Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how Orwellian of you.

. . .

Coming up for Air
--George Orwell

Careful, mister, you're in the No Spin Zone.

Well, if I took you down there the I'd want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first thing I'd do. . . yeah, we'd check into the room, and we would order up some room service and uh you'd definitely get two wines into you as quickly as I could get into you I would get 'em into you . . . maybe intraveneously, get those glasses of wine into you . . . .

You would basically be in the shower and the I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda soap up your back . . . rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water . . . and um . . . you know, you'd feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me and I would kinda put my arm -- it's one of those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it . . . and I would put it around front, kinda rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard . . . 'cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs . . . .

So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind . . . and then I would take the other hand with the falafel (sic) thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business . . . .

-- Bill O'Reilly

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

-- Bill O'Reilly

That is so not hot.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That is so not hot.

He is being sued for exposing his turgid prose.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by mmm3587
My objective analysis indicates that you're just some sort of rhetoric robot, completely unable to discuss facts and issues. What gives?

In the ten days I've been following this board you've shot your mouth off and been wrong several times. So, all your imaginary internet cred aside, all I see is that you don't really know what you're talking about. I'm not against hearing what you have to say, but you don't really seem to say much.

My avatar is a picture of a woman. I don't think less of you because your avatar is two fingers giving the capitol bunny ears, so try to keep your hatred of women in check for purposes of discussion.

Perhaps you should wait more than 10 days before calling someone out on a topic that has been discussed here ad nauseum for 2 years. That, or go back and read the thousands of posts to catch up.

Just a tip. I hope you stay.

[sgtclub]

The DNC has posted the pre-emptive directive in context here: http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html

I have posted the offensive portions below, but you are free to view it in context, as well as the associated spin that goes along with it and make your own conclusion.

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

• Issue a press release

i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state

ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points

• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics

• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The DNC has posted the pre-emptive directive in context here: http://www.democrats.org/news/200410140008.html

I have posted the offensive portions below, but you are free to view it in context, as well as the associated spin that goes along with it and make your own conclusion.

I posted on this previously. As you may have noticed, it starts at #2. As little as you think of the Dems intellectual capability, they are surely smart enough to start numbering at #1. This leads me to conclude that something may be missing that would have provided additional context.

As to what is there, I don't see what you find so insidious. There has been evidence of voter intimidation in some areas in the past. Much of this has been directed at demographics who traditionally vote dem. Do you expect them to not prepare for it?

eta The GAO has issued a report stating that the DOJ "has not established procedures for documenting voting irregularities or voter intimidation, and has no clearcut policy for responding to such allegations." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d_041014213734

You'd think after 2000 that Ashcroft would have spent a little more time dealing with this and a little less time and taxpayer money covering the boobs of statuary. After all, we don't want this to be a banana republic election, do we?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I posted on this previously. As you may have noticed, it starts at #2. As little as you think of the Dems intellectual capability, they are surely smart enough to start numbering at #1. This leads me to conclude that something may be missing that would have provided additional context.

As to what is there, I don't see what you find so insidious. There has been evidence of voter intimidation in some areas in the past. Much of this has been directed at demographics who traditionally vote dem. Do you expect them to not prepare for it?

eta The GAO has issued a report stating that the DOJ "has not established procedures for documenting voting irregularities or voter intimidation, and has no clearcut policy for responding to such allegations." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d_041014213734

You'd think after 2000 that Ashcroft would have spent a little more time dealing with this and a little less time and taxpayer money covering the boobs of statuary. After all, we don't want this to be a banana republic election, do we?

As you would have noticed had you clicked the link, #1 is on the website.

What is so incidious is that they are mapping out a strategy to claim voter intimidation even if none exists.

If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" . . .

The other curious thing is that they use the word "yet" as if it's inevitable. This coupled with the not so quiet stoking of the myth of black disenfranchisement is WAY out of bounds. It is absolutely reprehensible.

[Shape Shifter]

Well, you can't really say they're after truth any more. They've been exposed as the biggest lying liars since Bill "Let Me Loofah Your Loins" O'Liely.

The normally biased lazy media has retraced the swifties tracks. The swifties in the past have attacked the circumstances under which Kerry received his Silver Star for events that happened on February 28, 1969. But abc news has gone to Viet Nam and found witnesses to the fierce firefight that took place. It seems that much more was going on than Kerry firing at "a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth," as the swifties had claimed.

And what of the swifties research into the matter?

"Back in Tran Thoi, villager Nguyen Van Khoai said that about six months ago he was visited by an American who described himself as a Swift boat veteran and told him another American from the Swift boats was running for president of the United States. Nguyen said the man was accompanied by a cameraman.

'They say he didn't do anything to deserve the medal,' Nguyen said. 'The other day, they came and asked me the questions and I said that the recognition for the medal is up to the U.S.A.'

He said that, after they met, the Swift Boat veteran and the cameraman turned around and went back down the river. Nightline has not been able to identify the men."

originally found on Drum. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._10/004927.php

Confidential to gatti: looks like pitching shit works if your dealing with Sinclair.

[Not Me]

Well, not quite yet my time but soon.

Hey all, don't have time to read every thing 'cuz I got too busy picking up my unemployment check but just wanted to say that people are getting really mean lately. Isn't it time for a group (((((((((HUG))))))))))?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As you would have noticed had you clicked the link, #1 is on the website.

Apologies. I've clicked the link now and reviewed the document as a whole. Do you have a problem with preventing voter fraud? And, if you're in a jurisdiction where the voting is expected to be close but all election apparatus is controlled by the other side, wouldn't you want to create awareness on this issue? From the link we have learned:

THE REPUBLICAN RECORD ON VOTER INTIMIDATION - THIS YEAR ALONE

Yesterday
Reports surfaced in Nevada, Oregon and potentially other states of the RNC paying half a million dollars to a company who was ripping up democratic voter registration forms. These activities are currently under investigation.

Last week
A former Republican Party executive filed a bogus lawsuit, which was dismissed, trying to knock 17,000 Democratic voters off the voter rolls in Nevada. He told the Las Vegas Review Journal – "I am looking to take Democrats off the voter rolls."

July
Republican official John Pappageorge told the Detroit Free Press, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote we’re going to have a tough time in this election cycle."

What is so incidious is that they are mapping out a strategy to claim voter intimidation even if none exists.

Step (i) under Section II. (2) (hey, this is a pretty long document containing a lot of issues not addressed by drudge) calls for:

"Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state"

If the Republicans haven't used any voter intimidation tactics in the past, the rest of the steps don't really mean anything. If the Rs don't want to see memoranda like this in the future, they should intimidate fewer voters, particularly those from readily identifiable ethnic groups.

The other curious thing is that they use the word "yet" as if it's inevitable. This coupled with the not so quiet stoking of the myth of black disenfranchisement is WAY out of bounds. It is absolutely reprehensible.

Catch up on your reading. You may have to go outside Posner to understand why African Americans feel so threatened.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Well, not quite yet my time but soon.

Hey all, don't have time to read every thing 'cuz I got too busy picking up my unemployment check but just wanted to say that people are getting really mean lately. Isn't it time for a group (((((((((HUG))))))))))?

Hey, baby, bring those big, beautiful implants right on over.

This doesn't mean I'll have to buy you dinner, does it?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Hey, baby, bring those big, beautiful implants right on over.

OK, for the last time, they are not big. They are conservative.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This doesn't mean I'll have to buy you dinner, does it?

Just dinner? Do you think I am that cheap?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
My thoughts are dark, and I am a deeply troubled man.

If they made a movie of us, and I think it could work- malingerers wasting the work day typing here, but then you could dissolve into their real lives- I see Dennis Hopper ala Apocalypse doing SS.

But anyway, I wanted to resurect a dead horse, because it is important. Kerry could win and we need to learn how to decipher his votes and statements.

At the debate, he was asked whether homosexuality is a choice.

"We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

As proven here yesterday, it was an appropriate and well-intentioned reference. Mary is the only known homosexual in the campaign, and he was just trying to put a face on the issue. I was ready to move on, secure that John was a decent and thoughtful man who merely wanted us to understand the roots of homosexuality. But it turns out his still water does run deeper than even that.

Presidential candidate John Kerry launched into damage control Thursday afternoon after angering Vice President Cheney and his family and alienating some voters by mentioning that Cheney's daughter, Mary, is gay.

“I love my daughters. They love their daughter. I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue,” Kerry said in a statement

See, I don't think anyone would have gotten the "strong family" part, what with it not being part of the question, or even a reasonable read on his answer. I'm really starting to admire this guy.

And fuck the old speak clearly crap, if I'm Iran I'm scared shitless of a guy who might say today "Eh, we'll let them build a bomb- we got 'em." Because tomorrow he might say, "What I meant was I'm going have them delivered a bomb from 40,000 feet."

He'll keep all them guys guessing- plus Edwards is cuter than Cheney.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
[...] plus Edwards is cuter than Cheney.

Isn't that like praising someone for being the world's tallest midget?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You know, when I was in the first grade, a nun told me that I was a bastard and had to work extra hard to get to heaven, because my dad was divorced before he (secularly) married my mom. She also mentioned that my parents were doomed to burn in hell forever, but that didn't matter because I had to love God more than I loved my parents. I was one that the Church got young, but they didn't get to keep.

Do you know where I can get some authentic nun porno?