Whole Lotta Hate: Celebrating One Year of Unamusement Park!
Jan 22nd, 2012 by Unamused
Let the celebrations begin! Today, the Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens…
… slutty forest faeries…
… gratuitous French girls…
… and racial hatred…
… turns ONE YEAR OLD. Huzzah!
A bold new direction!
On this very special occasion, I am pleased to announce that in exactly one week, Unamusement Park will cease to exist in its current format. At that time, we will permanently switch to a monthly print publication, which we will hand-deliver to each of our subscribers.
Unamusement Park will also change its name. To Radish.
I see that some of you have questions. Very well. Yes, you there. The gratuitous French girl dressed as a slutty forest faerie, holding the silly kitten.
Gratuitous French Girl: Radish?
Unamused: Yes. Radish.
Gratuitous French Girl: What ze damn hell shit does zat mean?
Unamused: Glad you asked. “Radish” is, of course, the root word of “racist.” Are you beginning to comprehend? No? What if I told you that, in addition to being the root word of “racist,” “radish” is the root word… of “root”? Do you see now? “Radish” is the root word of both “racist” and “root.” Or, as I like to say: “radish” is the radish word of both “racist” and “root.”
Gratuitous French Girl: I was led to believe zat “radix” was ze root word —
Unamused: Ze radish word.
Gratuitous French Girl: — was ze radish word of “racist” and “root.” And, for zat matter, of “radish,” which is a root vegetable, you silly goose.
Unamused: A radish vegetable, I think you’ll find, you silly pear. The radish is a radish vegetable. And no. This is a common misunderstanding, like the urban legend that putting a dog in the microwave will give you hairy palms.
Gratuitous French Girl: [unintelligible]
Unamused: Don’t make me tickle you. In truth, it is “radish” that, besides being a delicious root — I mean, radish — vegetable, is the root word of “radix,” “racist” and “root” alike. Or, as I like to say: it is “radish” that, besides being a delicious radish vegetable, is the radish word of “radish,” “radish” and “radish” alike.
Gratuitous French Girl: Ooohhh… so dizzy… ze radishes… so many radishes…
Unamused: No, just one, so far: issue 1, volume 1, available January 29! Only $199.99 per issue. Why settle for Radix, when you could have Radish instead? Or, as I like to say: why settle for —
Gratuitous French Girl: Yes yes yes, we all get it now.
Vote for Unamusement Park’s new official site motto!
By overwhelming popular demand (by which of course I mean: I just now decided to do it, and I don’t much care if you like it or not), Unamusement Park is choosing an official site motto. Vote now (preferably from the rooftops), and make your voice heard!
Here are your options.
- “I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are niggers.”
- “We don’t hate all non-white people. Wait, yes, we actually do.”
- “There’s only one race: the human race. And blacks aren’t included.”
- “I hate all the niggers, they look just like chimpanzees, why won’t they go back to Africa and keep their chimpanzee paws off my big-screen TV.”
- “There are innate race differences in how much I want to exterminate you.”
- “Race realism, human biodiversity, positive white identity, and kill all the Jews.”
- “We’re not saying Hitler was right. Wait, yes, we actually are.”
- “The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls, and racial hatred.”
- “SLUTS! SLUTS! SLUTS!” (In honor of the all-time most popular search term leading to Unamusement Park, besides “Unamusement Park.”)
- “It’s cheaper than Radix.”
Gratuitous French Girl: Zis is an outrage! You forgot number eleven: “I am ze Queen of Croissants.”
Unamused: Oh, for the love of — you know the rules, Gratuitous French Girl. No croissant-related write-ins.
Gratuitous French Girl: Tra la la, I shall do it all ze same. Ah, les croissants… comme je t’aime…
Unamused: Please don’t encourage her.
Gratuitous French Girl: Tra la la!
If this is so then…
Best.
Troll.
Ever.
you did not vote
you silly pear
I vote for #1, but please do consider some write-in options:
kitties > negroes
hate & tickles since 2011
reality is ≠ nature > nurture
slavery & jim crow laws worked better than what we have now.
…pesky negroes!
lincoln was right: the races can’t live together (but he should’ve chilled with that war shit, yo)
as long the write-in is not croissant related
I am ze Queen of Croissants! Vote for meeeee!
Happy birthday! Now I have an excuse to drink!
PS I vote for SLUTS! SLUTS! SLUTS!
I’m a fan of #1, #3, #5, #6, and #8.
Just one? #5. It lends itself to charts and graphs.
#3. Why? ’cause really, it defines the truth that the realists know and the evolutionists neglect.
Also: daleks.
I love number six. And also this blog. Thanks for doing this, Unamused.
Congratulations.
And I vote for number 1.
Here’s one:
“Who Run Bartertown? Jew Run Bartertown!”
xD
#8 because it’s so ‘Unamusement Park.’
I laughed the hardest at 3.
#3 because they are not
#8 Wins!
It’s been a wild ride in the Unamusement Park!
“The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls and racial hatred.”
Works for me!
i vote for #9. really draws me in.
I do hope that you are not really shutting down the site. I am rather fond of your random posting schedule. Anyway, I think numbers 1 and 3 are the runners up. I am good with either. Might I suggest a write-in?
We are not racist. Racism is a crime and crime is for black people.
I stole it from Successful White Guy Meme… I should be ashamed but I am not.
If we can’t combine and have, “I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are niggers. SLUTS! SLUTS! SLUTS!” then just #1 works.
I LOL’d at #1
I would vote for number 1.
10, definitely. Hilarious.
Mes félicitations !
No.1 wins, but limit it to the second statement (it implies the first).
Kittens rule.
An amended version of 10:
“It’s cheaper than Botox.”
Now that you’ve been blogging for a year, we’ll see how jaded you are after you’ve done this for eight years and change like yours truly.
No. 12 – We don’t hate black people, we just feel better when they’re not around making a lot of noise and being generally annoying… or robbing us… or hurting us with all their macho crap shit. DAMN! FRIGGIN IDIOTS!!
“you did not vote
you silly pear”
I did.
Hello, Unamusement Park:
Continue to love the site, happy anniversary. Glad you’ve punched the jew question in the face. From your surname, I just assumed you were Korean.
Anyhow, scroll down far enough through this…:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/can-the-rise-of-the-internet-explain-dc-zoning-fights/251930/
and you’ll find this:
So we’re not NECESSARILY crazy or evil. Take heart.
The results so far…
In a clear lead with 8 votes is #1: “I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are niggers.”
In second place with 5 votes is #3: “There’s only one race: the human race. And blacks aren’t included.”
In third place with 4 votes is #8: “The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls and racial hatred.”
Tied for fourth with 2 votes each are #6 and #9: “Race realism, human biodiversity, positive white identity, and kill all the Jews” and “SLUTS! SLUTS! SLUTS!”
The rest have one vote or less. Well, #5 has one vote and the Daleks’ endorsement, but we don’t care about Daleks.
“I am ze Queen of Croissants,” a write-in, has 1 vote from a certain gratuitous someone but, being croissant related, it was ruled inadmissible.
“I’m not racist. It’s just none of my friends are niggers.”
Or
1. “I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are niggers.”
#3
And if you don’t go with it you’re a racist.
Or something…
I actually like your blog. Keep up the good work.
Number 8 gets my vote. “The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls and racial hatred.”
Thank you, hardtruth. Hope to see you back.
It’s still #1, #3 and #8, in that order, with 9, 6 and 5 votes, respectively. I hope none of you are actually voting from the rooftops. I can’t count your vote if it comes in bullet form!
Now seems as good a time as any to mention that I intended “Vote for Unamusement Park’s new official site motto!” to be as much of a joke/troll as “A bold new direction!” (No, I’m not really shutting the site down, you silly pear.)
But now I think I will choose an official site motto. Or mottos. My favorites are #1, #3 and #8. Probably not a coincidence. I have an inexplicable fondness for #6, though.
Read this a few hours ago… Just stopped laughing. Congrats on one year.
I vote for “I am ze Queen of Croissants”
If you are capable of saying no to the French girls… you are a better man than I.
Wouldn’t one say “non” to the gratuitous French girls?
#8, hands down
Stay lucky, you nut.
I’m for number 11.
11. The Croissant celebrates the Last time we had to clean out you subhuman cockroaches at the Battle of Tours.
But if restricted to the approved list, I think number one captures the ironic humor of Unamusement Park best.
Congrats!
Well, 6. wins the irony prize, but 8. is still the best.
btw – Got kicked off my former blogsite (“What’s Wrong With the World”) for (a) mentioning and then (b) defending you.
Can’t blame you if you didn’t notice. Like Camelot, it was a silly place.
#1 has a commanding lead with 10 votes. #8 has jumped to second place with 7. #3 is hanging in there with 6.
In other news, croissants are inexplicably popular ’round these parts.
Actually, steve, I did notice. You’re in good company: I too am thoroughly banned. trollolol.
I like how one commenter said — of “Knockout King” in St. Louis, I believe — that the problem was obviously limited to a few isolated incidents in one city, and that the local PD would soon clean it up. Why? Because he had never heard of such a problem before. And since that proves the problem doesn’t exist, clearly there’s no need to report on it now!
It’s like when the Philly flash mobs made the New York Times, and some black apologists said: “Violent blacks? Oh, come on. This is just like back in the 80s, with the so-called ‘wildings’ [that we covered up with accusations of racism]. You never hear about that anymore! Or like all the other supposed black mob attacks in Cleveland and Denver and Kansas City and Peoria and Akron and DC and Philly [that we covered up with accusations of racism]. All of those stories disappeared pretty quickly. So clearly this is yet another made-up black crime epidemic.”
Some clever person once pointed that (1) there is no bias against blacks in the justice system, (2) the news media are biased in favor of blacks, and (3) blacks are much, much, much, much more criminal than whites. I hate how easy it is to prove (2) using (3).
YAHOO NEWS TODAY:
There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said
I LOVE THIS SENTENCE……………
‘Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. ‘
Low-intelligence adults MIGHT BELIEVE YAHOOS PREJUDICES.
“Bound to stir public controversy” — what scum. Thanks to decades of politicized pseudoscience like this, the public has already been fooled into thinking that “people who give in to racism and prejudice” — in other words, people who are more afraid of tigers than kittens, and dare to apply the same standards to dark-skinned humans — are stupid, ignorant, evil “white trash.”
Someone (I don’t remember who or where) recently mentioned a poster, probably government backed, in the UK. It depicted three identical brains and a much smaller one, labeled European, Asian, African, and “racist,” respectively. Diversity/multiculturalism death cult propaganda like this study and that poster really gives me the creeps.
(For those who aren’t aware: it’s a total lie. We’ve known about race differences in skull volume, brain volume, brain mass, etc. since the 19th century. Africans have significantly smaller brains than Europeans, on average, and Europeans slightly smaller brains than Asians. There is no debate over this. Of course, this matches everything we know about race differences in cognitive ability.)
If the voting isn’t over, I vote for number 5. If the voting is over, I sadly mumble “number five” while looking at my watch and noting for the fourteenth time that I have neglected to change the batteries.
Anyway, my counter-mottos is, “I’m a white person, but I’m against racism. In fact, all of my friends are white people who are against racism.”
anyone know the gun type of the 65 year old who gunned down the 3 ruffians who attacked him on the trail?
mr27:
This story has the most detail:
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=361731
The 65-year-old was the “youths’” third victim of the morning. The dead “youth” was 16-year-old Julius Johnson, and the unscathed “youth” was 15-year-old Michael Gonzalez. The wounded “youth” remains unnamed.
Doesn’t mention the type of handgun, however.
How did they establish the low intelligence of the racists without resorting to hopelessly racist IQ tests?
“Race realism, human biodiversity, positive white identity”
There, fixed it for ya. Lets keep it positive.
Congrats on turning one. =^o^=
“I’m a white person, but I’m against racism. In fact, all of my friends are white people who are against racism.” Further to Olave’s I would add “Some of my friends could be black if they would just give up being racist.”
You’re right, Mr. Whale. I myself tried to be black and I would’ve made it, except that every time I tried hang out and play some b-ball with the brothers, I’d get all fluttery in the tummy and run away. It took a nice decaf latte at Starbucks and three John Coltrane records to calm me down.
#8 looks good.
Black parenting at work. Thought I’d post it here first. Found a couple other examples and I hope my fellow readers will turn up more.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2012/01/report_11-year-old_detroit_gir.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjjijCx9JUY <—–Bewry Intewesting <—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKg_UPncx9U
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-0wFPFOJ20ho/mom_abandons_her_baby_while_shoplifting_police_find_a_gun_in_stroller/
I’m disappointed that nobody seems to recognize that Unamused’s piece is a parody of Richard Spencer’s website, AltRight.com, and that it’s Right On parody. Congratulations, and I am amused, Unamused. Keep up the good work.
Don’t mistake 4W for a right-wing or race-realist website. 4W is a Catholicism uber alles website that mutters conservative-sounding things from time to time. When discussing the subject of interracial adoption, for instance, these good folks rapidly approach orgasm.
I think they oppose globalist Islam because it’s a threat to the globalist Catholicism that they champion rather than out of any love for the West.
@Silent Running – Few things are as status boosting and moral superiority defining to DWLs as raising some black child born to a impoverished crack addicted woman to grow and go to college. I think it goes on their gravestone. As baby boomer DWLs die, we’ll get to see if that is true.
My track team had a lean and cute black girl adoptee on the girls’ squad. She was fine right up until nature overtook nurture and she dropped out of college, dropped communication with her parents, and lived a rather wild experience. Her parents stopped bragging about her to the town right around her 23rd birthday, but it was a glorious 23 years for them to lord it over everyone else.
@Silent Running: I wouldn’t call WWWW a “Catholicism über alles” website – the editor, Paul Cella, is some sort of Eastern Orthodox, as I recall, and Lydia McGrew, by far the dominant force there, is Episcopalian, or Anglican, I think – definitely not Catholic.
We did have a couple of very distinguished Roman Catholic philosophers on board, for a while – namely, Frank Beckwith and Ed Feser – but, sadly, they both jumped ship, quite some time ago.
Not to mention Zippy Catholic, who also jumped ship, because he disagreed with Frank & Ed about the moral acceptability of water-boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or some such thing.
But I say “we” when I should say “they.” Force of habit.
@mr27, spoken for truth. Vanity adoption is now so fashionable that in the next decade we’ll be seeing a lot of what I call Pit Bull stories: you raise them up, shower them with love, and they still turn on you.
@Steve Burton, thank you for the correction: Cella’s the Orthodox, McGrew’s the Protestant, and you’re the [insult]. I noticed that in the link I posted you are the first to cry “Racist!” Tell me, were you writing under the influence of [insult], or do you genuinely believe that the low demand for 85 IQ black babies is due to racism?
[Unamused: There's no call for those sorts of insults. Besides, he wrote that comment three years ago.]
Unamused,
It’s your blog so I’ll respect your judgment. But I prefer to treat my avowed enemies as enemies. I doubt that Mr. Burton has seen a 180 in his views since he made the comment.
@Silent Running/@Unamused – the “Steve” who commented in that thread wasn’t me. He was some other guy. In comments at WWWW I always used my full name: steve burton.
Mr. Burton,
I apologize. It was wrong of me to jump to that conclusion, and I take back the above comment.
He may
stillbelieve all sorts of things you (or I) disagree with. He may in fact be your avowed enemy. Really, it doesn’t matterthat the comment is old, orwhat Steve thinks/thoughtabout interracial adoption. What matters to me is that he is a contributing commenter (i.e., not some anti-white troll) and he hasn’t insulted anyone, so he should be accorded the same respectful treatment.I enjoyed that Oddball video way too much.
Edit: Oh, and it wasn’t even his comment :P OK let’s call that matter resolved.
OK let’s call that matter resolved.
It’s not resolved yet. Isn’t there some Asshole of the Week award that I should be up for? I can provide my mailing address if it’s a windbreaker or one of those travel mugs.
I sent away for that award months ago. They promised me a windbreaker with a picture of a travel mug on it. Still have not received it.
Well, in other news, the results are in.
In third place: “There’s only one race: the human race. And blacks aren’t included.”
In second place: “The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls and racial hatred.”
And in first place: “I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are niggers.”
So anyway, I’ve decided to just rotate the “official site motto” every few days, beginning with — yes — fan favorite #8: “The Internet’s #1 source for silly kittens, slutty forest faeries, gratuitous French girls and racial hatred.” Also, I’m keeping the silly header (with the albatross and the Klansman and the kitteh and the squirl).
Stay classy, ‘Park readers.
Silent Running – no problem. It was an understandable mistake. We’re all buddies now, I hope!
You’re quite right, by the way, that WWWW was never a “race-realist” website. In that respect, I was always pretty much on my own, there. I think two or three of the other contributors had a sneaking sympathy for what I was saying, now and then, on that topic, but, when push came to shove – I got the shove.
Unamused, Silent Running, and Steve Burton,
As a fan of Steve’s work, I was sad to see him go. However, I think it is safe to say, and this goes for Unamused as well, that the issue for the folks at W4 is not race realism per se, but how it fits into a broader Christian worldview. And what bothered folks at W4 about Steve’s post is that it was his sole contribution on Christmas; in other words, totally inappropriate for that day and that day’s proper subject matter.
Now, as Steve is an atheist and no doubt probably agrees with Unamused that “there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural beings, let alone a personal God” he should nevertheless know that it is (1) rude to argue this on a Christmas day blog post (2) especially foolish to make such a statement to a group of really smart Christians who would in fact be happy to discuss with Unamused the evidence for God. Again, I’m not saying Steve agrees with his former co-bloggers on the subject, but he seemed to at least take their arguments seriously and argued with them as one philosopher to another.
Finally, I have to admit to a particular loathing for the caricature used by Silent Running to describe the post he links to written by Lydia McGrew (who is Anglican Catholic, by the way, which you could find out by going to her webpage). In that post she gives a very balanced and fair Christian defense of inter-racial and internation adoption. Of course, if you reject Christian ethics then you might find her post confusing or strange; but please don’t describe that post as something a guilt-addled liberal might write. Lydia comes from a place philosophically so far removed from the typical white liberal that it is funny you would confuse the two.
Of course it was rude. That was my intent. The Christmas factor was just a bonus. The “anti-racists” I directed my comment at were asking for it. However…
I wouldn’t have said it if I knew you were a regular there. I also wouldn’t have said it if I wasn’t in a bit of a bad mood over — no, not what they said about me, I don’t care about that. (I get worse on a semi-regular basis. I take it as recognition of the appeal of my message.)
It’s how they dismiss brutal, racially motivated attacks because… well, because the victims are white and the perpetrators are black and we just don’t talk about such things around here, you awful awful man.
I won’t claim I didn’t mean what I said, but I would have expressed it quite differently if I had been having a real conversation with a rational person, not a couple of “anti-racist” fanatics.
Still, while we’re on the subject, and at the risk of being rude and foolish again, I must admit that I have serious doubts about the ability of those particular really smart Christians to offer up actual evidence for their personal choice of supernatural being.
Meaningless but very wordy pronouncements on the philosophical nature of evidence itself? Sure. Invalid arguments from the Middle Ages that, if they were valid, would prove the existence of multiple, mutually exclusive almighty beings? Definitely. Pointing at bananas and flowers and babies and stars and pretty waterfalls and saying “I don’t understand how that came to be, therefore God”? Probably. Declaring that “without God, life would be meaningless, and we really, really, really don’t want life to be meaningless, so… God”? Undoubtedly.
But evidence evidence? Like: this is what we would observe if there were no personal God, but instead we see…? Like: here is a thing which could only have been produced by a supernatural being? Not in my experience.
Having been banned for my comment, I shall never know. We can talk it over at your blog sometime if you like.
“Invalid arguments from the Middle Ages that, if they were valid, would prove the existence of multiple, mutually exclusive almighty beings?”
I may be posting on this subject soon, but in the meantime, I suggest you start regularly reading Ed Feser’s blog, for a better idea of what Aquinas was all about, assuming his arguments are ones you are referencing in your comment about the Middle-Ages. I also highly recommend Ed’s book Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide which I’m just finishing now — I won’t pretend it was easy reading even for a “beginner’s guide” but it did give me a much better sense of the basics of what is now known in the philosophical trade as Aristotelian-Thomistic thought, or A-T for short. I believe Steve Burton has also read that book and has recommended it as a good introduction, again, even if he ends up disagreeing with Ed’s conclusions.
“But evidence evidence? Like: this is what we would observe if there were no personal God, but instead we see…? Like: here is a thing which could only have been produced by a supernatural being? Not in my experience.”
In my own faith journey, I came to appreciate the arguments for the historical reality of Christ through the work of the McGrews. Lydia is one of the W4 bloggers and her paper with her husband analyzing Jesus’ resurrection is an attempt to grapple with this question (assuming you think of historical evidence as valid).
For what it’s worth, you have been writing some superlative posts lately…while we have our differences I think the work you do is too important to ignore or dismiss, even when I think you deserve fraternal correction! You will be in my prayers.
@Fake Herzog: speaking as an admirer of your own work, I’m afraid you’ve got it all wrong.
The whole “posting mean stuff on Christmas” stuff was 100% pure pretense.
I was in Napoli, everything was closed, the internet was working, for once, I came across what struck me as a hilariously obvious attempt to bury important news…so I posted.
…and then that superlative little papist, William Luse, came down on me like the proverbial ton of bricks.
Well, I should have expected it. He really, seriously, hates fags, and objected to my participation at WWWW from the very beginning – even *before* the very beginning, if truth be told. And no matter how hard I tried to be nice to him, and to appreciate his stuff, he still hated me, and wanted me gone, and sought out every available opportunity to treat me like dirt.
That, my friend, is what this was really all about.
* * *
btw – where do you get off announcing that “Steve is an atheist?”
Steve,
Just to clear the air between us, I shouldn’t have “announced” that you were an atheist because it isn’t some special privileged information that I have access to — it was quite frankly just something I assumed about you from your various blog posts and emails. But truth be told, I don’t think you’ve ever said one way or another at W4 that you reject the truth claims of Christianity (or accept them for that matter). I just sort of picked up the idea from your posts that you were a skeptic…perhaps from your love of the classic philosophers of old…although I guess they believed in some form of transcendent being didn’t they?
Regardless, I shouldn’t be making comments about you I don’t know to be true — my apologies.
You will always be welcome at my blog and I’ll be extending a formal invitation to you soon to guest post over at my place although I’m sure “Radish” pays better…
Steve, gracious of you to accept my apology. I thank you.
Of course, if you reject Christian ethics then you might find her post confusing or strange; but please don’t describe that post as something a guilt-addled liberal might write.
And if Christianity itself is guild-addled and liberal?
Regardless of what Christianity was, it is certainly feckless and weak now. Either it was always thus and we’re seeing its inevitable conclusion (with the warlike history of Christendom being one vast string of unprincipled exceptions) or it’s at a low ebb and can become strong and violent again. If you believe the latter, then bang the drum for converts. Apparently there are fewer and fewer takers for the modern version.
Considering the way the Caucasian race dealt with other races even while saturated with Christianity, it’s fairly obvious that the views espoused in the thread I posted would have been abhorrent to Caucasian Christians (if such they were) living a century ago. Instead several good Christians at 4W implied hellfire for the grave sin of not wanting to raise a black child. Nice try, though.
Black Parenting Stuff
Dalisha left her 5 and 3 year old near her mother’s aprtment block to go on a date.
The 3 and 5 year old did not know where grandma lived so were found by the police.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094285/Brooklyn-mother-Dalisha-Adams-posted-Facebook-picture-naked-man-hours-dumping-kids.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
A neighbour of the mother, who also has another eight-year-old daughter, said she often heard Adams screaming at her children.
She told the New York Daily News: ‘She was always yelling at the kids, “shut the f*** up”.
‘One day, I heard her curse out the little baby, “I’ll punch you in the f***ing face”.’
The woman also said she heard more shouting on Sunday, shortly before the girls were abandoned.
‘A kid was crying. She was saying, “stop crying, shut the f*** up. I’m gonna get you out of here”,’ she said.
@ Silent Running: “Regardless of what Christianity was, it is certainly feckless and weak now.”
Precisely so. Whether it’s Benedict XVI or Rowan Williams or Russell D. Moore, at this point the “Christian” PTB are just a bunch of multi-cult patsies.
@Fake Herzog:
Apologies accepted. For the record: I’m an Aristotelian/Spinozistic theist.