0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 05:22 pm
Love her or hate her, it's apparently impossible to ignore her Smile

http://www.drudgereport.com/ct1.jpg
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 07:12 pm
LOL!!! The cover, huh? That ought to tick off the Dems no end Smile Smile Smile

As long as she keeps them squirming and wringing their hands, I say GO ANN! Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 07:20 pm
This story is too funny not to post (I loved it LOL).....

Quote:
Jeremy Stribling said Thursday that he and two fellow MIT graduate students questioned the standards of some academic conferences, so they wrote a computer program to generate research papers complete with "context-free grammar," charts and diagrams.

The trio submitted two of the randomly assembled papers to the World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (WMSCI), scheduled to be held July 10-13 in Orlando, Florida.

To their surprise, one of the papers -- "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy" -- was accepted for presentation.

...."Rooter" features such mind-bending gems as: "the model for our heuristic consists of four independent components: simulated annealing, active networks, flexible modalities, and the study of reinforcement learning" and "We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67, augmented with opportunistically pipelined extensions."

Stribling said the trio targeted WMSCI because it is notorious within the field of computer science for sending copious e-mails that solicit admissions to the conference.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/14/mit.prank.reut/index.html


These kids could so work for the NYTimes LOL!!!
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 07:25 pm
That's an old trick, I still like the one quite some years ago when someone published gobbledygook and it was picked up by some post-modernist website and published. Still funny though. Nearly as funny as anyone taking Ann Coulter seriously enough to analyse whatever it is she writes.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:58 pm
Yeah, years ago when I was director of a large not for profit service organization, my staff was having a slow day and wrote up a grant request on something about implementing group programs to help self esteem of extra over endowed women or something to that effect. It was really funny and we all had a good laugh. But one of the staffers was teasing our 'blond' secretary and didn't tell her it was a joke and asked her to check it over for typos and then send it in. She didn't take it as a joke and did send it in. We didn't know that until we got a questionnaire back from the foundation wanting clarification of a couple of statements on our request. To this day I don't know whether they were putting us on. Smile

But re the Ann Coultor pic on Time Magazine, Matt Drudge was commenting on that on his regular Sunday night radio show tonight. He was commenting on how Time has 'distorted Ann', stretching her out, the exaggerated long legs, and the Wicked Witch of the West shoes making her into a cartoonish figure. Do they do that to a liberal woman featured on the cover of Time. Ever?
When I first saw the pic I just thought it was unusual and cute and even sort of clever as a depiction of our queen of clever mean. But now I'm wondering. Is it a put down? What do ya'll think?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 09:21 pm
Well, now that you mention it LOL! The shoes are definitely weird - as are the disproportionate legs. I'm sure she cares LOL. I can't say for certain, but my instinct tells me Ann outsells any of her counterparts on the left, so good on her and I'm hoping she's laughing all the way to the bank.

Is it a put down? Well, it IS Time Magazine LOL.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 09:42 pm
I venture to say Ms Coulter dressed specifically for, posed knowin'ly for, and approved - from among many from that shoot - the photo. A name photographer, studio-shot cover is a pretty big production, whether the mag is Teen or Time. Annie's got her fun.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 09:46 pm
Ahhhhh...didn't think of that, Timber. You're most likely correct. She's laughing at em' Smile
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 10:15 pm
http://www.newsguild.org/ewebeditpro2/upload/Helen%20Thomas,%20p3_REV.jpghttp://www.animalthemes.co.nz/Product%20Graphics/Sawley/Coasters/cc087%20-%20English%20Bulldog.jpg

http://www.drcrump.com/079e52c0.gifhttp://www.thebreedsofdogs.com/images/AFGHAN_HOUND.jpg


I know, I know. Just couldn't resist, though Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 10:24 pm
Oh no, that's BAD Timber. Funny, but BAD! Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 11:04 am
Quote:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON APRIL 18, 2005 11:02:33 ET XXXXX

COULTER RIPS MAG PHOTO 'DISTORTION'

"Why can't they just photograph conservatives straight?!" blasted this week's TIME magazine covergirl Ann Coulter.

The bestselling author and controversialist slammed magazine editors for fronting a photo of her, she claims, which is so distorted "my own mother would not even recognize me!"

The photographer, Platon, appears to have used a wide "Fisheye" lense for the cover snap, stretching Coulter's legs and feet -- while shrinking the rest of her body.



TIME editors selected Platon with a note of irony -- he is the same photographer who captured Coulter-nemisis President Clinton in the infamous "Lewinsky" power pose for ESQUIRE.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3act.htm
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 11:15 am
Too bad she didn't protest in time for Time magazine to take her off the cover. It must be painful for a woman to have her legs look so much longer than they really are.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 11:24 am
Appears Annie proves my supposition re her approval of that shot to have been misfounded. Damn, I hate it when a woman shows me up Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 04:50 pm
Quote:
I know, I know. Just couldn't resist, though Mr. Green

me neither...

http://www.drudgereport.com/ct1.jpghttp://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00155/sharon-stone_155448a.jpg
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 05:40 pm
Excellent, RP Laughing

BTW - betchya hadda look a bit to find a clip from that scene that was that tame Laughing
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 07:39 pm
never crossed (or un-crossed) my mind...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 May, 2005 11:48 am
Quote:
Laura Bush Talks Naughty
By JOHN TIERNEY

Published: May 3, 2005


When King Agamemnon and his fleet of warships were becalmed in the Aegean Sea, he ordered his wife to fetch their daughter so she could be sacrificed to the gods. It worked, sort of. The winds picked up and blew the Greek ships to triumph at Troy, although Agamemnon's wife did murder him later.

Republican presidents rely on a slightly less cruel sacrificial ritual for their problems. Their wives appease the media gods with comedy routines.

Each spring, when politicians and reporters convene for formal dinners that are supposed to be funny and are often compared to root canals, they talk about Nancy Reagan's "Secondhand Clothes" the way fans talk about the 1927 Yankees. The Reagans' image for conspicuous consumption was never the same after Mrs. Reagan put on rags in 1982 to sing a lampoon of her spending habits.

But on Saturday night, Laura Bush set a new standard. After interrupting her husband and telling him to sit down, she did a stand-up routine that included what was probably the first joke told in earshot of a president that involved him and a horse's phallus.

Mrs. Bush called her husband Mr. Excitement for going to bed by 9 o'clock and turning her into a "desperate housewife." She said that Lynne Cheney's Secret Service code name became Dollar Bill after they both went to Chippendales (where they ran into Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Noting that Andover and Yale did not have "real strong ranching programs," she said Mr. Bush had started his ranching career by trying to milk a horse - a male horse.

Her timing had the audience howling, and the edgier lines had them gasping. Jokes about pent-up sexual frustration from a prim librarian? With her born-again husband sitting there and enjoying it? And cameras recording it for Republican preachers who are determined to get sex out of schools and off television?

For the mainly Democratic audience - this was a crowd of Washington journalists and luminaries from Hollywood and Manhattan - it was an evening of cognitive dissonance. How to reconcile this charming image on stage with the Bush they love to bash?

Mrs. Bush's performance, and her husband's reaction, wasn't a shock to the reporters who cover the White House. For years they have tried to convince their friends outside Washington that Mr. Bush is actually not a close-minded dolt, and Mrs. Bush is no Stepford Wife or Church Lady. Yes, they're Texans who go to church and preach family values, but they're not yahoos or religious zealots.

The coverage of Mrs. Bush's comic debut may change some minds, but for devout Bush-bashers, it's much easier to stay the course. If you live in a blue-state stronghold, a coastal city where you can go 24 hours without meeting any Republicans, it's consoling to think of the red staters as an alien bunch of strait-laced Bible thumpers.

Otherwise, how do you explain why they're Republican? Or answer the question Democrats asked in astonishment when they saw Mr. Bush's vote totals: Who are these people?

The favorite Democratic explanation is that the red staters are hicks who have been blinded by righteousness, as Thomas Frank argues in "What's the Matter With Kansas?" He laments that middle-class Kansans are so bamboozled by moral issues like abortion and school prayer that they vote for Republicans even though the Republican tax-cutting policies are against their self-interest.

But middle-class Americans don't simply cast ballots for Republicans. They also vote with their feet, which is why blue states and old Democratic cities are losing population to red states and Republican exurbs. People are moving there precisely because of economic reasons - more jobs, affordable houses and the lower taxes offered by Republican politicians.

They're not moving for the churches, and they don't vote for Mr. Bush simply because he reads the Bible every day. One of the main reasons they like him is that he gets bashed so often. When Jon Stewart sneers at him, they empathize because they're used to being sneered at themselves.

They know what their image is in Manhattan and Hollywood, and they know they're not all that different from the Democrats in those places. They, too, watch "Desperate Housewives," and they're not surprised to hear Laura Bush doing Chippendales jokes. They've spent their own dollar bills there. They don't see anything the matter with that - or with themselves.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2005 12:13 pm
That Dubya! He sure can pick 'em Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2005 09:29 pm
Uncle John's Cabin

By Shawn Macomber
Published 5/12/2005 12:07:10 AM


Former Democratic vice-presidential candidate and class warfare enthusiast John "Two Americas" Edwards and his wife might spend their anniversaries at Wendy's (at least when there are newspaper photographers and cable news anchors in the parking lot), but the other 364 days of their year are played out in much swanker quarters.

Considering his much-lauded penchant for what passes for "populist" rhetoric theses days -- "Let me say this in simple right and wrong, black and white terms," Edwards bravely told one New Hampshire crowd during primary season. "I say no to kids going to bed hungry in America. I say no to kids not having clothes to keep them warm" -- one might be tempted to assume that the former senator put his Georgetown house on the market for an asking price of $6.2 million dollars as a prelude to finally joining a commune.

Alas, another progressive hero is about to bite the dust. The sale is not a precursor to Edwards liquidating his worldly possessions for redistribution among the proletariat, but, rather, simply a fundraiser for the country estate currently being constructed for him on a 100 acre plot in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (Is it just me or is anyone else surprised there are 100 contiguous unpopulated acres in Chapel Hill? Must be a "who you know" thing.) That's right, faster than you can say "plantation," Mr. Edwards is building himself one.

It's a good thing his mill worker father taught him "the value of a hard day's work," because even with shrubs, that is a lot of lawn to mow. This will be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that the Edwards family also plans to sell their Raleigh home. But they will hold on to their Wilmington area beach house. After all, man cannot live on 100 acres alone.

Nevertheless, before anyone gets the wrong idea and start thinking being a sappy, spoon-deep politician with nice hair is the only occupation that pays better than being a ruthless, client and venue shopping trial lawyer...Well, it just isn't like that. Edwards is a working stiff again with a new job heading the University of North Carolina Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, which plans to explore "innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty and into the middle class."

The first lesson, I suppose, is that one way to escape the tyrannical socioeconomic prison George W. Bush has fashioned and get to the promised land where normal folks relax on their 100 acre plots with periodic beach house breaks -- the "other America," as it were -- is to get some university to pay you to study poverty. For real poor people this should be a cinch; a real work-from-home opportunity.

In view of their current living situation, some of you cynics out are probably thinking maybe John Edwards and his kin are uppity folks who don't really understand how you live. Pshaw. If the family learned one thing living in Georgetown it was how it feels to toil all day and then come home to a house with only seven bedrooms and six full baths, with their friends embarrassingly being forced, on occasion, to use one of two half-baths.

But as Elizabeth Edwards explained recently to the Washington Post, this perky little family rolled up their sleeves and made the home work for them.

"We pretty much gutted it, but we wanted to keep the character of the house, since so many people knew it," she said. "But it needed to be more family-friendly for us."

So how does Elizabeth define "family-friendly"? Probably not much different than your own Ma and Pa defined it. She just wanted to add on what every family with two young children can barely get by without -- 2,000 new square feet, an enclosed porch, central air conditioning, a new study, a new room above the garage, and the little matter of replacing the home's flooring with heart pine from an old mill in South Carolina.

That at least partially explains why Edwards is selling a house he bought in December 2002 for $3.8 million less than three years later for $6.5 million. At first the disparity had me worried that Edwards had completely sold out and had perhaps become possessed by the profit motive.

Still, as much as I instinctively trust trial lawyers, I can't help but wonder why Edwards didn't buy, say, a 50 acre estate and maybe build a homeless shelter or even send money to that girl he talked about in his speech following his South Carolina primary victory.

"Somewhere in America, a 10-year-old little girl will go to bed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today," he told the crowd. "She's one of 35 million Americans who live in poverty every single day, unnoticed, unheard."

It sounded as if Edwards was actually deeply concerned about this nameless, faceless, probably entirely fictional young girl. It seems entirely unlikely a Democratic politician would use a caricature of a poverty-stricken person simply to score some political points.

Perhaps with the $6.5 million from the Georgetown house he can take her shopping at Wal-Mart for a blanket and a new cardboard box. Then maybe grab something off the dollar menu at his favorite restaurant, Wendy's? It would probably even all be tax-deductible if on the car ride over he studies her for his no doubt critical work at the University of North Carolina Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

But even if you can't empathize with the Edwards's politics -- basically, massive expansions of government bureaucracy to be in turn paid for by massive tax increases -- I think all of us can agree on what an absolutely miserable experience moving is, even if it is to a modest 100 acre country seat.

"I'm sitting at the desk in the study now and there's nothing on top of it," Elizabeth Edwards laughed to the Washington Post from their Georgetown home as it was being emptied. "It doesn't look like anybody lives here anymore."

Ah, now she knows what it's really like to live in the other America.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8157
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 12:21 am
Ann's hot, funny and very readable even if she isn't always as right as she is right. I, for one, think she's worthy of her fame.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:34:41