Friday, September 03, 2004

Goff = Hitler

Not Right Turn is pissed with Goff-Hitler. Goff-Hitler is a well known neocon who favors invading Syria and Iran as well as the western counties of Ireland and possibly small parts of Tasmania. Apparently he's not Jewish but is saving up.

The Labour Party has played a clever strategy of posing as a bunch of peaceniks, opposing US imperialism and sucking up to the French, but they are now revealing their true colours, which isn't yellow and it isn't pretty.

I have it from reliable sources that the "psychopathic prisoners" in question were actually Mossad agents, recently back from North Korea, holidaying in New Zealand, getting a very good rate at one of our more spartan backpackers. One of them for some reason got a bit lippy over the bacon and eggs for breakfast and needed to be well sorted out by the bros.

If the "Judges" want to take the law into their owns hands and refund the agents' money then they should do so out of their own pocket. But we should thank them for revealing that Labour is the secret power behind George Bush.

UPDATE: Just Left is reminding us that
We DO still have to worry about Nudity on the left;
Because its
about making sure that the perceived distance between the left cheeks is not so large that a government made up of them can be portrayed as scary or dangerous.
I disagree. I think a centre position between the Left and Right cheeks is what is needed although I can understand why some would say that smells. And I think Clark and Fitzsimons should keep their cheeks well apart, er, from each other's that is.

FURTHER UPDATE: has anyone else noticed the "strange" "coincidence" that the pro-GE-destroy-the-Planet Labour Party governs in the same city that a movie about a giant gorilla is being made? I think its a cover. They really are making GE super-apes to send to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill inocent civilians because there's still a few left. Not convinced? Then ever wonder why Bush is often likened to a chimp? He is a chimp - the experiment went wrong! Join the dots.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

George said it wasn't "sexual relations".

- Fay Ray

3 September 2004 at 4:53 PM  
Blogger Sock Thief said...


It has been argued that inetercourse between two individuals from different species is not a "sexual relation" since it cannot lead to reproduction.

However, as Not Right Turn argues, sex need not be defined as the act of reproduction, rather it can be linked to something called "pear bonding", or in your case that is perhaps "banana".

3 September 2004 at 5:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home