at risk of being taken over by Mexico. In the meanwhile, a 3 trillion dollar war in Iraq, increasing domestic unemployment and an unravelling domestic economy....?

No problem.

Welcome to Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

Anon 719:

"anon 6:566
give it a rest jackass"

I will not rest...sound familiar?

Remember, we're in Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

Seriously Daniel, can't you set your Blogger account to not show anonymous posts until you have approved them? I am wearing out my scroll wheel going through anonymous asshole's "Miglavs gets amnesty" comment on every one of your posts. I can understand your no censorship stance, but it's getting old. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

Anon 1035:

You don't have to scroll down. Just click on "anonymous" and it will collapse the post.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Miglavia!

Here, harrassment of the poor is not a violation of Christian scripture.

Long live Miglavia!

Anthony DeLucca said...

Anon 8:31
While the ad was not produced by the Mexican Gov't, it was produced by the advertising company that Absolute uses, which is based in Mexico City.

What if the Absolute ad showed a map of "palestine" where Isreal used to be? Or of the "Third Reich" where europe used to be?

We purchased the land after the 1848 war with, it's ours. Absolute has done nothing except to flame the tensions between the "reconquista" idiots and the American public. The ad is nothing more than a gimmick to draw publicity (which is what all ads are).

How about an absolute ad with a map of the US and Mexico......with a huge fence running along the border and a tagline that states "In an absolute world". That would be "racist" and you idiot anon posters would be all over it like stink on a hippie.

Anonymous said...

Delucca:

Visit the Absolut site and look at all of their ads. You'll find some that appeal to your unique sensibilities, I'm sure.

Absolut designs their own ads. They're famous for their avant garde style and micro-niche approach. This isn't the first Absolut ad that's been controversial and it won't be the last.

It's highly doubtful Absolut used a Mexican advertising agency for anything but demographic consulting services and media buys.

Absolut is not a player in the political arena, nor does it aspire to be. This ad is not going to influence anyone to do anything except maybe go buy a bottle of their vodka.

This hyper-sensitivity is pathetic. It makes you guys seem wimpish and shrill.

Anonymous said...

DeLucca --

PS: In addition to their own artists, Absolut commissions famous artists to design ads for them and encourages all artists to submit thier artwork for consideration.

LibLibrarian said...

Absolut is popular among a certain demographic which doesn't typically include nativists with rigid views on immigration.

I doubt very seriously that few who find this ad offensive have Absolut in their liquour cabinet anyway.

The overwhelming reaction to the "controversy" Lars and his ilk are attempting to manufacture?

Very Cheneyesque:

SO?

Anonymous said...

I want a tee-shirt with Cheney's mug on it and the caption "SO?"

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Miglavia:

3 trillion dollar war in Iraq, 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed, tens of thousands injured, countless innocent Iraqis killed....

So?

Rising unemployment and recession at home...

So?

Vodka ad pointing out that the part of the US used to belong to Mexico...

High treason! Mobilize the troops! This is an absolut (no pun intended) threat to our national sovereignty!

Miglavia: making mountains out of molehills since Daniel got out of prison (wait, he never did time)...er...since Daniel lost his last appeal and found God (who has apparently instructed Daniel to wage a crusade against impoverished Mexican day laborers).

Gotta love Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

Congrats Daniel! You, Lars and the rest of the right-wing goon squad have fallen for one of the oldest marketing tricks in the book: Put out an ad that will be seen as controversial by some, and then sit back and watch all the free publicity roll in!

And if you think you're generating bad publicity for Absolut, think again. As another poster already said, the type of people who would boycott Absolut because of this ad, are not the type of people who buy Absolut to begin with. So rest assured, you ARE being used as a tool.

And while you continue to whine about non-issues like this, the right-wingers you voted into office in 2000 continue to bankrupt this country by spending $1,000,000 PER MINUTE in Iraq. That is the REAL issue that will be America's undoing.

And you right-wingers wonder how come you've lost all credibility the last seven years???

Anonymous said...

Absolut:

Skoal!

Anonymous said...

What passes for "disturbing" in melodramatic Miglavia:

An Absolut ad that ran in a foreign country, in a niche demographic, in an chi-chi, esoteric magazine with a print run of 135,000 and a subscriber base of 48,500.

More like "hilarious," especially when it's likely that Quein's readers, among Mexico's wealthiest and most educated blue-bloods, probably live lives so opulent and swank that they would never even consider moving to America.

This post is disturbing alright. It illustrates, in disturbing fashion, how easily disturbed minds are manipulated into being even more disturbed.

Remember the Alamo! Circle the wagons!

ROTFLMAO!

Anonymous said...

I think I'll go out of my way to drink some Absolut tonight!

Anonymous said...

Danielito!

Are you coming to Woodburn tonight so you can film another conspiratorial gathering of Mexican students and their parents at Valor High's 1st Annual Family Dance-A-Thon?

Not only will you be able to wield
your trusty camera on a bunch of Mexicans (who may or may not be legal), but there will be a bunch of assimilation-resistant Russians and Mennonites there too, and of course the tratorious Anglos who accept them and live harmoniously with them!

The beans and tamales will be overflowing! Along with the scandalous platters of enchiladas and tamales, there will be communist cabbage rolls and populist pierogies!

Why, this gathering is shaping up to be downright un-American! I guess I could bring some noodle salad and potato chips to balance things out.

Hilarity will abound as we watch the grown-ups try their hand at the latest hip hop and crunk moves, and of course there will also be plenty of good old fashioned rock and roll.

I've got my questions all ready for you! I'm sure you will be accomodating, right? I mean, you do follow the Golden Rule, right? Right? Treat others as you would expect to be treated, right? Right? I won't harrass you. I can ask you rapid-fire questions with my camera all up in your face, right? That's not harrassment, so you won't mind, right? Right? You won't mind, right? Right? You can dish it out, so that means you can take it, right? Right? That's what I thought.

Family Dance-A-Thon. Tonight @ 6pm until ?. Valor Jr. High, Woodburn OR.

See you there Danielito! I'll even pay your admission. Don't forget your camera! I won't forget mine!

Don't be afraid Danielito. I'm a 45year old, mild-mannered, motherly-type, college educated woman with two little straight-A kids, and a cute little dog. I needlepoint, bake my own bread, and go to church every Sunday. I even support comprehensive immigration reform and enforcement!

I just have a few questions about the way you treat people and it will give you an opportunity to show us how well you tolerate being toy'd with and harrassed in a similar fashion. Just a few questions and a camera in YOUR face for a change. Nothing you can't handle. You can even call me a fat bitch and giggle into your camera! Your friends will love that!

It will be fun! Don't stand me up, Danielito!

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Miglavia!

Social engineering is not tolerated here. Neither is speaking in your native language.

And no, there are no contradictions in Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

Bienvenidos a Miglavia!

In Miglavia, we abhorr government intervention in free markets. Unless, of course, it is to shield us from "competition" with Mexicans for jobs we wouldn't do anyway.

Enjoy your time in Miglavia.

Calhoun said...

A few commenters above say that the reconquista is just a fringe thang.

Well, check this out :

"Reconquista Mexican Consulate Claims US belongs to Mexico!"

Anonymous said...

Splendid research Calhoun!

But do you really think that the Mexican government has an agenda to take over the United States? Do you think that could really happen in our lifetime? It sounds to me like this guy was just fucking with some rabid Miglavian protesters.

Welcome to Miglavia: Where global warming is just a theory, but we're at risk of being take over by Mexico.

Anthony DeLucca said...

You idiots that are "Poo Pooing" this as if it were somehow trivial since the ad ran in an obscure magazine in Mexico would be the first ones to hurl names like "Natavist" and "Racist" if a similar ad depicting Mexico as part of the U.S. were to run in a magazine like Stamp Collectors Monthly.

Hypocricy is the hallmark of the left.

Calhoun said...

"But do you really think that the Mexican government has an agenda to take over the United States?"

The current President of Mexico, Calderon, said in his inaugural address "Mexico doesn't stop at the border, and wherever there's a Mexican, there is Mexico."

And check out this little illegal alien turd :

"Young Reconquista"

Maliengus said...

Delucca:

There are dozens of obscure magazines and newsletters that cater to the nativist crowd with illustrations and cartoons depicting that map you speak of and much, much more.

And the answer to your question is: "NO, we don't get our panties all in a twist over this type of crap because, unlike you "chicken little types," we aren't so easily manipulated. We're prone to apply reason before reaction.

As far as "fringe types," there are plenty of kooks to be found among our current political leaders and representatives. Some of them make the "reconquistas"
look like Captain Kangaroo. Would you like the short list or the long one?

Again, "reconquistas" no more represent the feelings of the majority of Mexicans any more than "white supremists" represent the feelings of the majority of Americans. I speak from personal experience and proximity.

Delucca, you claim to have many Latino friends, so some of them, if not all, must have Mexican roots. Ask them what they think of "reconquista." Half of them won't even know what it is and the other half will say exactly what I have just said.

Anonymous said...

"The current President of Mexico, Calderon, said in his inaugural address "Mexico doesn't stop at the border, and wherever there's a Mexican, there is Mexico.""

That's because migrant workers are such a large source of national revenue, and they also influence Mexican elections. It's not because he has some grand designs to take over the United States.

As for this kid...HE'S 14! When I was 14 I was lamenting that I didn't live in Middle Earth with Orcs and Wizards, which seemed a lot more interesting than my hum-drum life.

It seems to me that this kid, though a bit confused, was passionate, which is more than can be said for the majority of American youth. He also reads and has some interest in history and geography, which is more than can be said for most Americans, of any age. It also seems that his primary beef was with the Miglavian protesters who were probably demanding that he go home, speak English, etc. How would you react?

It never fails. Whenever I watch these Miglavian-style shit-u-metaries, I always have more compassion for the immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Calhoun:

A 14 yr old? Get real Calhoun. That's pathetic, even for you.

Go to You Tube and look at some Aryan Nations videos. Do they represent you? Do they represent most Americans?

No. They don't. Reconquista fans are just as out there as Aryans and you know it.

Anthony "We The People" DeLucca said...

Maliengus:

I claim to have many Latino friends? When did I ever say that? I don't ask my friends what their heritage is...I don't really care.

As for my post, I never claimed that the Reconquista crowd was any sort of threat. My post was more about the hypocrisy of the leftist loons who troll this blog.

Read the post for what it says, not for what you think it says.

By the way, that logic should also be applied when you read the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights as well. Read it for what it says, not for what you think the Founding Fathers "meant" when they wrote it.

Anthony "The Professor" DeLucca said...

Anon 11:53

This is from the L.A. Times:

The billboard and press campaign, created by advertising agency Teran\TBWA and now running in Mexico, is a colorful map depicting what the Americas might look like in an “Absolut” — i.e., perfect — world.

Created by an ad agency, not by Absolute.

Anonymous said...

Anthony "deny, deny, deny" DeLucca:

You're not serious, right? I've been coming to this blog for three years now. You have said many times that you can't possibly be a bigot since many of your friends are Latino.

You are lying. And you can read that for what it says.

Anonymous said...

Okay, here we go again …

In the Real World, reasonable people understand that the United States of America is, for better or worse, indisputably, THE single most powerful economic and military force in the world, enjoying a hegemony unrivaled in the history of civilization. If you are human and live on earth, you eat our Big Macs, wear our Nikes, drink our Starbucks coffee, and watch Hollywood movies. It’s also likely that you speak … English! We are everywhere. Our economic interests are everywhere. Our military has bases and troops … everywhere. We dominate the globe.

In Miglavia, man-child idiot Daniel Miglavs is indignant and pissed off because he believes that a liquor manufacturer and distributor in SWEDEN “advocates” that Mexico “overthrow portions of the United States.”

Let us all raise a glass of Absolut and toast … Miglavia.

Anonymous said...

Delucca: Im Anon 1153.

If you research Absolut's famous ads you will learn that the majority of them are created by independent artists (some of them very famous).

Knowing this, but realizing that there was a chance an ad agency did create this, I specifically used the words "highly unlikely," but thanks just the same.

You're so predictable DeLucca. Who created the ad has little relevance, but if it massages your ego to be right, then good for you.

Anonymous said...

Anon 728:

Clink.

Yes, thankyou, I would love another.

Yes, straight up please.

Clink. Skoal!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Now didn't one of you say something about a doobie?

Anonymous said...

It should read...

In an ABSOLUTELY SHITTY world...

Spread the third-world country around little more!

Anonymous said...

My wife just came home with two bottles of Absolut. She and I like the new marketing. Needless to say, our guests for tomorrow's gathering will be drinking it on us. Guess what? We are White Americans.

Anonymous said...

Historical accuracy (which, I realize, is of no interest in Miglavia) would require the "Not Yours" be replaced by "Was Yours Until We Decided It Was Ours."

Nice Mexican Lady said...

You stood me up Danielito! I brought my camera and a couple of books about immigration that I thought you might find interesting.

Damn, I even brought some chili dogs, potato salad and a jello dessert so you wouldn't be forced to choke down Mexican food that may or may not have been prepared by illegals.

Bato! I was so looking forward to interviewing you so I could post it on You Tube! This really would have been a good opportunity to show you can take it as well as dish it out.

Danielito, I'm disappointed! You missed out too, Homie. You should have seen the table of grub. It was downright criminal, Ese. I've never seen such illicit beans in my life. And the tamales? Shameful.

I can't believe you were afraid of a middle-aged, Mexican-American housewife with an education and a camera -- someone who opposes illegal immigration even! Man, you blew it, Carnal.

Oh well, I'll get you on camera somehow, Danielito. It's my new mission in life. And I'm damn stubborn, just ask my Viejito.

Nice Mexican Lady said...

Oh... I forgot to tell you Danielito! I stopped by the Woodburn Liquor Store to pick up some Calvados (I use it for cooking mostly) and a nice bottle of Patron. The Absolut is completely sold out! For reals, Ese!

Anonymous said...

Posession IS 9/10ths of the law.

Invade...Occupy...Vote...Change Leadership & Laws...It IS all happening and the dumb ass liberals will buy more Absolut to drink with their Drugs and seem to be happy here for America to be invaded with the help of a Mexico Gov't not willing to take care of their own.

My friend in Houston got it yesterday while standing in line at a grocery store. A man yelled at her in Spanish, then the checker did and then the entire line of people in Spanish. She said speak English I have no idea of what you are saying, Checker did in English and said you are in the wrong area for English, go North or learn Spanish.

STUPID FUCKING LIBERALS, you really think you will be allowed to stay because you are on THEIR side? Just like the Muslims, YOU will be eliminated too.

And yes 15 Million people sneaking into ANY nation without permission IS an invasion and your Kids will suffer and DEMONCRATS do not care!

Liberals PRETEND to love Mother Nature, yet Mother Nature proves only the strong survive, soon then the Liberals will be gone as Mexico & Muslims fight for their share of this country.

Conservatives are our only hope of the survival of America.

Fortunatley Mother Nature is already kiling some Liberals with A.I.D.S. and Drug OD's, you reap what you sick fucks sow.

Anonymous said...

In Miglavia ...

Liquor ad: "Disturbing"

4,499 Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan: Not so much.

31,540 Americans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan: No comment.

90,000 Iraqi civilians killed: Who?

$1 trillion and counting in American taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq: So?

And finally, just as a reminder of what's really important ...

Ad for Absolut vodka: "Disturbing."

Welcome to Miglavia, where Daniel tirelessly takes on the big issues ...

Anonymous said...

What a crock of shit from anon857!

"My friend in Houston got it yesterday while standing in line at a grocery store. A man yelled at her in Spanish, then the checker did and then the entire line of people in Spanish. She said speak English I have no idea of what you are saying, Checker did in English and said you are in the wrong area for English, go North or learn Spanish."

Why are Miglavians so bent on convincing everyone that the world is such a scary place that they have to make up bullshit stories like this? I'm a white guy born and raised in a small midwestern town that is 99.9% non-Hispanic White. My Spanish is terrible, and I managed to spend six happy years on the West Side of San Antonio, a predominantly Hispanic city, without encountering any sort of conflict or discrimination because of my obvious gringo background. Nor did I encounter anyone harboring the attitude that their neighborhood was somehow for Spanish-speakers only. If there is a place in the country that should now be a balkanized, anti-American zone, that would be it. But, aside from the people having darker skin, and the predominance of Mexican restaurants, it's as American as Little Havana in Miami, Little Italy in New York, or my own heavily German hometown.

Before you actually expect that people are going to believe these bullshit horror stories, you might consider that everyday people have probably traveled a hell of a lot more than the typical Miglavian, who is apparently suceptible to believing the utmost horse-shit. Take for example, Max Redline's claim that France is on the brink of becoming an Islamist state! Who makes this shit up? I was in France last summer for a month, specifically Marseilles, Nice and Paris. It's certainly a very multi-ethnic country, but it's also clear who's in control: secular whites.

Always this bullshit from people who have never been anywhere.

Jeanette W. said...

I just watched your videos Daniel. I find myself constantly having to defend OFIR. Now I know why.

We can have an ongoing positive impact on addressing the illegal alien issue without being cruel to others, Daniel.

You aren't very kind hearted. What you put out there WILL eventually come back to roost, Daniel. God is watching you. That's all I have to say.

N.P. said...

Jeanette,

As someone who has a much different take on immigration than you do, I’d like to thank you for your comment, and your appeal to Mr. Miglavs.

Unfortunately, he’s immune. Self-identified Republicans and conservatives (who oppose illegal immigration) pop in here every now and then and take him to task for any number of things -- his extreme reactionary views (which flirt dangerously with fascism, in my opinion), his undisguised bigotry, and his near-total lack of maturity. To date, I’ve not see him respond, and nothing he writes the next day or the following day suggests that he’s given any thought to what he was told.

I think there needs to be a rational and even vigorous discussion about immigration and all its associated issues, and it needs to be one governed by reason, fact, political principle and a dense of decorum and dignity.

As you can see, Mr. Miglavs is not interested in having that kind of discussion. Actually, he’s not interested in having ANY discussion, as evidenced by his 99.9999 percent failure rate at responding to anyone about anything. It’s all about his chest-beating, as you saw on the video. As you saw, he enjoys getting off on himself.

Anyway, thanks. We disagree, but you are obviously someone I could talk to. Fortunately, I suspect you are more representative of those who have concerns about immigration than Mr. Miglavs is.

n.p. said...

Whoops ... a SENSE of decorum and dignity, not "dense." LOL

Anonymous said...

Fuck the Swedes. I ain't drinking any more of Absolut's vodka. I'd rather drink Costco's brand of Vodka (Kirkland), which is closer to Grey Goose. Of course, you can't get that brand here, because the fucking socialist government of Oregon forbid's alcohol sales in stores.

Anonymous said...

Not only are you a nativist idiot, you have no taste in vodka good sir. Absolut and Grey Goose are on par, meaning, both are average vodkas that are vastly overpriced. I can't agree with you more re: the OLCC. Excepting of course, the "socialist" part of it. I have no idea how that is "socialist"

Bobkatt said...

MEXICO CITY — The Absolut vodka company apologized Saturday for an ad campaign depicting the southwestern U.S. as part of Mexico amid angry calls for a boycott by U.S. consumers.

Absolut said the ad was designed for a Mexican audience.

The company said it was intended to recall “a time which the population of Mexico might feel was more ideal.”

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:38 PM

It global warming does seem to be a myth if you have not paid attention.

Snow in Baghdad:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1146182220080111

Snow in Saudi Arabia:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080111/96210251.html

Worst winter storms in China:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/30/china.weather.apology/index.html

Did you notice 15 ft of snow in two weeks in Detroit, OR?
I sure as hell don't remember half that much. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe 15 ft of snow means global warming is happening.

Keep drinking that kool-aid with Al Gore.

It looks like we're going into global cooling. We will need to drive our cars more to heat up the planet to save it for our children!

Frank said...

Too late Bobkatt. Absolut Vodka's campaign did wonders for their sales. Although Skank Malkin announced a boycott, Absolut saw souring sales. Over the ad maybe, possible over the controversy, but bottom line is they saw a rise in sales. Absolut has always been like the Ambercrombie and Finch of liquors. They put out a controversial ad, gain media, etc, sales to follow, then they put out an apology. I think it is brilliant. Skank Malkin alone probably increased Absolut sales two-fold. Hell, I even bought a bottle on Friday over her call for a boycott and I don't even drink.

Anonymous said...

ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT

Absolut had the class to issue an apology for offending a certain group of people. Does Miglavs?

Bobkatt said...

Frank: Michele Malkin may indeed be a "skank" however I don't know her personally and highly doubt it. You, on the other hand, by your comment leave very little doubt.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how those poor mexicans who can't afford to buy food so they must come to the US can afford to buy Absolut vodka?

Anonymous said...

As was already pointed out in this thread. The ad ran in a magazine read by the small percentage of the population in Mexico that is very rich. They can afford plenty of absolut.

Anonymous said...

You dumb Mexican bitch, it's Vato, not Bato. Jesus fucking christ, you fucking poseur!

As for the socialist comment I made above, the Oregon state government and many local governments in the Valley are clearly socialist or at least socialistic in nature. Legislation is drafted and implemented based on perceived "anti-social" behavior.

Driving cars is considered anti-social. Do I need to list all the bullshit that state and local government has engaged in their attack of the automobile?

Drinking is considered anti-social in Oregon, unless you are drinking wine. But if you overdo it and get caught on the road, the socialist government cannot protect you because to do so would show their complete and utter hypocrisy.

This state is so full of shit, I don't know where to fucking start. And some of you left-wing assholes are probably too stupid to even see it. The rest of you want this change to occur, which is why you spew your stupid fucking, idiotic bullshit over and over again.

Thank God the state has a few normal people left, but there aren't many.

Not only is this state socialist, at least in parts, but it's also a fucking police state. Everybody is afraid to drive around here because there must be one cop out there for every 10 fucking drivers on the road. Insane. I also love all the neighbors who seem to spy on each other and drop a dime at the first suggestion of "non-compliance" with some stupid fucking rule. I even caught the fucking city going through my recycle container to ensure compliance. Hey, FUCK YOU!

I feel bad for you people who never leave the PNW. You probably think this is normal. Well it isn't. It's all very fucked up. Oregon sucks ASS, man. I guess that is quite literal here, isn't it? Stupid mother fuckers.

Anonymous said...

Vato and bato are both
"acceptable" if there is such a thing in spanish slang. Where I'm from, it's bato. Look it up, dumb azz.

Anonymous said...

HEY, FUCK YOU TOO, ANON 11:26! FUCKING ASS-WIPE WHO "THINKS" HE KNOWS IT ALL....

Vato (also Bato) is Chicano slang equivalent to "man", "dude", pal, or brother. It can also be used to refer to a fellow gang member. According to the Chicano poet Luis Alberto Urrea, the word originated in Pachuco slang of the 1940s, and is derived from "the once-common friendly insult chivato, or goat. It had a slightly unacceptable air to it, which the Locos and Weesas of the Chuco world enjoyed. They were able to take the sting out of racism by calling themselves a bunch of names assimilated 'good Mexicans' didn't like."

The bato loco, ("crazy dude", "cool guy") is someone who is "fully immersed in la vida loca" ("the crazy life"). According to Rafaela Castro, "He may be a gang member, a drug user, or just an entertaining street person". Some scholars have characterized the bato loco as an archetype in Chicano culture.

GUESS YOU DONT FUCKING KNOW IT ALL..STUPID MOTHER FUCKER! YOU'RE SO FUCKING STUPID YOU CONTINUE TO LIVE IN A STATE YOU DESPISE. WHY? TO STUPID TO GET ANOTHER JOB AND RENT A FUCKING U-HAUL? ONLY A REAL DUMB MOTHER FUCKER SPENDS HIS ONE AND ONLY LIFE IN A PLACE HE CANT STAND. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU'RE A PATHETIC WHINER. GET OFF YOUR STINKIN ASS AND PACK UP YOUR SHIT AND LEAVE!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:26 --

So let me get this straight. You rail against Oregon and all things Oregonian. You are a rabid anti-socialist vehemently opposed to all things "socialist in nature," but you........

recycle?

ROTFLMAO...must be your Mommy's recycling bin. Poseur? Looks like it. You're one bad ass recycling mother fucker, alright.

Bwaaaahaahaahaahaahaahaahahahahah!

Anonymous said...

It's vato, you stupid mother fuckers. Pronounced bato. Just because you can't fucking spell because you speak Spanglish? Fuck you, you are all fucking poseurs. White pieces of trash pretending to be honoring diversity. No saben nada de nadie. Falta todo el respeto a los que viven aqui bajo la ley.

Jesus Christ, you fucking people make me sick.

Rail all you want, you Oregon fags. Totally inconsequencial to the United States. No one gives the first fuck about you, starting with me. Go eat a bowl of dicks. lol assholes.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 12:42, you talk a lot of shit, but I bet you are a real fucking pussy IRL. Tough guy behind the computer, fucking miserable douchebag in real life.

If I want to rail on you fags and the crazy shit you people pull in this fucking state, then I will. Ain't a fucking thing you are going to do about it either. Get used to it.

I love the Constitution, especially the 1st amendment free speech guarantee. Here's my middle finger, mother fucker. #1! lol

Anonymous said...

Hey 2:02, go suck my dick, you fag. Is it not obvious to you that I ain't from around here? Should be by now, you fucking cock-sucker. I have no relatives in this bitch. They have visited, but no one wants to live here in this crazy-ass, shitty state.

Yeah, I recycle, what of it? Saves me space in my regular garbage bin and I don't mind helping out where I can, but not under threat or force of law. You see, your problem is simple. You think everything is either/or. It's your way or the highway. There are no other opposing points of view with merit. What does this make you? A fucking partisan hack and in the tank for every left-wing cause out there. I don't swing like that. I call bullshit whenever I fucking see it. If you gave the first shit about it, you'd be curious as to why the city was inspecting everyone's recycle bins, but that's not important to you because you are obviously in the tank for Oregon socialism.

There aren't many free people living in Oregon. You are either in the tank for socialism or too busy trying to fight it. Me, I live like I do from where I came before, a free American. Ain't a fucking thing you can do about it, mother fucker. Fuck you! lol

Daniel does want to get in the gutter with you; he's better than that. I am not, especially since I have nothing at stake with this blog or any other for that matter. You fuckers try to ruin his blog, and I think Daniel should remove the posts that go on ad nauseum about God knows what, including the citation of legal opions. And he should remove mine as well. But when and where I have the time, if I see you mother fuckers in here, I'll be pushing back. Fuck all you fucknuts out there.

I am free bitch, you are a slave to your fucking idealogy and demogaguery. lol dumbshits.

Anonymous said...

Ummmmm, Anon 10:15? You've got some spittle there on your chin. Here's a drool cup. And a stick to put between your teeth. Everyone stand back and give him plenty of room....

Anonymous said...

Go jerk off in your own face, you fucking oregon fag. It's the only way you'll ever get any. Many one of our vato friends can do you a fucking 187, mother fucker. lol

I hate you faggot left-wing Oregon fucks. Fuck you all. Eat a dick already.

Anonymous said...

I tell you what is great about being in this sick, fucked up state. The Left expects you to take it in the ass when it comes to their bullshit. No one in this state expects any of the normal folks to fight back. Well fuck you, I am fighting back. I ain't from around here. If you don't like it, you can suck my hairy fucking dick, you fucking Oregon fags.

Welcome to the real world, assholes.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you're "normal" alright....


Bwaaahaaahaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaa.

Anonymous said...

You have hair growing ON your dick? Dude, that's DEFINANTLY not normal. Dicks don't have hair on them you dumb motherfucking badass recycler. Jesus fucking christ, you fucking poseur!

seo career said...

Slider Windows


Nice blog

lobolop said...

white idiots XD

XxMexicoxX said...

Are you guys so ignorant this picture is an old map of Mexico before United States stold it .