Dmtdust wrote:

Oh The Cruelty of THE LEFT (Thinking of you Ptah, thinking of you...)

Thank you, thank you, oh thank you

   +





_________________________________________

George Orr wrote:

If you haven't already been watching TDS this week and last, you're an idiot.

I'm proud to say I'm so unhip, I've never watched Jon Stewart or Colbert.

Dmtdust wrote:

Oh The Cruelty of THE LEFT (Thinking of you Ptah, thinking of you...)

It gives me a special feeling to know I'm in your head, DMT!!!!

I feel so,,, so,,, SMURGLEY!!!!!


(George? Was that YOU I saw getting busted at the McCain speech?)

Emmeran wrote:

George Orr wrote:

If you haven't already been watching TDS this week and last, you're an idiot.

Some of us have jobs and other such responsibilities...

What--you don't have DVR?  What are you, Amish?

ptah13 wrote:

On a different note, even with our radical religious nutjobs in positions of power, we still have FAR LESS banned books than countries like the UK, France or Germany. Funny how they think they are so much more liberal than we are.

I for one am glad, Ptah, that you are on the right side of all the good God fearing folks and their politicians who understand the Christian values this nation was founded under working tirelessly to close the banned books gap.

God Bless America.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

On a different note, even with our radical religious nutjobs in positions of power, we still have FAR LESS banned books than countries like the UK, France or Germany. Funny how they think they are so much more liberal than we are.

I for one am glad, Ptah, that you are on the right side of all the good God fearing folks and their politicians who understand the Christian values this nation was founded under working tirelessly to close the banned books gap.

God Bless America.

If she tries to ban books, I'll impregnate another one of her daughters!

That's a promise! Age of consent is 16 in Alaska...

Wanna talk about fucking up a political career. Parade my ass around with her 16-y-o daughter and claim I'm going to marry her... see what happens.


Edit: Willow is only 13.. I'd have to wait 3 years (unless they move to Canada).

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-09-05 02:30:48)

ptah13 wrote:

I think her 80% approval rating says more about her than the claims of her defeated foes...

Just because you're buying the hype by the handful doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

That's the second such article you've blithely shot down by saying that either I or the originator of the anecdote didn't know what he or she was talking about, or by implying that Palin's detractors are just making stuff up out of whole cloth, to smear her for no reason at all. While I would accept that there's some color or bias coming from certain sources, and a definite interest in uncovering more about a national unknown, they can't ALL be inventing material like this. Thank goodness we didn't sneak an illegitimate child into her daughter's womb, or you'd blame the liberals for cooking that one up, too.

sofaking wrote:

You know that Jesus was the illegitimate child of a teenaged mother, Pale.

Jeeeesus.

To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't already tried to spin it that way. Nothing exposes the magical realism of your own cult than to attempt to apply it to actual situations. Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a conservative drunk over there in the corner who keeps trying to convince me he's turning my Evian into Pinot Noir.

fuck that stupid bitch

pALEPHx wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

I think her 80% approval rating says more about her than the claims of her defeated foes...

Just because you're buying the hype by the handful doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

That's the second such article you've blithely shot down by saying that either I or the originator of the anecdote didn't know what he or she was talking about, or by implying that Palin's detractors are just making stuff up out of whole cloth, to smear her for no reason at all. While I would accept that there's some color or bias coming from certain sources, and a definite interest in uncovering more about a national unknown, they can't ALL be inventing material like this. Thank goodness we didn't sneak an illegitimate child into her daughter's womb, or you'd blame the liberals for cooking that one up, too.

Apparently you didn't read what I said. The person making the claim is the incumbent mayor she defeated. The only other person I've found to make the same claim is a local democrat (who might just be using the mayor source, as well, no way to tell). No librarian ever said she tried to ban books. Nobody but the mayor and one democrat. Funny how they are the only two people on earth to say she did this and they weren't even there when this was supposedly said. Where did they hear this claim, I wonder?

You talk to me about believing what is "spoon fed" to me, but seems like the reverse is true, here. I'm considering the source and using a bit of logic, to boot. If she asked to ban books, then whoever told the mayor and the local democrat about it should also be on record as saying it, as well, wouldn't you think?

Again, banning books is a pretty big claim. You would think there would be someone she actually said this to making the claim, instead of the guy she beat in an election (who gives no source for this information).

I'm not saying she never did it, I'm saying that I'd need to hear from a more non-biased source OR the person she actually said it to, not a 3rd party with an obvious agenda.

This has nothing to do with me thinking you or other posters don't know what they are saying, it has to do with quoted stories sounding pretty darn bogus based on the source of the information provided.

If Palin came out tomorrow and said, "Obama called a nun a whore", I wouldn't even consider that until the nun came forward or, at the very least, someone who actually heard Obama say it. Now does what I'm saying make sense to you?

Edit: I'm also unsure why you insist on putting words into my mouth. I don't see where I said the poster didn't know what they were talking about. I questioned if they believed the article based on the facts provided. Why you want to make this something personal is beyond me. I have nothing but respect for you and the other posters of this board. I'm not into making a political discussion into some personal battle, sorry.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-09-05 15:28:24)

Can you newspaper types keep a Nexis Lexis search out for a Palin-drome headline please?

Die Orange!
Die!

pALEPHx wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

la la la stuff you wrote la la la

I don't know why you insist I'm putting words into your mouth...

Heaven forfend someone should point out that you're defending her by assailing her critics--not me, specifically for regurgitating the finds--and yet, here's a nice NYT article that points out she IS using "God as a template" of sorts for her lifestyle and political choices. Are you going to say they're making it up now?

I was simply pointing out that the claim that she was banning books wasn't made, in fact, by the librarian but by two of her political rivals, one who has good reason to loathe her. To be honest, it was bad journalism to even print such at thing as the article only has one apparent source and that source has an obvious axe to grind. Not one place can I find where they've even asked the llibrarian if this is true, only "the librarian can't be reached for comment". This article meets the standards the Enquirer uses for journalistic integrity, nothing more.

I guess I need to learn to simply ignore your political posts and/or replies to my posts as we obviously will never get anywhere discussing such things. Of course, I still couldn't help myself from, once again, reiterating my point. It's my way.... sorry.

Let's talk about something else. I know a chick who has had 3 kids with 3 different dads and been pregnant 2 other times (once by one of the other 3 days and another time by a 4th guy, she had those 2 aborted) who can't stand Palin. This chick finally suckered some guy into taking care of her (and her 2 other kids) and now she has money and pretends to be "miss class". I couldn't believe this chick was actually making fun of Palin because her 17-y-o daughter was preggers out of wedlock. The girl I'm talking about got pregnant at 17 with her first... amazing.

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

nothing to see here

move along

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-09-06 17:44:58)

Zookeeper wrote:

No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code.

I guess it takes a bigot to write a good article calling someone a bigot.

That's playground wit, Zookeeper. Am I hearing this right? You support these fine upstanding white folk?

choad wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code.

I guess it takes a bigot to write a good article calling someone a bigot.

That's playground wit, Zookeeper. Am I hearing this right? You support these fine upstanding white folk?

I was remarking on the journalist's characterization of the RP attendees as a "vast sea of white, cheering faces" who go wild for someone for being "openly racist".  If that wasn't what you heard then no, you weren't hearing me right.

Zookeeper wrote:

I was remarking on the journalist's characterization of the RP attendees as a "vast sea of white, cheering faces"

Sea of white faces?? I think not! After all, there were 36 whole black people in attendance.

karenw wrote:

Sea of white faces?? I think not! After all, there were 36 whole black people in attendance.

...the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago.

Forty years ago was 1968.  There were more cullut Republicans in 1968 than in 2008?!

As much as it pains me to say so, the Enquirer actually has a notable track record for breaking these sorts of stories. Of course, nothing has been the same since the demise of the Weekly World News.

George Orr wrote:

Taint wrote:

As much as it pains me to say so, the Enquirer actually has a notable track record for breaking these sorts of stories.

They were right about Edwards, weren't they?

Of course, nothing has been the same since the demise of the Weekly World News.

I do so miss the Face of Satan in columns of smoke, and skinny gray aliens shaking hands with world leaders; and, of course, Bat Boy.

But Bat Boy still lives.... right Ptah?

Just Askin'

Sounds reasonable... how about this one going until Nov 5th?

Taint wrote:

As much as it pains me to say so, the Enquirer actually has a notable track record for breaking these sorts of stories.

So true.  With most papers people "only remember when the get it wrong".  I wonder how many political scandals they have broken that went absolutely nowhere?  With the Enquirer people only remember when they get it right.  And of course Bat Boy.  We can never forget Bat Boy.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-09-07 01:46:53)