Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Texas GOP tries to shut down parody.

By www.sorehands.com in News
Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 11:30:08 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The Texas GOP attempt to shutdown an Enron parody site.


In Newsbytes article and a Law.com the news is out about the Texas Republicans attempt to shutdown an Enron parody site.

This site lampoons several state GOP incumbents, including Govenor Perry, for refusing to return tens of thousands of dollars contributed by Enron employees.

The GOP threatened lawsuits, but backed down. Instead the GOP filed an ethics complaint.

It is interesting to note that Governor Rick Perry, the lead GOP member, vetoed the Texas anti-SLAPP bill.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Texas GOP
o an Enron parody site
o Newsbytes article
o Law.com
o Texas Republicans
o site
o Texas anti-SLAPP
o Also by www.sorehands.com


Display: Sort:
Texas GOP tries to shut down parody. | 71 comments (64 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
There's parody... (3.73 / 15) (#2)
by theElectron on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:39:26 PM EST

...and then there's slander. I'd say this is definitely border-line. To even call it a parody is a stretch--it's just your run-of-the-mill, partisan, keep-beating-that-drum-until-the-election-cause-it's-the-only-one-we-got-right-now kind of website. I'm sure you know the type.

--
Join the NRA!
It's more or less impossible (4.83 / 6) (#3)
by aphrael on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:44:27 PM EST

to slander a public official; to prove that you've been slandered you have to demonstrate (a) that the person knew the information was false, and (b) that the person had malicious intent.

[ Parent ]
What's going on...? (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by theElectron on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 08:59:51 PM EST

keep-beating-that-drum-until-the-election-cause-it's-the-only-one-we-got-right-now

Jesus people, you do realize I'm talking about the Democrats and Enron, right? This is kuro5hin! Where are all the pinkos with ones and zeroes for me!?

--
Join the NRA!
[ Parent ]

Going back to campaign finance reform... (4.00 / 5) (#5)
by demi on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:03:48 AM EST

Just wondering, would people classify such a website as political advertising (in this case, attack advertising)? It's obviously targeted against GOP incumbents, so how would you feel about having that website shut down 90 days before a general election? That's the way it might work if Shays-Meehan goes forward.



60 days I mean (nt) (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by demi on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:11:19 AM EST



[ Parent ]
possible shut downs (none / 0) (#32)
by Weezul on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:48:33 PM EST

Actually, I would shut down TV commercials 90 days before a general ellection and allow all the websites to stay up. Websites are just not as damaging to the political process as TV ads.

Anyway, the web site should just need to declare it's opperating costs during those 90 days as a political contribution. Say they had a $1000 limit for individuals and companies were not allowed to give any money to political campaigns. If the site operating costs were > $1000, they would just need multiple individuals to make the payments. This would not be a significant problem for an amusing site like this. I'm shure there would be plenty of people who would prefer to just give their $1000 to the DNC directly, but there would be enough to support this site. Heck, there would be enough people who hate both the Dems and Reps., but would still love to sponcer sites making fun of either side.

btw> Site design should not be an issue if it was voluntear work as voluntear work should not be regulated by the gov.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
Shut down commercials (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:55:47 PM EST

Actually, I would shut down TV commercials 90 days before a general ellection...

Could we have general elections every ninety days then?
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
What good TV? (none / 0) (#68)
by minra on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 07:06:36 AM EST

I have never seen a political TV Ad. in the USA that I considered informative.

Ronald Dworkin, a campaign finance reform advocate, has said, the "national political 'debate' is now directed by ad executives and political consultants and conducted mainly through thirty-second 'sound bite' television and radio commercials."*

*) Dworkin, Ronald, "The Curse of American Politics," N.Y. Review of Books, October 17, 1996

Suggestion: Consider a ban on political TV-ads. The costs of these are what drive the high cost of campaigning in the USA.

Fight for what you think is right.

[ Parent ]
conflict of interest, republicans gimps (4.66 / 6) (#8)
by mattw on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:38:27 AM EST

One has to ask: what is it about the GOP that made them think that the Supreme Court confirmation of the protection of parody didn't apply to them? I liked how they changed tactics and whined about the political technicalities instead.

That said, the whole "republicans want to repress" me angle doesn't go over very well, given the site creator is just being political in the first place, since he's a democrat strategist.

Also, IANAL, but if the Trial Lawyers Association was supporting an anti-SLAPP bill, I'm inclined to think there's some trickery at play beyond a genuine ban. An anti-SLAPP law that will generate more anti-SLAPP suits than SLAPP suits, maybe?


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
more lawsuits? (none / 0) (#46)
by www.sorehands.com on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 09:47:58 PM EST

An anti-SLAPP statute will not create more lawsuits. The anti-SLAPP statute provides for a way to quickly dismiss a lawsuit, with the potential of damages for filing the lawsuit. One cannot file an anti-SLAPP lawsuit, it is a special motion to dismiss.

See www.casp.net.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.barbieslapp.com
Mattel, SLAPP terrorists intent on destroying free speech.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[ Parent ]

question (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by raaymoose on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:06:36 AM EST

What does GOP stand for? I keep seeing it in reference to US Republicans, but have yet to find what it means.

Grand Old Party (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by pietra on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:09:01 AM EST

Popped up sometime in the late nineteenth century, in contrast to the other political parties, which were rather newer and less firmly entrenched.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by ariux on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:52:16 AM EST

What are the newer parties? The Democrats date back to Thomas Jefferson.

[ Parent ]

They don't exist anymore. (none / 0) (#14)
by gauze on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 03:20:34 AM EST

I don't know the originals of the GOPs name myself. The one mentioned above sounds dubious or egotistical at best I suppose :-).

The only other party I can remember was the Wig Party.

Ok a little google search turns up this: Origins of GOP

The republican party is newer than the democrats or whigs it seems. Go read.

There's nothing wrong with a PC that a little UNIX won't cure.
[ Parent ]

Ooh, reading (none / 0) (#20)
by pietra on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 10:44:29 AM EST

A favorite of headline writers, GOP dates back to the 1870s and '80s. The abbreviation was cited in a New York Herald story on Octover 15, 1884: "'The G.O.P. Doomed,' shouted the Boston Post... The Grand Old Party is in condition to inquire..." But what GOP stands for has changed with the times. IN 1875 there was a citation in the Congressional Record referring to "this gallant old party," and according to Harpers Weekly, in the Cincinnati Commercial in 1876 to "Grand Old Party."

Note that I didn't say a word about Democrats in my original post. There were several other political parties in America in the 1870's; they were newer, and didn't survive. Hence the Republicans were more historically entrenched.

[ Parent ]

That link was good (none / 0) (#31)
by aphrael on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:00:58 PM EST

until it went off on how george mcgovern's radical followers had stolen the party and this meant the republicans could claim to be the legitimate heirs of the democratic-republicans.

[ Parent ]
No they don't. (4.00 / 1) (#17)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 10:01:20 AM EST

My memory of civil war history is that the Democrats and Republicans were originally two wings of the same party, with the catchy name of the "Democratic Republicans". They were opposed by the Whigs.(?) The Party split in half over the issue of slavery with the (mostly Southern) Democratic party coming down FOR slavery. What was left of the original party was anti-slavery because (catch this) slavery was bad for business - Northern factory owners didn't like the idea of competing against people who didn't have to pay their employees.

I'm pretty sure I'm mangling the geneology somewhat, but the basic point is that the Democratic party only goes back to the civil war, when it was created to give the Southern states a stronger voice in national politics.


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
Yep. (none / 0) (#23)
by pietra on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:35:11 AM EST

And for backup, go here.

[ Parent ]
Not quite. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by aphrael on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:58:07 PM EST

There was a democratic-republican party, yes. What happened in the 1850s is that the *Whigs* were torn apart on the sectional issue; after they imploded in the north, the republican party (and the american party, for that matter) formed out of their ashes. *They* managed to win a dominant position in the north, which caused the democrats to become more southern-oriented; up until 1854 the democratic leadership was balanced between north and south. Once they lost enough congressional seats in the north to lose that balance, they entered a death-spiral; the leadership became more southern, the party took more pro-southern positions, and they lost more seats in the north.

For a good explication of the politics of the 1850s, check out The Impending Crisis, by David Morris Potter; it was the life work of a major US historian.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#36)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:58:55 PM EST

thanks for the link.


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
Free-Soil, People's, Constitutional Union, etc. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by pietra on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:32:40 AM EST

For a comprehensive list of the more important American political parties, and their histories, check out this handy page: http://library.thinkquest.org/12587/contents/parties/?tqskip1=1&tqtime=0306. Keep in mind that these are just the semi-well-organized ones.

[ Parent ]
What a travesty (4.60 / 5) (#12)
by ariux on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:41:39 AM EST

Let them froth. Politics is a dirty business, but the rules of the game say you're not allowed to shut the other guy up.

Who is Kelly Fero? Read this: (4.71 / 7) (#15)
by n8f8 on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:54:19 AM EST

Story Here

The site is a political volley launched by Democratic political strategist Kelly Fero, whose unabashed intent is to support his party's efforts.

Or this Story

Democrat John Sharp, while he is personally anti-abortion, said he would defend current laws that provide abortion access, his spokesman Kelly Fero said

So were not talking about a regular citizen here, nor an attempt at fair reporting.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)

'Scuse me? (none / 0) (#16)
by minusp on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 09:35:04 AM EST

Maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall any indication that the site was about Fair Reporting. After all, the _best_ mockery uses the facts of the matter....

Remember, regime change begins at home.
[ Parent ]
The point is (4.33 / 3) (#18)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 10:05:09 AM EST

There are various laws about what you can and can't do as part of a political campaign. The fact that the webmaster is an employee of the Democratic party makes it pretty hard to argue this is just "free speech".

Personally, my main objection is that the web site should make clear that it's affiliated with the Dems. Other than that, all's fair in love, war and elections...


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
I don't see why... (none / 0) (#24)
by PhillipW on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:55:44 AM EST

First off, a read of the link he provided reveals that Mr. Fero paid for the site with his own money. Therefore, while he himself may be associated with the PAC, the PAC had absolutely nothing to do with this website being created. So why exactly should they say it's associated with the Democratic Party?

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Uh Huh. (none / 0) (#25)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:59:47 AM EST

Can you say "soft money"?

Why no sir, I was simply exercising my rights as a private citizen. That bonus I received later has nothing to do with it!


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
Uh huh (4.00 / 1) (#28)
by PhillipW on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:03:27 PM EST

Soft money soft money soft money. Now tell me, what leads you to believe soft money is in use in this situation? I am willing to bet that you do not have 1 bit of evidence to it.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Define the term. (none / 0) (#33)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:50:40 PM EST

Come on! Money is, as they say, hydraulic. Giving money to one aspect of an operation frees up other money to be used elsewhere. He did this on his own time? Who is paying the hosting fees? With what?

And even if he's completely paying it out of his own pocket, does that really make his web site non-political? Is George Bush allowed to say "Well, as a private citizen I think Ted Kennedy is a booze-soaked womanizing pervert, but that's just my opinion." and not have people complain?

My point is this: Although banning "soft money" is a nonsensical restraint of free speech, it is even more hypocritical for an operative of a political party that supports such restraints to do an extensive attack of the opposing party and then claim it was "just a joke."


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
Yes and No (none / 0) (#38)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:50:33 PM EST

Is George Bush allowed to say "Well, as a private citizen I think Ted Kennedy is a booze-soaked womanizing pervert, but that's just my opinion."

If not, he should be.

and not have people complain?

Whoops - no. Bush doesn't have the right to not have people complain about his statements or actions.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (none / 0) (#41)
by PhillipW on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:34:25 PM EST

So now, anyone under the employ of a political party or PAC is not allowed to publicly voice their opinion? That's silly.

Is George Bush allowed to say "Well, as a private citizen I think Ted Kennedy is a booze-soaked womanizing pervert, but that's just my opinion." and not have people complain?

He certainly does have a right to say that. As far as complaining, that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that legal action was taken against the owner of the site. I'm also pretty sure that if George W Bush called Ted Kennedy an alcoholic, noone would be hollering that he accepted soft money to say that.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Silly? Not even unusual. (none / 0) (#49)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 10:55:36 AM EST

From personal experience I can tell you that federal employees and members of the military are forbidden to publicly discuss their political beliefs.


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
joke.. (none / 0) (#60)
by eudas on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 04:09:14 PM EST

maybe it's just to keep the number of gunfights to a minimum... :)

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 0) (#65)
by PhillipW on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 07:46:24 PM EST

Indeed they are. However, they are under government employ. Employees of PACs are not. It is also worth noting that members of the military also must obey a different, much more strict, code of conduct than civlians do.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
It's a little more than complaining (none / 0) (#51)
by aonifer on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 12:40:35 PM EST

Is George Bush allowed to say "Well, as a private citizen I think Ted Kennedy is a booze-soaked womanizing pervert, but that's just my opinion." and not have people complain?

There's a difference between people complaining and people trying to have a web site shut down.

[ Parent ]

Especially When (none / 0) (#34)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:53:22 PM EST

to continue the previous note...

Especially when the new soft money law restricts the ability of independent parties from airing political advertisements!

Like I originally said - I have no problem with the site, I just think it should be made clear - on the site - that the webmaster has an agenda above and beyond making a joke.


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
content (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by Weezul on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:01:33 PM EST

If this site crosses the limits of allowed political speech (which I doubt as I've seen some pretty nasty smear campaigns). It seems like the democrats could always just agree to take it down, but they can just give the site and domain to some fiercly anti-republican individual.. perhaps even some union which stants to recieve the republican political contributions (if they give em up). I don't see the problem as long as the democratic party no longer has editorial control. Plus, it's a damn funny site and it would be a shame to see it taken down.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
So you're saying... (none / 0) (#50)
by derek3000 on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 11:58:35 AM EST

it's like astroturf? I think I would agree with that.

-----------
Not too political, nothing too clever!--Liars
[ Parent ]

Objection Answered (none / 0) (#56)
by Wah on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 01:57:28 PM EST

Right Here.

Personally, my main objection is that the web site should make clear that it's affiliated with the Dems.

"Who We Are" links are always a good source of information on who they are.
--
Choas and order, flowing down the drain of time. Ain't it purdy? | SSP
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (3.00 / 2) (#26)
by PhillipW on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:00:45 PM EST

What's so irregular about this citizen? He has chosen a political alignment. Everyone does.

As far as it being fair reporting, it is quite obviously biased. So what? The site was created for a purpose, that being to argue that the GOP is corrupt. It is quite obvious they're biased. Everyone knows it.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
"everybody knows it" (none / 0) (#35)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:56:12 PM EST

Oh, yeah. Everybody does. Must be true. Everybody also knows that Clinton commmitted perjury, sexual harassment and rape, too. That's true as well. Right?

Generalizations are always wrong.


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
Haha (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by PhillipW on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:17:12 PM EST

If you go to a site called porkchopdclownisafuckingidioit.com without expecting that it was written by someone who hates you, than you're a fool.

And no, I don't know that Clinton committed Sexual Harassment, but I personally think he did. However that is very off topic.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
WTF does that have to do (none / 0) (#48)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 10:32:50 AM EST

What does any of that have to do with your claim that "everyone knows" that the GOP is biased?


--
Knock Knock.


[ Parent ]
Ummmm (none / 0) (#57)
by PhillipW on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 02:37:16 PM EST

What the bloody hell are you talking about? I didn't say the GOP was biased. I said that the person who runs enronownsthegop.com is biased. Please go back and read my posts.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
I have. (none / 0) (#66)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 09:38:46 AM EST

Several times. If you didn't mean that the GOP is biased, perhaps you should study grammar.


--
For a good time call
867-5309
Ask for Jenny.


[ Parent ]
The GOP is Facist (1.85 / 7) (#29)
by MJGorecki on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:21:54 PM EST

Although two of our political parties, the Dem's & the Rep's, have grown closer together, the Rep's have the stronger opinion that everyething that is conrtrary to their view of things is _bad for america_ and should be stopped at all costs.

Don't let the Dems off easy. (3.00 / 3) (#37)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:45:15 PM EST

The Democrats do the same thing with political correctness.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Ok (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by Boronx on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 06:12:38 PM EST

When's the last time the democrats sued someone for being politically incorrect? Or tried to shut down their website?

Any way, it is obvious to everyone which is the more ruthless, self-righteous, and regimented party in America. It is the major part of their success, and also why the rest of us look upon them with distrust.

Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat." If you've been to both a Democrat and Republican state-level conventions, you know what he means.
Subspace
[ Parent ]

Here's one (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 07:26:39 PM EST

When's the last time the democrats sued someone for being politically incorrect?

Here's the first thing that came up on Google.

Any way, it is obvious to everyone which is the more ruthless, self-righteous, and regimented party in America. It is the major part of their success, and also why the rest of us look upon them with distrust.

I have always felt that way, too. However, as I became more politically aware, I realized that the Democrats weren't much better.

Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

The Will Rogers quote that best sums up my feelings is: "The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best."
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#44)
by PhillipW on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 08:28:41 PM EST

Here's the first thing that came up on Google.

That incident doesn't strike me as being similar to this one at all. Mostly, it was the government investigating whether the mascot of a public school, which is run by the government anyways, was offensive. It was NOT trying to silence anyone.

I do, however, agree for the most part. The Democrats aren't much better than the Republicans.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Oh yeah? (none / 0) (#52)
by Boronx on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 01:03:29 PM EST

Imagine if we had a president who was an ex-drunkard draft-dodging drug-using corrupt good ole boy, except he's a Democrat? Don't you think the Republicans would be just a leeeeetle more nasty than the Dems are right now?

But Wait. We don't have to imagine, because we just got rid of a womanizing draft-dodging drug-using corrupt good ole boy who *was* a Democrat, and we all know how the Repubs reacted to him.

Yep, keep telling youself that there's no difference.
Subspace
[ Parent ]

wtf? (none / 0) (#59)
by gtx on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 03:30:38 PM EST

Don't you think the Republicans would be just a leeeeetle more nasty than the Dems are right now?

no. logic bomb for you: when you try to make an unqualified point by asking a loaded rhetorical question, all i have to do is answer to the contrary, and we will both be on equal ground in the arguement. therefore, my answer of "no" is as argumentatively sound as your original question.

and we all know how the Repubs reacted to him.

remind me again - it didn't have anything to do with calling him on lying under oath or anything, did it? i mean, jesus, we had a felon for president and some people were a mite upset -- whoopty-doo.

-c


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#61)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 04:34:32 PM EST

remind me again - it didn't have anything to do with calling him on lying under oath or anything, did it?

No, it didn't. That was what they latched on to in the end, for rhetorical purposes, but their hatred of him started long before. If lying under oath mattered to them, they wouldn't revere Reagan and Oliver North.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
hrm (none / 0) (#63)
by gtx on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 06:16:17 PM EST

the problem with that being that at least reagan had redeeming qualities.

-c


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
[ Parent ]
QED (none / 0) (#64)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 06:40:19 PM EST

That statement puts the lie to the idea that it was the lying under oath that the Republicans didn't like about Clinton. There were many reasons they didn't like him, among which were the "womanizing draft-dodging drug-using corrupt good ole boy" aspect, and the fact that he wasn't a second term for Bush.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
Libertarians (none / 0) (#54)
by Boronx on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 01:25:41 PM EST

Lest you mistake me, I am not talking about corruption. You K5 libertarians believe both parties are corrupt. You are right. But hardcore Republicans actually believe that their party is more righteous and good than the other parties. Ironically, this lets them rationalize more bad behaviour on their own part.

Lets put it this way: Why don't partisan Democrats, like Carville, have talk shows? Because most Democrats would turn him off in disgust if they caught him lying about a Republican, and most wouldn't bother to listen if he was just a mouth piece for the Democratic party.

Yet Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners. When he spews forth a howling lie, many Republicans will not doubt him, because he's right wing, and many that know better simply chuckle and say "Rush is at it again."

And lets revisit an old issue: When's the last time that you heard of any politician challenging a recount in a close election? I don't mean challenging the accuracy of the count, but instead arguing against the need for a recount? Politician's don't do this, and yet G.W. Bush did. Why? Because he believed he should do (almost) anything to win.

Then theirs the Willy Horton adds, the adds showing Daschle alongside Saddam, etc... How far back do you have to go to find a similar Dem add? 30 years?

The parties may be equally bad, but one is definitely meaner, nastier, more motivated to crush the opposition at all costs than the other.
Subspace
[ Parent ]

Willy Horton + bonus smear (none / 0) (#55)
by sonovel on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 01:57:07 PM EST

Wasn't the Willy Horton thing brung up by a Democrat _first_, in the primaries? IIRC _Al Gore_, not Bush, was the first to mention WH!

Also, for shear bad taste and smear look at LBJ's attack on Goldwate, though that might be the 30 years thing you point out.

Neither side has a monopoly on slime.



[ Parent ]
s/shear/sheer (none / 0) (#67)
by minra on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 06:44:18 AM EST

---------------------------
sheer (shr)
adj. sheer*er, sheer*est

Completely such, without qualification or exception: sheer stupidity; sheer happiness.
Free from admixture or adulterants; unmixed: sheer alcohol. See Synonyms at pure.

Considered or operating apart from anything else: got the job through sheer persistence.

---------------------------
shear (shr)
v. sheared, sheared, or shorn (shrn, shrn) shear*ing, shears

To remove (fleece or hair) by cutting or clipping.
To remove the hair or fleece from.
To cut with or as if with shears: shearing a hedge.
To divest or deprive as if by cutting: The prisoners were shorn of their dignity.
---------------------------
sorry, i'm avoiding work. you too?

[ Parent ]
Oooh a spelling correction! (none / 0) (#69)
by sonovel on Sat Mar 09, 2002 at 03:57:11 PM EST

Wow, that was an insightful reply.



sarcasm Pronunciation Key (srkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]





[ Parent ]
dems (none / 0) (#62)
by karb on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 05:12:09 PM EST

Why don't partisan Democrats, like Carville, have talk shows?

One reason, for starters, might be that the entertainment industry is pretty liberal to begin with. Why do you need a liberal Rush Limbaugh when you already have Rosie O'Donnell?

Plus, there are plenty of very liberal radio programs where I live. Ever heard of NPR? And there's another one ... I forget the name, but when Strom Thurmond, u.s. senator for umpteen years, decided to retire, they had about seven different people talk about it, and not one person said anything even remotely complimentary. That's pretty liberal.

Both sides were pretty dirty in the florida recounts. The democrats argued to have a lot of military ballots thrown out.

I don't have any hard data, but I have a real hard time believing that the republicans have more vicious attack ads than the democrats. Especially because most attack ads are retaliatory.
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?
[ Parent ]

Repubs. (none / 0) (#70)
by Boronx on Mon Mar 11, 2002 at 06:16:10 PM EST

Why do you need a liberal Rush Limbaugh when you already have Rosie O'Donnell?

Rosie's not even on the same planet with Rush. The average Democrat barely knows she exists much less respects her. Likewise, there exists many small, Liberal, Limbaughesque talk show hosts, but they will never generate a large national following, because Democrats, and even Far Left Liberals, find those tactics uncivilized. (What tactics? How about constant, brazen, lying Or Rush's idea taken straight from Joseph Goebbels that you don't nead anyother source of information)

NPR is Liberal, they don't admit it, but they know it, everyone knows it, and they know everyone knows it. But as any regular listener knows, they often go through painful contortions to show their efforts at remaining unbiased. Again, if they lied, distorted, waved the bloody shirt, like Limbaugh, Democrats would simply change the station to something a little less cringe-inducing.

As for Florida, don't make me laugh. The Democrats tried to make sure the votes were counted they way they were in previous elections. What did the Republicans do? They staged a false riot. They took contradictory positions. Count those military votes, even if they were mailed after the election! Let those Broward County Jews go to hell.

They even challenged the legitmacy of the recount, a process as old, and as unchallegenged as any in American Democracy. They whipped the country into crisis mode and then took it to Federal Court, complaining that their wasn't enough time. All this while there still was a political solution to the problem available in the constitution (lord knows why the courts didn't let it play out) that would most likely still have gone in Bush's favor.

In recent years, Repbulicans are more willing to be slimey to get what they want. They think they are justified, because they are self-righteous. Republicans see the Democrat's revulsion towards those tactics as a weakness (it has been since Watergate) and just another reason the Republicans are better and ought to be slimey to get their way.(it isn't).

It seems strange to me that to the average Republican voter the two main parties seem equally scummy, while to Democrats the difference seems quite clear.
Subspace
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0) (#58)
by gtx on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 03:17:06 PM EST

Any way, it is obvious to everyone which is the more ruthless, self-righteous, and regimented party in America.

it is obviously obvious to everyone -- that's why gore won by that incredible landslide.

its blanket statements like these that just make your side look retarded. i mean, if i were to just make an unqualified generality like "democrats just aren't all that bright," i'd be at about the same level as you in respect to the quality of my arguement. even though i may believe that democrats aren't all that bright, i'm obviously not going to base an arguement on my opinions of liberals, as that would solve nothing and in the end i'd only be proving to the other side that i'm not all that bright and not very good at arguing my case.

-c


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
[ Parent ]
Touche' (none / 0) (#71)
by Boronx on Mon Mar 11, 2002 at 06:21:05 PM EST

You got me. It's *not* obvious to everyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
Subspace
[ Parent ]
It doesn't look like a 'parody' site to me. (4.66 / 3) (#53)
by Anonymous American on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 01:11:41 PM EST

parody A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature. The genre of literature comprising such works. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

What exactly is this site a parody of? This site looks more like a political slam site, fully funded by the Texas Democrats. Look, I don't like the Texas Republicans but I don't like to be used either. This site is of such a serious nature they need to either present evidence of the charges they are leveling or face a lawsuit.



Texas GOP tries to shut down parody. | 71 comments (64 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!