Up next: Ad-Gate

This just in!

E-VOTE MACHINE CERTIFICATION SUCKS The ATM-like machines will be used by nearly one in three voters in November... I predict Bush will win because of these machines.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

And it wasn't funny for Kerry to jump up and demand Bush condemn attack ads that were running against Kerry after so much shrill screaming from move on dot org and Michael Moore? I think Bush saying that is hilarious, and that he played his cards well to make Kerry look like an even bigger fool than he already looked.

When soft money attack ads come out against Bush you cram it in your mouth and slowly suck on it, but when soft money ads come out against Kerry, of course it's "AD GATE!!!" The Democrats started the attacks long before the swift boat vets (who have a legitimate right to speak their peace). And Kerry made his Vietnam service fair game by bringing it up. Again and again. And again. Get over it.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

The problem with your scenario Makk, is that moveon.org and Michael Moore were pushing to get the worst president in the history of the United States out of office in November long before Kerry was the Democratic nominee. They would throw their support behind anyone but Bush (ABB? Hello?). Show us proof that Moore and moveon are soft money for Kerry, Makk.

Meanwhile...Thurlow, Perry, and the rest of those Swift Boat fucktards keep having to deal with daliy revelations that they have ties to (and might be funded by) the Bush adminstration. Thurlow should shut his big fat trap anyways, since he accepted his medals. According to his logic, he didn't earn his either. What a fucking hypocrite.

If this adminstration is funding the Swift Boat group, that is ILLEGAL.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

I need to bold that so you can read it better, Makk...

ILLEGAL.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and wait for my words to be twisted around.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

The group of ads you disagree with are illegal but the ones you like a lot are amazing abd breath-taking! Ok I get it! Thanks for clearing that up.

You'd think illegal Republican ads would be front page news. Let me just check all the front pages...

So by asking a lawyer how they will 100% comply with all known campaign laws, they are breaking the law! (Because Bush is evil). I get it. Whew, you're a genius niteowl.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

...and what exactly are the ads that "I like a lot"?

They had an interview on NBC Nightly News last night with that idiot Thurlow. Oops...I forgot, you don't watch TV Makk. My bad.

So by asking a lawyer how they will 100% comply with all known campaign laws, they are breaking the law!

---

Keep us in the bounds of the law...that's a laugh. In other words, "How can we skirt the hammer of justice and get on with the lies about Kerry so our buddy GW can win the election?"

Maybe they should've called on Edwards to help out.

This is the most truthful statement Makk has typed in this entire thread.

Thanks! ;)

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Yah he is! :D

---
When life hands you lemons, throw them at someone. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

WashPost:

CRAWFORD, Tex. Aug 25 -- The Bush campaign's chief outside counsel resigned Wednesday morning after acknowledging on Tuesday that he also was providing legal advice to the veterans group working to discredit Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's war record.

...Ginsberg's resignation followed the Bush campaign's dismissal Saturday of a volunteer on its veterans steering committee who appeared in a Swift boat veterans ad. The campaign said retired Col. Kenneth Cordier had not previously disclosed his participation with the swift boat group.

...Asked about the Ginsberg matter Tuesday night, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said: "There has been no coordination at any time between Bush-Cheney '04 and any 527 organization."

---
What others say about boorite!

...which is to say no link except through their top outside legal counsel. Technically, I guess that's no link. So it's probably not really "ILLEGAL." Dang, that Bush campaign is too smart for us. They should make a big campaign slogan out of this and other so-called "scandals." BUSH-CHENEY: NEVER BEEN CONVICTED YET. Or how about, BUSH-CHENEY: YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING. Something along those lines.

---
What others say about boorite!

You clearly masturbate to the ads on move on dot org.

They had an interview on NBC Nightly News last night with that idiot Thurlow. Oops...I forgot, you don't watch TV Makk. My bad.

---

Having an interview and the ads being illegal are two very different things.

Keep us in the bounds of the law...that's a laugh. In other words, "How can we skirt the hammer of justice and get on with the lies about Kerry so our buddy GW can win the election?"

---

So you're saying they are just barely legal?

Move on dot org doesn't "skirt the hammer of justice"?

Maybe if Kerry didn't decide to be such a bullshit artist with military service -something a lot of people take seriously- he wouldn't be in such hot water.

I thought his expertise was suing doctors until health care was unaffordable for all to practice or pay for.

As best I can tell all you are complaining about (now) is that the swift boat vets asked what they would have to do to stay legal. Wooo scary.

Great quote boorite, thanks for the assistance.

Again, thanks for the help.

Where is "MOVE ON DOT ORG GATE!!!!" ? You liberal pussies can't take what you dished out and I think it's hilarious.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I've noticed a disturbing trend in this forum, especially in this thread. Everyone focuses on semantics. Further, everyone seems to point to them as their reasoning. What the swift boat veterans are doing, what Michael Moore is doing, and what Moveon is doing are all the same thing, shit-flinging. No matter the legality or severity, it's all political mud-slinging horseshit. I haven't heard a single fucking word about the issues for the past couple of months. Between the Laci Peterson case, the Michael Jackson trial, the Hacking trial, and all the missing persons, I once in a while hear about Kerry and Bush going back and forth over who is more of an asshole. You know what? I stopped caring a LONG time ago. They're both shit candidates, and in my opinion, voting for either of them is "throwing away your vote". I'm sure most of you who've seen my other posts understand that I'm a slightly right-leaning moderate. As much as I can't stand Bush, the feeling of annoyance and hatred is reflected equally upon Kerry. This whole "anyone but Bush" shit is really getting on my nerves as the election gets closer. The left has it's scary uncle candidate and prettyboy posterchild running mate, the Bush circle has it's incumbant child and half-mechanical father figure. It's all bullshit, smoke and mirrors shit.
I'll tell you all who I'm voting for this year. I know he won't win, because he's not even really running, but you know what? I think ANY vote for the major parties is more of a joke than voting for him. I'm voting Ronnie James Dio. Why? Because I like him personally better than I like either of the candidates. I don't know his politics, I don't know his ideals, but then I don't *really* know any of that for Bush or Kerry either. Equal ground there, I'd say. He's a longhaired metal vocalist who has been around for years, and I'm voting for him in hopes that he shall raise a mighty metal army which shall conquer the nonbelievers, he shall set us all free from the bonds of pop music, and rule with an iron fist. His first action will be to change the national anthem to "Rainbow in the Dark".
Hey, it's no less far fetched than thinking Kerry will be any better than Bush.

Oh yeah, I honestly don't care about Kerry's war record, nor do I care about Bush's. They're both fuckwits who shouldn't serve as the leader of our nation, since neither of them seem to have any pride for our military.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I just learned two new ways to use the word fuck. I also think I just went Liberitarian.

Libertarian, Green, National Socialist, I don't give a rat's ass. Just vote with your heart and mind, not with your party. Find someone you appreciate on a political level and vote for the guy/gal. I'd be fine with a female president if she wasn't a complete fuckup.

I don't really want to harp on any candidate, party, or political view. I am pro choice, pro death penalty, pro personal weapon responisibility, anti higher taxes, anti higher spending, pro free speech, and very against the british invading us again.

I had a flag on my window on July 4, 2001. I have had the flag there since then. I am in many ways a patriot. I don't support war per-se, but I don't disagree with it happening for a reason, and I definitely don't diss the men and women who volunteer to serve in our military.

I have no respect for people who hide in churches and other holy places. We blew up churches in WWII because the nazis hid there. We will blow up a mosque in this war because violent extremists who threaten the very people they claim to be fighting for are hiding there. Is it right? No. It's not right because they are there in the first place.

I would be happy if all the religions could live in peace, we all agreed on what is best for ourselves and our country, we never went hungry, we never fought, and never died from anything but old age.
But this isn't that world. How can we get to that world? We can't. Not with all the bickering and bitching from both sides, whining about how bad the other guy is. All because everyone is afraid of throwing away his or her vote.

People, the only vote you throw away is the vote you cast for the lesser of two evils when there are many other choices. Break the goddamn cycle, and be an example. Vote for who you want, and brag about it. Espouse your greater convictions to your cause. Be proud of who you are, and what you believe in. Most importantly, believe in something other than the foolhardy concept of being right.

I love my country, and I know most of you do too. I love my country so much, I'm willing to sacrifice my precious vote, the only one alotted to me, the very power granted to me by the constitution, to throw my lot to save it. One man can't win a war against thousands, but thousands can. A vote for Nader isn't a vote for Bush. It's a vote for Nader. A vote from the heart isn't a ticket in the trash.

It's a vote for your freedom.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Yes yes, vote with your heart! Vote for Nader!

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Let's not bring the Nader thing up again. Look, if someone is really going to vote for Nader because they believe in him, fucking let them vote for Nader. What truly pisses me off are these right-wing groups pushing to get Nader on the ballot. That's pretty much the antithesis of "voting with your heart."

While I'm still here, MaKK, what's your stance on gay marriage?

Actually, no, I'm not voting Nader. Sometimes I think that the leftists on this page are overreactionary zealouts just out to burn an effigy of Bush made from Bush's real body, but then you interject with your snide comments and illogical arguments.

People like you, Bill O'Riley, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are why I no longer even slightly consider myself a republican. Your reactionary stances and annoying pandering to your party are all mirror images of the idiocy that shines like a beacon to all the morons at sea on the other side. Moore, Franken and Kerry himself all crush any hope of liberals showing a good face to the world.

Free speech is granted to us all, but at times like this, people like you make me think Bush has said at least one intelligent thing; Free speech should be limited. Limited to those who know what they're talking about.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

quote:

---

Let's not bring the Nader thing up again. Look, if someone is really going to vote for Nader because they believe in him, fucking let them vote for Nader. What truly pisses me off are these right-wing groups pushing to get Nader on the ballot. That's pretty much the antithesis of "voting with your heart."

While I'm still here, MaKK, what's your stance on gay marriage?

---

I'll tell you what I think:

I support equal rights, when said rights are granted by the government.

You want to get married? Find a church that doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. I don't see a reason for a federal law banning it, but I think the whole idea of needing some traditional ceremony in a church which claims you're going to hell because of the person you love is pointless.

I think a civil union should be exactly the same rights and regulations given to married couples by the state, without the boring, useless religious ceremony in the way.

I see no reason to outlaw gay marriage, but at the same time, I see no reason to enforce a law stating churches have to marry homosexuals. Seperation of church and state completely. Let the church decide, and potentially suffer the loss of it's flock as a result.

More than that, I fully support gay men marrying. Lesbians, on the other hand, they should be forced to undergo harsh psychological restructuring so that they're not lesbians anymore! Except the ugly ones. And the fatties.

I'm kidding, by the way.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

quote:

---

While I'm still here, [u]MaKK[/u], what's your stance on gay marriage?

---

Do I have to make it flourescent pink?

BUZZ! Wrong answer.

Governments do not grant rights.

They can enforce or protect rights.

They can also take away or repress rights.

But governments do not grant rights. Rights are by nature already present and granted.

-----

Now if you want to argue about whether that is a right worth protecting, or whatnot, that's another matter.

quote:

---

You want to get married? Find a church that doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. I don't see a reason for a federal law banning it, but I think the whole idea of needing some traditional ceremony in a church which claims you're going to hell because of the person you love is pointless.

I think a civil union should be exactly the same rights and regulations given to married couples by the state, without the boring, useless religious ceremony in the way.

---

Why call it a civil union, rather than a marriage? Just because it wasn't performed in a religious setting? Is it more different from, say, a Catholic marriage than a Baptist one or a Jewish one or a Muslim one or a Hindu one?

Especially when there are so many interfaith couples nowadays who for that reason eschew the religious ceremony.

Has anyone actually suggested forcing any churches to perform marriage ceremonies against their tenets? Please provide a citation of such.

As far as I've heard, the major issue is whether jurisdictions can choose to perform civil marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, and whether other jurisdictions need to treat them the same way they treat opposite-sex couples who went through the same thing.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

BUZZ! Wrong answer.

Governments do not grant rights.

They can enforce or protect rights.

They can also take away or repress rights.

But governments do not grant rights. Rights are by nature already present and granted.

---

Kaufman is 100% right on this score. According to the founding documents of my country, which are, to me, sacred texts: Rights are inalienable and granted by virtue of one's Creation. Governments are subservient to the supreme principle of human rights, and to the extent that governments abrogate this principle, they are wrong. Therefore, the people have the right to contest governments and claim their rights.

That is the soul of democracy, and of humanity.

---
What others say about boorite!

Well, D/X, you make a few good points. Kaufman pulled the rug out from under the crappy ones, but there seems to be one people aren't picking up on.

You don't seem to know a whole hell of a lot about politics. MaKK doesn't either, for that matter, but I suspect he is merely trolling. Here's why:

How could you judge either candidate if you don't really know what they stand for? That's extremely irresponsible of you. I like neither Bush or Kerry. But because I know their stances on issues, Kerry is more aligned towards what I believe in. No one on any ticket is aligned to what I believe in completely. Not many people are. Therefore my decision on who to vote for is based on many, many factors. Yours seems to be based on a superficial dislike for the mainstream that cannot be backed by actual knowledge. Yours is a stance you seem to have come to after long deliberation. But it is deliberation that lacked any factual basis to spring from. Read some shit, brudda.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Here's a thought: we live in a country where people say that gay marriage will harm the sanctity of marriage. We also live in a country that has "Who Wants to Marry a Midget." Of course, a gay marriage is much less sanct than the fucked-up, neurotic straight ones we have. 50% of couples are divorced. I think gay marriage might bring some life back into the damn thing.

Cheney just came out against a federal ban on gay marriage. He is truly a great and compassionate man.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

He's gay.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Everyone who supports gays aren't gay Spankling. I pray deep in my heart to Jesus, our Lord and Savior, that one day you will be as compassionate as Vice President Cheney to understand this. :/

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008