Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama and the Fat Girl

chicago dyke's picture

video below Heh. This is what he really thinks of you, OFB. In plain language even you can understand:

"There is a nasty aspect to politics on the internet that has to be dealt with."

The thing is: it's more likely that someone like myself, albiet who stayed in the mix a bit more than I have, will "deal with" you, when this one is in charge. You don't like me when I'm Angry, do you? And to think I've not even really shown you my "bitchy" aspect out of respect for your intertube sensibilities.

Feel the Nasty. And it's "Miss Jackson," in case you forget:

Flowers, they die. Heh.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

you jump to unfounded conclusions. here is obama's position not only the net but media:

Obama's Plan for Open-Source Democracy

"I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality," Obama told the Google staffers. "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history. We have to keep it that way."

In addition to committing to neutrality on the web, the candidate also laid out his pledges to support policies that encourage greater diversity in media ownership, expand access to broadband, and use technological innovation to address concerns about the economy, health care, climate change, energy, and immigration. But in many ways, his plan is less about tech than it is about technology's political implications, and how the candidate envisions using technology as a vehicle for his greater promises of a new political era in Washington. It aims to use technology as a means of creating a government where these issues are discussed -- and addressed -- with the same kind of open-source, efficient, and user-centric principles that have powered Google.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The Obama plan calls for programs that use those technologies to make more government documents available to the public via government websites and databases. With access to information -- on everything from environmental data to records of lobbyist contacts with politicians -- citizens and interest groups will be able to use that information to push for change and better government. It also outlines plans to broadcast meetings in government agencies live online, and create tools that allow citizens to track federal grants, contracts, lobbyist information, and earmarks. On the legislative end, it would create a five-day public comment period on the White House site before the president signs legislation into law, giving citizens the capacity to more directly interact with the executive. The plan calls for the creation of a "chief technology officer" post that would oversee the introduction of new technology in government agencies, coordinate efforts between offices, and enforce the policies of disclosure the plan outlines.

this isn't just talk, he's already done some of this when his "transparency in government spending" legislation got passed. people can see online where all these earmarks and no bid contracts are going to.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/good_gove...
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...

hillary, on meet the press, talked about wanting transparency in government. obama has already done it.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Google now is in the politics business. They have some of the most well paid lobbyist, and I believe they even hired DCI. So they are making a killing with adsense, target google keywords, youtube videos, etc. etc.

I do hope they can out lobby the telecoms who have the brilliant anti-net neutrality propaganda going on.

At any rate, a shill for a lobbyist group is still a shill.

I'll bet obama has a different targeted message when he meets with Telecoms and media corps.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

...is something VERY wrong. even if, to be fair, BO is talking about Greater Wingnuttia (Drudge/Redstate/ad stupidum), loathesome as they are, I don't now and would never think they need to be "dealt with". "FREE SPEECH". say it now, and say it over and over again. (it's also been suggested that BO was referring obliquely to the racist viral e-mail he was recently victim of--yes, even more loathesome but equally worthy of First Amendment protection.)

Stoller really needs to identify sources, here.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i didn't think i'd have to explain it, but it seems there is the need.

here, i'll make it simple: the internet is NO DIFFERENT than printed or written words on dead tree materials, ok? NO DIFFERENT than a bunch of drunks sitting around the bar shooting the shit. NO DIFFERENT than putting signs on your lawn in front of your house. NO DIFFERENT from wearing a politicall tee shirt to a political rally. it's all freedom. of. speech.

we don't need to be "dealt with," nor do the freaks at redstate, or stormfront, or even the Army of God. don't like what i have to say, obama? then come here and tell me to shut up, and why you think i should. we have open commenting here. gosh, imagine that, freedom of speech for everyone! and we've never, ever called for you to be gagged, censored, or put down because we don't like what you say. under our Constitution, we expect the same from you.

is that so hard to understand?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

the man taught constitutional law. he knows what free speech is.

you don't even know what the context is behind the quote. how do you know "dealt with" doesn't mean working to counter the smears and going out to correct the record? no, you'd rather jump to blind conclusions about what you think he means.

Submitted by lambert on

... how the OFB quotes Obama's site as if it were in any way authoritative. It's like they found it on the internets, or something. In a year, nobody will remember the white papers, and everybody will remember the talking points. The talking points show Obama heading right.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

how the OFB quotes Obama’s site as if it were in any way authoritative. It’s like they found it on the internets, or something.

that's right, discount all of his work trying to bring transparency to government. you prefer government secrecy instead? you don't like his senate site, google other sources about this legislation.

In a year, nobody will remember the white papers,

in other words, facts don't matter.

and everybody will remember the talking points. The talking points show Obama heading right.

the talking points of bloggers who intentional misinterpret him, you mean.

obama talks about needing more regulatory oversight to address the mortgage crisis. is regulating corporate practices a rightwing frame?

obama talks about lifting the cap on social security. that's raising taxes on the rich. is that a rightwing frame?

obama wants to give drivers licences to undocumented workers. is that a rightwing frame?

obama wants to do away with mandatory minimums. is that a rightwing frame?

obama wants to do away with disparities in drug sentencing that award harsher sentences for crack possession than for cocaine. is that a rightwing frame?

i can go on and on. tell me again how rightwing he is.

Submitted by lambert on

We can't assume the bandwidth will be there for anything that isn't advertising or pr0n (which is, of course, what digital TV is all about, though why you want high resolution on the dangly bits I can't imagine. No accounting for tastes).

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

... I don't think he's got the OFB in mind.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

is becoming almost laughable. from diving to shake Bill O's hand, to Reagan, to something like this...and ObamaNation keeps singin' Songs Of Hope.

we have a SERIOUS outbreak of stupid in this country. it's not far short of being genuinely pathological.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

put it to you this way: what if Bush said that same sentence? how would you feel then? would you be so quick to defend him, and tell us what 'he really meant?' that's really all i'm saying. a Constitutional Scholar of his ilk should, um, know better or something, yo?

...and from the dept of so clever it's stupid: that video is an old fav of mine. back in the day, when the Jacksons were just slipping over into WTF land, this was part of Janet's big comeback/startup/whatever. the song was less popular on black radio, but big in gay clubs. all my gay male friends used to tell me how much Janet and I (at this period) looked alike, and how glad they were she'd lost her "babyfat." in the spirit of "but you're not really Black," this song seemed to be a fav of my white gay friends who wanted to be out about liking Black music...but not too much. posting it was meant to invoke that, along with the idea that obama "shucks and jives" but really follows the tune of the white guy with the shiny trumpet.

i may have the "flowers, they die" line wrong too; i owned the 12" remix/ep of this song, so it had some differences from the video version and i may be misremembering. but perhaps others recall the whole "call me Janet, but if you're Nasty, it's 'Miss Jackson' " bit that she was using at this time. because she needed 'street creds' or something, i suppose her agent/songwriters/video editors told her to act like that. it's painful, now, to watch that video and realise just how little progress "we've" made when it comes to the presentation of Black art and artists; at least we're not all trying to do the Hammer Dance anymore...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

put it to you this way: what if Bush said that same sentence? how would you feel then?

but obama isn't bush. why would you even make the comparison?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

unable to make a counter argument, you go for the mccarthyesque "guilt by association" tack.

if you can't beat em, taint em.

Submitted by lambert on

... is like the whole "really means" schtick. When Atrios caught Obama's dogwhistle about Social Security, that made the hair on the back of my neck rise, I started looking for more right wing talking points -- which is what most of us here have been doing for the entire length of the Bush administration -- and boy, did I find them. That's why cut-and-paste jobs from position papers don't impress me one iota.

Now, the most charitable explanation is that what we're dealing with is Axelrod driving a series of Sister Souljah moments, where Obama sends Fuck You after Fuck You to the base, who after all have nowhere else to go in the general, while talking to low information voters in the only language they understand, which is an incoherent mush of, yes, right wing talking points. It's a clever strategy, and it might even work. But why Obama would think there'd be no pushback from it I can't imagine. And it doesn't portend well for policy under an Obama government -- right wing talking points are poison pills for progressive policies, and they were designed to be by the people who funded their development.

Oh, and please don't run the professor of Constitutional law riff; that was a long time ago, and people do change. If Obama had wanted to put his money where his mouth is, he would have helped on the FISA filibuster, which was about Constitutional issues. Would have been a game changer for him, and I'd be backing him now. Didn't happen. Na ga happen.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

When Atrios caught Obama’s dogwhistle about Social Security, that made the hair on the back of my neck rise,

obama has apologized for that. he has come out and said it was not a crisis. what else do you want? is he not allowed to make a mistake?

That’s why cut-and-paste jobs from position papers don’t impress me one iota.

this wasn't a "position paper." this was more than his stance. this was work he did to get something passed. you know, his actual record, as opposed to rhetoric. or does his record not count anymore?

all you have is his social security quote. what else is rightwing about him?

Submitted by lambert on

... with, say, "guilt by association," then you actually have to explain which argument you wish to attach the label to.

I've noticed this tactic a lot over at Big Orange; they'll will throw out "straw man" quite often without actually saying why. As if the threads were a first-person shooter game. Bang! Bang! Bang!

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. If so, prove it!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

i thought when i hit the reply button next to the post i'm addressing, my post would attach itself to that one in close proximity.

Submitted by lambert on

not just hang out under a particular br-- on a particular thread.

You're looking for this post. You're also mischaracterizing Atrios's post, but you'll have to click the link and read it to understand why. When you do that, you'll see why "crisis" and "apologize" do not address the issue at hand.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

BO Taught Constitutional Law At
Submitted by Anna Granfors on Thu, 2008-01-17 11:44.
…the University of Chicago. wonder if Strauss was in the syllabus somewhere?

this is the one using guilt by association.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

When you do that, you’ll see why “crisis” and “apologize” do not address the issue at hand.

i see. so he's not allowed to make a mistake.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

from your latte page

Then there was calling unions “special interests”, a right wing talking point.

i tried to correct you over this on on sideshow but i posted late so i guess you didnt see it.

obama called the 527 that was attacking him a special interest, which 527s are.

edwards himself opposes 527s.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Submitted by lambert on Thu, 2008-01-17 11:54.
If Obama had wanted to put his money where his mouth is, he would have helped on the FISA filibuster,

obama's statement:

“Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It’s not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote or not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/...

contrast that with hillary:

Matt Stoller at OpenLeft pointed out the contradiction of Clinton supporting retroactivity for the rich, but not for the poor. He wrote:

With Clinton, it’s illustrative of how she considers politics. She’s willing to make the case based on principle against retroactivity when it comes to punishing the weak, and yet, when it comes to basic norms of constitutional liberty and abusive collusion between big business and autocratic government, she hides behind the notion that she hasn’t read the specifics of the bill. And she still has not come out on retroactive immunity for telecoms.

...

This kind of horrific conservative small-minded politics is the essence of what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Crack-cocaine sentencing, in fact, much of our criminal justice system, is an abomination, with regular incidences of rape, murder, and torture. This is paired with the abandonment of accountability for our elites, which has no better example than telephone company executives and Republicans colluding to (probably) spy on Americans in contravention of the law.

And Clinton believes in principle when it comes to smacking down the weak, and is silent when it comes to abuse of power by corporate interests in the name of national security.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/...

(matt stoller's quote is from december. i don't know if hillary's position has since changed. but i think is instructive on her dual treatment between the rich and the poor.)

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I was truly sickened when I saw that post of the people advising Obama. It's like he read Naomi Klein's book and drew exactly the wrong conclusions.

If Edwards can't pull a miracle we are going to have to start putting Saul Alinsky style pressure on his advisers to make it clear we are not going to stand for disaster capitalism under a Democratic label.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Submitted by DCblogger on Thu, 2008-01-17 13:12.

did you know the organization obama worked for a community organizer in chicago was one founded by alinsky?

I was truly sickened when I saw that post of the people advising Obama.

obama consults with people from both sides of an issue. obama has sought out david sirota's advice, for example.

for a populist, why does edwards drag his feet in wanting to regulate capitalism?

One candidate who might well reject Rubinomics is John Edwards, who is unlikely to raise large sums on Wall Street. And even Edwards is talking more about our duty to the poor, and less about the need to reregulate capitalism.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...

obama has called for more regulation on corporations.

Submitted by lambert on

So what's your point on Leahy?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

You're kidding right? Bush had more political experience than Barry. Come on Jello, he may be ambiguously charming in that magic eight ball kind of way but, honestly, the guy is a paper tiger. I mean sure if you’re an energy lobbyist, real estate developer or banking magnate he is your paper tiger but for the rest of us not out on the stroll … he voted “present” how many times?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

If I were to base my vote on what Obama did before he came to Capitol Hill I would be all for him. But his actions since coming to the Senate are deeply troubling. I don't like what he is saying and I am appalled by who he is talking to. It seems to me that after someone has been wrong about everything they should be consigned to obscurity. No one should be talking to these cranks, they have nothing useful to say.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

Is Obama a Straussian? He is the embodiment of a noble lie. It's the one thing I really dig about him.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

"did you know the organization obama worked for a community organizer in chicago was one founded by alinsky?"

You really are not helping your case. Alinsky and his organizations helped rape Kenwood, Woodlawn, and Oakland. Those community development oragnizations were responsible for more blight and gentriication than the CHA.

Go get better arguments.

BTW

Where is Rahm and Alexi? They've been pretty quiet.

Anna Granfors's picture
Submitted by Anna Granfors on

even though my comment asked (not inferred) whether Obama's syllabus included Strauss, it was more just me being pissy and drawing overly broad conclusions.

that having been said, if I found out he WAS (a Straussian), I wouldn't be surprised.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Rahm is supporting Clinton.

Submitted by lambert on

Along with the noble lie?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

Not enough philagree hunh? Not everybody likes jello. The Obama bullshit was getting a little high. And then the invocation of Alinsky - jesus! If people knew how much dirt T.W.O. and all the other Alinsky orgs did in the hood . . . the destruction of public housing, the sub-prime swindle, the ENRON, ethanol hustle. It's all bullshit. If I hear another clean coal, we have to cap carbon emissions to halt global warming line of crock I think I'll have kittens. Corn for ethanol is thermodynamically a net loser. But, it increases commodity prices. And the only way we are going to stop climate change is to change the rotation of the earth and the electromagnetic emission cycle of the sun. It ain't got shit to do with peak oil.

Submitted by lambert on

Real question. It's the dog whistling part that I'm alluding to, and Jeebus, I should play the Aerosmith version?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

what does this have to do with obama's record?

oh, i forgot, that's unimportant.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

CD: i stepped in and fixed the wild italics for you, jello, this is jello's corrected post:

Alinsky
Submitted by Xenophon on Thu, 2008-01-17 14:53.
You really are not helping your case. Alinsky and his organizations helped rape Kenwood, Woodlawn, and Oakland. Those community development oragnizations were responsible for more blight and gentriication than the CHA.
Go get better arguments.

i guess working to get asbestos out public housing was inconsequential. damn, you're right, obama is a sham.

Tinfoil Hat Boy's picture
Submitted by Tinfoil Hat Boy on

I thought he was making respectful arguments, generally, and he was dismissed like a Rovian troll. He responded with links, substance. We don't have to agree with everything he has said, but he/she wasn't some GOP team-leader asshat.

Feels weird around here to me, truly, and I absolutely love this blog and love you guys. I think maybe I don't have the guts for this primary stuff.

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

the above was response for the "can a white guy post this" entry.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Jello left an extra < i > tag up above aways and it has turned everything italic. I don't like to go in and edit other people's comments because (ahem, Lambert?) there is no way to do this without changing the name of the author of the comment.

So let's see if this will at least fix the problem from this point on.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Why Would You Even Make The Comparison?
Submitted by Xenophon on Thu, 2008-01-17 14:23.
You’re kidding right? Bush had more political experience than Barry.

you're obama hatred has driven you delusional. what experience is that? governor of texas? the weakest governorship of all 50 states. it's mostly a ceremonial role. bush couldn't write a piece of legislation if his life depended on it.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Obama's Background
Submitted by DCblogger on Thu, 2008-01-17 14:25.
If I were to base my vote on what Obama did before he came to Capitol Hill I would be all for him. But his actions since coming to the Senate are deeply troubling. I don’t like what he is saying and I am appalled by who he is talking to. It seems to me that after someone has been wrong about everything they should be consigned to obscurity. No one should be talking to these cranks, they have nothing useful to say.

a lot of vagaries. short on specifics.

but you at least give him credit for his background. some people wont even allow that.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Submitted by DCblogger on Thu, 2008-01-17 14:25.
But his actions since coming to the Senate are deeply troubling. I don’t like what he is saying and I am appalled by who he is talking to. It seems to me that after someone has been wrong about everything they should be consigned to obscurity.

this details his work in the senate. legislation he's passed and legislation he is still working on.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/

click on seperate title headings to get more detail.

now which of these issues that he's worked on do you disagree with?

Submitted by lambert on

It's people who are anti-Hillary who hate her.

People who don't buy Obama's Unity Pony don't do it because they don't understand it.

Try to keep these things straight, would you? No thanks necessary.

Why do the OBF keep treating Obama's campaign site as authoritative? I just can't fathom it. In a year, nobody will remember any of that stuff. The spoken talking points and the rhetoric is what all the candidates are running on, and that's what we're examining, because that's what's going to give them their mandate. What they say, personally, and for what they can be held accountable later. Like all campaign sites, Obama's is tinsel, chaff, not worth spending any time on.

In any case, I'm sure that we'll get plenty of material copied and pasted from it anyhow, with no links, bien sur, so all we have to do is wait.

Yeah, I know the drill.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

for all the links and quotes that help you make your case. we're going to disagree on some key points, but i am grateful to you, for respecting the standards we try to maintain here. you are always welcome here and i hope you'll keep commenting.

corrente isn't the sandbox for the softskinned.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

you probably don't want to mess with me, or Xeno, when it comes to chicago politics on the south side. just sayin. i lived there, and xeno's roots go way deeper than mine, both of us are personally familiar with the results of obama's tenure as an IL rep in terms of 'actual results' and the people who helped make them possible.

i don't trash him for his work there, but i will tell you: it's not as clean as you think it is, and he should be careful bragging on what he did, and what got done on his watch. not so much 'guilty by association,' as the reality, to this day, of The Chicago Way. sean connery voice

Submitted by lambert on

... and the hit slut in me would really like to see those posts.

On the links: Yes, jello, CD is being nicer than I am. I'm not deking with you, though, that's really where I'm coming from. There's process #1 churning out position papers, and process #2 figuring out what the candidate is actually going to say, and process #2 trumps process #1 in my mind, because that's what the candidate is really saying to the country.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

But again I say, Obama couldn't beat Bobby Rush!

That may not mean much to ya'll but in Chicago that shit was ridiculous. How do you get to run for POTUS when you have no political accomplishments. Every major election win has had some Rube Goldberg like twist of fate. That, coupled with the magic eight ball , Franchise Boys "Oh I think they like me" charm,the I hate black men because my daddy rejected me repressed self hatred and the Hillary reminds me of Mommy syndrome. Come on, this guy is fucking mess.

Hell of a player though. I just can't ride with him. I was never that deeply invested in the American dream to give a shit about a black president. If you want to see me get all wet in the crotch run Colin Powell. Other than that, I can't back a man that can't bring his own crew to a fight. I can't do it. If Obama is OK with making Axelrod look like a king maker, fine. If he wants to push through legislation that will make the energy and real estate and banking interest in Illinois rich as hell - fine. But, I just can't drink the Kool-Aid on this one. Like I said. I don't need to live out my Cosby Show, Oprah fantasies through Obama and I don't want to fuck him. I'm unimpressed. I've seen other black men with more power get their with their own juice.

Some men run with a click, some ride with a nation.

So, Jello - How much they payin' you?

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

The reason shit feels weird around here is because this election is one big psyop. Every perception, every position is being pushed, hard. Not only is there no daylight between democrats, there is no daylight between dems and republicans. Edwards is being made more and more irrelevant. Next they'll say he's too emotinal and that his positions are irrational. He'll hurt the economy and we'll lose jobs if we reign in corporations. We have no way of verifying a true vote, and the MSM is shaping message like it's American Idol. Next thing they'll be telling us is that we can text in our vote for president.

Shit people still have the illusion that they elect a President. All that is going on is priming you to accept who they (Congresional military industrial complex) give you. It's a spoon full of sugar.

No one has talked about repealing the PATRIOT ACT or restoring the constitution or securing the vote.

What happened to those issues?

Submitted by lambert on

But nobody -- with the exception, I would say, of Ron Paul and John Edwards -- wants to change the game. No DK fans need apply, he gave Obama a boost in Iowa out of god knows what. Maybe Michelle has a tongue stud.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

No one has talked about repealing the PATRIOT ACT or restoring the constitution or securing the vote.

What happened to those issues?

No one =not 'your blogmates, and like blogs to which we've linked.'

'restoring the constitution' = more or less all we've all been about, in our own myriad and lovely and various ways, including you. on this blog, and linked to/by our Friends, all the fucking time.

so not, "no one," k?