Humor_In_Cuneiform
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:30 PM
Original message |
We should be fair to * WH GOP re wiretaps on Americans, eh? |
|
I mean the poor widdle guys are watching their popularity tank.
The evoting scandals are becoming widely known AND even believed, and the machines are being banned and decertified.
DeLay, Abramoff, soon Frist have been busted along with all the corrupt power that went with that.
The global environment belies their lies that there is no global warming.
How are they going to continue to seize outrageous amounts of power given the above?
I mean they have to have SOME unfair, illegal, skullduggery to prop up their abusive usurpation of powers they could never acquire fairly and honestly.
Poor little guys.
:nopity:
|
DRoseDARs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Bug the Oval Office... |
|
...preferably with hornets.
Angry hornets. :evilgrin:
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Or how about using wasps? |
|
WASPs, to be precise. Angry, stinging WASPs...
Ahhh, the irony.
|
Humor_In_Cuneiform
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. That would work better than using W.A.S.P.'s, huh? |
|
White
anglo
saxon
protestants
|
KansDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. Actually, that was my meaning... |
|
I should have used periods :(
Oh, well...but imagine the irony of using W.A.S.P.s! :D
|
Humor_In_Cuneiform
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. I knew that was what you meant! Guess I was spelling it out for |
|
anyone who might not have understood the reference.
Very clever use of the word on your part!!
|
madeline_con
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
2. "How are they going to continue to seize ... power..." |
|
There will either BE a "terror attack", or one will be "thwarted" by intelligence gathered through wire taps.
:popcorn:
|
Humor_In_Cuneiform
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. See? They need the wiretaps to "thwart" an attack, and/or to |
|
implement the mihop or lihop on the attack.
OT:
Ed Schultz is letting * have it right now.
It has to be different for Schultz and Franken to be on Armed Forces Radio instead of a steady diet of Rush.
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. If a terror attack is "thwarted", how will anyone even know if there |
|
actually was one? "Hey look over there... Shinny."
"That's a terrorist attack because we say so. And because we say so we have to declare Martial Law."
Yeah, that'll go over real well.
|
Humor_In_Cuneiform
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. They'll trot out people to speak spontaneously on their first hand |
|
information that there was an attack that was thwarted.
You know, like the troops in the conversations with *, THAT kind of spontaneous exchange and testimony.
:rofl:
|
madeline_con
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. But, what about "national security"?.... |
|
No one can see the informants, we'll just have to take DUH-bya's word for it.
|
madeline_con
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. That was intended to be tongue-in-cheek... |
|
But the last laundry list of "near misses" was believed by Repugs. It keeps idiots scared enough to keep voting for them. :shrug:
|
Humor_In_Cuneiform
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-03-06 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. So they need the wiretaps to intercept anything that might cause |
|
the "base" from beginning to look for the truth.
After all, we all know that "It's a tough job."
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message |