930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Dr. Anton Phibes on February 12, 2004, 01:04:00 pm
-
http://www.drudgereport.com/ (http://www.drudgereport.com/)
>>>I knew this guy had too many skeletons in his closet!! But the "lemming" voters of the U.S. had to make him the frontrunner! Just like Television and Music....if everyone else likes it,it must be good......NOT!
-
This will finish him I think.......
-
Yeah,it sure finished Clinton! :roll:
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Yeah,it sure finished Clinton! :cool:
-
That's what I was thinking as well. If true, the GOP will definitely use it as ammo, but the general election is still a bit over 8 months away. It's going to be all about spin.
Someone needs to run on a "Hey, I kept it in my pants" platform.
Originally posted by mankie:
Yeah,it sure finished Clinton! :roll:
-
The Gennifer Flowers scandal occurred before he was elected in 1992. Remember the Clintons went on 60 minutes or some show like that?
Originally posted by imrotten:
;He was a sitting president when the scandal broke.....not in a battle for a party nomination.....BIG difference.....you can fuck when in office and survive,not on the way there...... :cool:
-
clearly kerry should appoint a commission to investigate and then stonewall it until after the election
-
What's the big deal anyway.
Democrats = adulterers
Repuplicans = draft dodgers
I'll take an adulterer in the Whitehouse anytime...at least you don't have to send the troops out to commit adultery.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
What's the big deal anyway.
Democrats = adulterers
Repuplicans = draft dodgers
I'll take an adulterer in the Whitehouse anytime...at least you don't have to send the troops out to commit adultery.
>>> I agree....Jack Kennedy fucked anything that moved and was a damn good prez......I just think this is EXACTLY what the republicans were looking for and they got it......and this guy has got even more in his past and this is the tip of the iceburg.....just don't think he can weather this storm and was never the best choice in the demo field,that's all....
-
want a president that doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, only fucks his wife? i'll do you one better:
<img src="http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~edge/idle_time/idle2nd/threat.gif" alt=" - " />
ian mackaye for president
-
Originally posted by mankie:
What's the big deal anyway.
Democrats = adulterers
Repuplicans = draft dodgers
I'll take an adulterer in the Whitehouse anytime...at least you don't have to send the troops out to commit adultery.
the republicans get there hands caught in the cookie jar all the time... they just better at being moral for the bible belt when its required.
-
I just think this is EXACTLY what the republicans were looking for and they got it
I'm not so sure it was republicans - if Karl Rove knew this he'd sit on it until Kerry was the nominee and then bury him - IF its true theres plenty of time for Edwards or someone else to get the nomination
the hot money in our office is that the Clintons (yeah, ironic I know) are behind this.....I have a long standing bet with a friend where I have to buy him dinner if Hillary is the nominee
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by mankie:
What's the big deal anyway.
Democrats = adulterers
Repuplicans = draft dodgers
I'll take an adulterer in the Whitehouse anytime...at least you don't have to send the troops out to commit adultery.
the republicans get there hands caught in the cookie jar all the time... they just better at being moral for the bible belt when its required. [/b]
They really must have better handlers, because the Reps are the sanctimonious defense of marraige pricks, so isn't it even more egregious and hypocritical when they get caught in the "cookie jar," as you called it kosmo... What am I missing here? [on topic, please ;) ]
-
Yeah, this seems like an inside job. How convenient that this story pops up before March 2 (Super Tuesday)...
Originally posted by brennser:
I'm not so sure it was republicans -
[/b]
-
the article makes it sound like at least dean knew it was coming, and clark was definately aware of it.
but really, if the story has legs, this is just 1984 all over again. all that's missing is a boat right now.
-
Edwards is the man that can best beat Bush anyway. The good ole boys down South who actually determine election outcomes are more likely to pick a fellow Southerner over Bush than a pompous New Englander from a gay marriage state.
And I bet Edwards, being a feisty trial lawyer and all, would kick Bush's ass in a debate.
-
Dean had to know about this..thats why he's chosen to stay in the race. If this is true it will hurt Kerry pretty bad. Didnt Clinton dodge the draft too??
-
i guess the two issues are 1) bush deserted the national guard after he dodged the draft and 2) we weren't at war then (the catch-all for mistakes make pre9/11).
personally, i like edwards too. more charisma, doesn't look creepy. i heard one theory that the democrats were looking to write off the whole south (excluding maybe florida) and try to win the other big states. kinda risky to say the least...
-
I just hope she's good looking. I'm sick of our politicians banging these ugly cows.
I'm not sure but I don't think slicky-Willie was a draft dodger. Wasn't he exempt because he was a road scholler or whatever. The Republicans didn't make a big deal of it so it must have been legit. They got on him about speaking out against the Vietnam war, which history proved him right because it was a pretty stupid thing to get involved with, not unlike Iraq really!
-
I cant be sure but I do believe history will prove taking out Saddam's regime and installing a democracy in the mid-east, if it works, will have been a good decision.
-
lets see if I can beat ggw to this one
FROM CONRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S CRAIG CRAWFORD: 'Drudge item on Kerry intern issue is something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time -- it was one reason the Gore vetters in 2000 shied away from Kerry as a running mate choice -- their conclusion that it wasn't bad enough to disqualify him, except for the fact that they couldn't risk it as they were trying so hard to distance themselves from Clinton's personal failings (note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time -- and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it'...
-
Kerry is down 23 points and Edwards is up 19 points.
http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/ (http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/)
-
Well, my two cents is that I KNOW lots of men cheat, and we "puritanical americans" make a bigger deal out of it than the hip, free-flowing Europeans, HOWEVER, are these adulterers, whether democrats or republicans, the best we can get? Wouldn't we want someone of more upstanding character? I do think infedility indicates weakness of character. It's not unforgiveable of a partner, but don't we deserve better in our president? Not every man is cut out to be president.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Didnt Clinton dodge the draft too??
Exactly.....I coulda sworn Clinton was a big time draft dodger. Thats we in the military at the time hated his @ss.....but when i got out i learned to like him as president.
-
Interesting...Lehane was fired from Kerry's campaign back in December.
Originally posted by brennser:
(note: Lehane worked for Gore at the time -- and briefly advised Kerry during this campaign). The Kerry camp has long expected to deal with this, and have assured party leaders they can handle it'...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
I cant be sure but I do believe history will prove taking out Saddam's regime and installing a democracy in the mid-east, if it works, will have been a good decision.
He could've been controlled while in power, now that country is a big fucking time bomb waiting to go off. Those fruit-loops in the mid-east will never get along with each other, no matter who's in power, even a Micky Mouse Democracy won't change that.
-
Do you think the Iraqies are happy Saddam's out of there? Surely not...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Do you think the Iraqies are happy Saddam's out of there? Surely not...
Ask the families of the 100+ that just got blown to bits over the last couple of days. They could've got rid of him themselves you know.
We could've got rid of the mad man without going to war.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Those fruit-loops in the mid-east will never get along with each other, no matter who's in power, even a Micky Mouse Democracy won't change that.
I agree...the general sense I get of the thinking over there that god and religious turf is more important than commerce and higher standards of living here on earth will always fuck them up
-
Ask the family members of the tens of thousands that Saddam murdered as well...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Ask the family members of the tens of thousands that Saddam murdered as well...
Read my edited post.
They could've overthrown him if they wanted to!
-
How do you think we would have gotten rid of him without going to war? You dont think the U.S. and other governments have tried to have him assassinated in the past? Once he died his sons would have taken over and nothing would have changed.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Well, my two cents is that I KNOW lots of men cheat, and we "puritanical americans" make a bigger deal out of it than the hip, free-flowing Europeans, HOWEVER, are these adulterers, whether democrats or republicans, the best we can get? Wouldn't we want someone of more upstanding character? I do think infedility indicates weakness of character. It's not unforgiveable of a partner, but don't we deserve better in our president? Not every man is cut out to be president.
yes, we deserve better. can a man get elected president without SOMETHING scummy in his past? doubt it.
-
I dont think they could have overthrown him...not without our help. Look what happened to the Shiites once we left after Gulf War 1.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
How do you think we would have gotten rid of him without going to war? You dont think the U.S. and other governments have tried to have him assassinated in the past? Once he died his sons would have taken over and nothing would have changed.
I dont think the could have overthrown him...not without our help. Look what happened to the Shiites once we left after Gulf War 1.
Then assassinate all bloody three!
The US bailed out on them half way through remember, which was pretty shitty. I just think it was all because of a personal vendetta for Dubya because Hussein tried to assassinate his dad.... it wasn't our war to fight. It should've been a civil war issue. US funded? Maybe, but not an invasion of a country. That should be an absolute last resort when your own country/people are under imminent threat, which we weren't. Afghanistan was a totally different issue, and was just. They fired first, and by the Taliban giving shelter to Bin Laden etc. were legit targets.
-
Can y'all start another thread for middle east? kerrygate is more interesting...
-
Im sure they would have assassinated all bloody three if it were possible. Saddam was fucking with the world for a long time..he thought he was invincible... Whats been done has been done...like I said, history will be the judge if the decision to take out Saddam was the right thing to do. Ok, im done.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
yes, we deserve better. can a man get elected president without SOMETHING scummy in his past? doubt it.
history shows that that's unlikely. . .it's been going on since the 1796 election. . .
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i heard one theory that the democrats were looking to write off the whole south (excluding maybe florida) and try to win the other big states. kinda risky to say the least...
it's very risky. . .by giving bush the south (including florida, oklahoma and kentucky), bush is at 168 votes, around 100 votes short needed to win. the rest would come from the midwest.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Can y'all start another thread for middle east? kerrygate is more interesting...
Okay back to topic....I've met them both, John Kerry and Mrs. Heinz Kerry....even been in their house.
Aren't I the dogs bollocks? :D
-
Did they try to rope you into a threesome?
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Can y'all start another thread for middle east? kerrygate is more interesting...
Okay back to topic....I've met them both, John Kerry and Mrs. Heinz Kerry....even been in their house.
Aren't I the dogs bollocks? :D [/b]
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i heard one theory that the democrats were looking to write off the whole south (excluding maybe florida) and try to win the other big states. kinda risky to say the least...
it's very risky. . .by giving bush the south (including florida, oklahoma and kentucky), bush is at 168 votes, around 100 votes short needed to win. the rest would come from the midwest. [/b]
add a midwestern running mate, and try to score ohio and indiana over what gore did in 2000, and you have 291 electoral votes. give back new mexico and iowa and you're still at 279. very, very risky though
-
Can the North Rise Again?
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: February 8, 2004
ASHINGTON ?? He sometimes looks so Lincolnesque that all he lacks is the beard and the stovepipe hat. His Boston Brahmin ancestors moved in the leading antislavery circles of the Civil War. So when John Kerry dared to suggest just before the New Hampshire primary that he could win the presidency without the South, he may simply have been speaking like the bred-in-the-bone Yankee he is.
??Everybody makes the mistake of looking south,? Mr. Kerry said at Dartmouth College, Daniel Webster??s alma mater, just before the New Hampshire primary. ??Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own. I think the fight is all over this country. Forget about those red and blue states.?
Mr. Kerry might better have heeded that classic Southern confession of error: ??Shut my mouth!? For all the homogenization of modern America, all the commercial communion of Starbucks and Wal-Mart, and all the connective power of Internet and Interstate, presidential politics remain, in many ways, the province of blue highways ?? and pronounced regional differences, pride and votes.
The nominating process, with its quadrennial hopscotch from Iowa??s pork tenderloins to New Hampshire??s doughnuts and a dozen other local delicacies, amounts to a serial test of candidates?? abilities to prevail across sectional divides. So does the general election. The unforgiving math of the Electoral College means that candidates must win whole states, in different regions, not just the census tracts of their choice.
Mr. Kerry would be the first Northern elected president of either party since another senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, won in the long election night of 1960 with Lyndon B. Johnson??s help. (Kennedy then spent much of his time trying to placate Southern Democrats.) For better or worse, Mr. Kerry is as Boston as brown bread and clam chowder, while his rival John Edwards is as Carolina as hush puppies and she-crab soup. Mr. Edwards argues that he would be a stronger opponent against George Bush in his own backyard.
But Mr. Kerry hopes that his decorated combat service in Vietnam and his neo-populist pledge to take on ??powerful interests? can serve him well throughout the country against the proud Texas Republican in the White House, and he argued as much on the CBS News program ??Face the Nation? last month. Asked if he had to win the South Carolina primary to prove his appeal in the region, he said, ??I??m going to do my best to, but I don??t have to,? and added: ??The South is not a foreign country. This is America, and these Americans in the South care about the same things that we care about in New Hampshire and elsewhere.?
Up to a point. But there are also real differences, even if not precisely the differences of myth and memory. ??It??s not so much a perpetuation of trends as it is new forms of distinctiveness,? said Bruce J. Schulman, a professor of history and American studies at Boston University, who is at work on a history of the United States from 1896 to 1929. ??A lot of what we??re talking about here is a Sun Belt pattern, rather than an Old South pattern of regional distinctions. It has as much to do with strip malls and the defense industry and retired military people as it does with ancient racial and ruralist traditions.?
To that end, Mr. Kerry has chosen to highlight not only his skills with a hockey stick, which he showed off in New Hampshire, but his ease with a shotgun, his love for Harley-Davidsons, his happiness in a helicopter and the deep loyalty of the ??band of brothers,? some of them Southern, with whom he served on a swift patrol boat in Vietnam. On every stage, he is surrounded by the heroes of the post-Sept. 11 age: firefighters, whose union has endorsed him, and veterans, whose trials he shared.
Presidential contenders have always had to think globally and act locally, and have paid a price when they did not. Howard Dean??s advisers confessed that his standing in Iowa dropped 10 points after the revelation that he had criticized the state??s caucuses four years earlier on Canadian television. James Gimpel, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and the author of ??Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics,? noted that presidential candidates not only need a few winning national themes, ??but to some extent need to tailor their stump speech locally a bit.?
??It may well be that someone sitting outside Traverse City, Mich., is concerned with the state of the economy as a whole but nevertheless be focused on the auto industry in particular,? he said. ??Just as if you are moving into Florida and a candidate??s not prepared to speak on things like prescription drug coverage and Social Security, then the candidate??s not been well prepared.?
Mr. Kerry is careful in every state to cite the number of jobs lost there, and to portray himself as more fiscally conservative than Mr. Bush. Unlike Al Gore four years ago, he does not shrink from associating himself with the deficit-cutting economic boom of Bill Clinton??s presidency, or with other charismatic Democrats of the 20th century.
The historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, herself a Massachusetts liberal who was transplanted from Long Island, said that given the political polarization in the country, Mr. Kerry need not be ashamed of being a Northerner, or even a liberal, so long as he casts himself in the proud tradition of Democrats from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John Kennedy. ??But it means absolutely having to fight back against the idea that there??s something wrong with you,? she said.
Of the 14 men of both parties who held the presidency from Ulysses S. Grant to Roosevelt, all were from the North, and most were Republicans, while the Democrats held the solid South but not the White House. Bitter battles over race and huge population and power shifts to the South and the West have reversed that geography, with Republicans ?? two from California (Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan) and two from Texas (the Bushes) dominating both the South and the presidency since 1968.
Political behavior may remain more localized than consumer behavior precisely because a McDonald??s restaurant is virtually the same in Texas or California, while the states and their laws, constitutions, reigning establishments and traditions are not. Mr. Bush??s political strategist, Karl Rove, keeps hoping that Latino voters in California will behave more like those in Texas in their support of his boss, but so far they have not. Only the Potomac River divides Maryland and Virginia geographically, but culture and history ?? distant and recent ??make Virginia much more conservative.
Mr. Gore won the overall popular vote four years ago, and could have won the Electoral College by carrying any one of a number of states, from New Hampshire to Arkansas or his own Tennessee turf. But population shifts in the 2000 census mean that Republican-leaning states in the South and West have picked up electoral votes, so if Mr. Bush simply carries the states he won in 2000, he would automatically have a leg up.
That means that if Mr. Kerry turns out to be the nominee, he would need to carry not only all the states Mr. Gore won, but also some large state, like Florida or Ohio, that went Republican last time. ??Ohio offsets a lot if they can win that,? said David Lanoue, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama.
So it is no accident that Mr. Bush has paid plenty of attention to Ohio since taking office, or that in the last two weeks he chased after the Democrats in two states that just happen to be very much in play for November: Iowa, where Mr. Bush barely lost to Mr. Gore in 2000, and New Hampshire, where he narrowly won. The president of all the people can never be just a niche player.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/08PURD.html?pagewanted=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/08PURD.html?pagewanted=1)
-
Does anybody think we'll ever have a president of italian descent, or eastern european, or a latino or african-american?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
What's the big deal anyway.
Democrats = adulterers
Repuplicans = draft dodgers
I'll take an adulterer in the Whitehouse anytime...at least you don't have to send the troops out to commit adultery.
Which would you take to a foxhole?
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[...]is the man that can best beat Bush anyway...pick a...Bush...gay...ass
But via the Drudge allegation it would seem that Kerry likes to beat a good bush now and again.
-
<img src="http://www.ilovebacon.com/021104/lazygw.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping? That seems to be the default program of the right-wing media machine whenever Republican poll numbers sink into the red zone.
Late Thursday morning -- with George W. Bush's credibility damaged on several fronts as reporters demanded answers to questions about his National Guard service that should have been asked years ago -- the Drudge Report defamed his leading Democratic challenger with a "world exclusive" smudge of personal dirt.
Vague and unsourced but hyped to the maximum by Drudge, the brief item sounded disturbingly familiar. The Internet gossip accused John Kerry of "recent alleged infidelity" with "a woman who recently fled the country," adding that a "close friend of the woman recently approached a reporter with fantastic stories." The same item ran an "off the record" comment attributed to retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who was quoted as saying, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." Major news organizations from ABC News to the Associated Press, warned Drudge, were all over the story.
By evening, however, no major news organization had run with it, though many were chasing it. Perhaps frustrated, Drudge put up an additional item eight hours later, with a few more details about the alleged relationship. "Unlike the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out publicly in this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry situation has posed a challenge to reporters investigating the claims," his later item explained. Drudge also quoted a "top source" as saying: "There is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with Paula Jones]. It is hard to prove."
But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation.
Somewhat conveniently, Drudge had earlier posted an item that blamed the sudden smudging on a disgruntled Democratic consultant named Chris Lehane, who had been fired by Kerry before going to work as a communications aide to Clark. That second item was later taken down without explanation. By then, of course, this Drudge-drama was already "rocking" Democrats -- and delighting Republicans -- across the nation, at least according to Drudge.
The template was pure Monica: Intern has affair with married politician, is betrayed by a "close friend," and finally exposed by the pliant Drudge.
So far, however, the mainstream media has yet to touch the Drudge item, despite heavy promotion by Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal Web site. Whoever lit this match must have been disappointed when the story that smoldered in newsrooms during the afternoon failed to blaze into a firestorm by early evening. The only exception, so far, is a daily newspaper in Scotland.
Over the years, Kerry's private life has generated its share of gossip. He was a divorced, socially active single man for several years before he remarried. No woman has so far stepped forward to embarrass him in any way -- and the only published report even remotely hinting at marital infidelity is a 6-year-old unfounded clipping from the Boston Herald. Sources in the Kerry camp insist that the Drudge story has no foundation, although they have been predicting since Bush's numbers began to drop that the White House would soon dump its opposition research on their candidate. It may also be worth noting that the Massachusetts senator underwent surgery and radiation treatment last year for prostate cancer.
Was the Drudge item a late hit by an angry Democrat seeking revenge, or a plant by desperate Republicans hoping to distract attention from the president's problems? Lacking proof, the most pertinent questions are the standards of forensic inquiry: Cui bono (who benefits)? And who had the motive, method and opportunity?
Drudge's allegations set off a chain of speculation. Certainly some Democrats wondered if the evidence-free item came from Lehane, who declined public comment this afternoon. Lehane has a reputation as an often rough operator, and that may provide a pretext for Drudge to smear him, too. Following Lehane's dismissal from the Kerry campaign some months ago, the tone of his remarks about his former employer occasionally sounded vengeful. If Clark actually uttered the nasty remark as quoted by Drudge, the general might have heard such rumors from his sharp-edged consultant. But then if Clark believed Kerry was about to "implode," he might not have dropped out of the primary race -- or decided to endorse the Massachusetts senator, as he is expected to do on Friday.
A source close to Lehane vehemently denied to me that Lehane had peddled any rumors about Kerry -- and turned attention back toward the White House as Drudge's likely source. "My assessment is that this is not merely a serendipitous event," he said.
The Drudge item blaming Lehane quoted Craig Crawford, a former Democratic operative who now works as a consultant and columnist for MSNBC. Within 10 minutes after Drudge posted the Kerry intern item, Crawford sent a memo to his superiors that said the story was "something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time." According to Crawford, someone at MSNBC promptly leaked his memo to Drudge. But when Lehane called Crawford with a loudly indignant denial, the MSNBC columnist quickly issued a public retraction. He said:
"The comments attributed to me are from a private email to television news associates based on conversations with Democratic campaign operatives. I did not consider any of it confirmed enough to report or publish. I can only verify that Chris Lehane's rivals in other Democratic campaigns made these claims and I have found no independent source to confirm it. Which is why we did not go with the story. But then someone sent my email to others, which is the only reason it got into the public domain." In other words, there is no proof that Lehane circulated the rumor, let alone that the rumor has any basis in reality.
Once again, Drudge has raised questions -- but they may not be the ones he seeks to raise. The first is about journalistic standards. The second is the identity of his anonymous sources.
Journalists must ask themselves why the rumor of a private peccadillo deserves their attention and resources in the 2004 campaign. The press faces a more important issue: learning from its own failure to report the false rationale and abused intelligence that drove the nation to war.
-
We could've got rid of the mad man without going to war. [/QB][/QUOTE]
we can get rid of a certain other madman in november...!
-
Originally posted by missmegan:
We could've got rid of the mad man without going to war.
we can get rid of a certain other madman in november...! [/QB][/QUOTE]
All depends what the Supreme Court wants to do really.
-
This thread needs a bump.
Is the Drudge Report trying to compete with the Onion as the biggest joke on the web?
Look for a 'breaking news' on Kerry being visited by aliens and having a rectal probe soon!
-
Originally posted by slappy:
This thread needs a bump.
Is the Drudge Report trying to compete with the Onion as the biggest joke on the web?
Look for a 'breaking news' on Kerry being visited by aliens and having a rectal probe soon!
I agree. Why don't you moron's just cite Fox News next time? You bit it hook line and sinker....
-
Here's your glass house, start tossin'.
<img src="http://www.luxuryadventures.co.nz/images/glasshouse/1.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by vansmack:
I agree. Why don't you moron's just cite Fox News next time? You bit it hook line and sinker.... [/b]
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by slappy:
This thread needs a bump.
Is the Drudge Report trying to compete with the Onion as the biggest joke on the web?
Look for a 'breaking news' on Kerry being visited by aliens and having a rectal probe soon!
I agree. Why don't you moron's just cite Fox News next time? You bit it hook line and sinker.... [/b]
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/dstranathan/owned.jpg" alt=" - " />