Pam's Tequila Taste Test
Results
from the "Spirits" section of bartcop.com
BREAKING NEWS from CNN.com
-- President-elect Bush to nominate Colin
Powell as
secretary of state
tommorrow, CNN has learned.
If you remember, a few years ago (1996?) Colin Powell came out
and said
he was pro-choice. An hour after he did that, the Internet
was flooded with stories
from right-wing devils that "that nigger Powell" was the top
cover-up officer at the
attrocity that became known as the Mi-Lai Massacre in
Vietnam.
For you younger kids, here's one veteran's explanation of Mi Lai:
The Mi Lai massacre, where Lt Calley
(US) ordered his men to kill everyone
in the village (400 men, women, children
and animals), simply because of the
frustration of not being able to find
and fight an enemy who constantly wounded
and maimed his own men.
Calley was sentenced to life in prison in the 70's, present situation unknown.
I wonder - is Powell as guilty as the pro-lifers say he is?
CHEATING SKILL
Betty Bowers interviews Tony Scalia
Found this in some old mail...
Our old friend Eugene makes the news
From: cmk@mwt.net
Subject: Clinton and Gore's reaction to Bush's "win"
Bartcop,
I know a lot of their supporters are probably
upset because Clinton and Gore
have been sounding a conciliatory tone about
what happened Tuesday evening.
Here's my take on it:
Do you remember the old show "Taxi"? There
was an episode starring a pre-"Cheers" Ted Danson
as a snooty celebrity hairdresser whom Elaine
goes to because she needs a great new hairdo for some
function she's attending.
He ends giving her this really hideous hairstyle
and so she and the rest of the cabbies go back to his salon
to confront him about it. He basically
dismisses her as being beneath his contempt and waves her off as
a whiny little wanna-be. Elaine sees a
big bowl of some sort of dark liquid, picks it up, and holds it over
his head (he's smirking the whole time).
Alex Reiger stops her, "Don't do it, Elaine, you're better than he is".
Elaine pauses, puts down the bowl and says, "You're
right, Alex. I am better than he is".
But as she walks away, Louie De Palma picks up
the bowl and says
"She may be better than you, but I ain't" as
he dumps it over the hairdresser's head.
Clinton and Gore have to be Elaine Nardo, but the rest of us can be Louie DePalma if we want!
Incidentally, don't get too upset that Clinton
said Democrats shouldn't trash Bush. Believe me,
there'll be plenty of Democrats all over who
will cheerfully and brazenly disobey that edict
with rather gleeful abandon. Which Clinton
already knows!
Tina Kramer
Tina, interesting note.
I've never seen an episode of Taxi, isn't that strange?
I know what it is, and all the stars etc., just never watched it.
But I saw the exact same skit on an old Mary Tyler Moore Show.
Some TV critic (a current soap opera guy) completely trashed Mary's
news show
and when he showed up, Sue Ann was going to give him a pie in the face.
Mary gave the "You're better than that," speech,
and Sue Ann finally backed off,
but just then, Ted Baxter walked by and shoved it in the guy's face.
I wonder who wrote it first?
Nobody writes anything anymore, they just steal something they've seen.
Hollywood - city of thieves, just like Washington
Update to the following story:
From: englands2nd@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: something wrong...
Good rebuttal...
"More people voted for Clinton than any other candidate."
1) So Clinton got a plurality, not a majority.
But you cited any candidate
not elected by the majority of the voters
(which, coincidentally, Gore
was not either) was a dictator.
Sometimes I take the time to say exactly what I mean.
I was sloppy this time, my mistake.
See, you are a lawyer :)
What I meant was, Clinton got the most votes, something Bush
can't say.
If you, I, and Richard Pryor were running for
president of the Tree House among 20 voters,
and I received 5 votes, Richard Pryor received
6 votes, and you received 9 votes, you will
have gotten more than either I or Richard Pryor.
But if we break it down into who voted
for you and who voted against you, the new total
is 9 to 11 (my votes plus R.P.'s votes).
Close.
If you're drawing parallels, you would've
won the Treehouse because your daddy's
friends would've fixed the vote for you even
though you weren't the choice of the voters.
So a majority is saying that you in fact should
not be President of the Tree House.
Yet you would win based on a plurality of votes.
In the end it's moot though.
The Presidential election does not consider popular
votes.
But what if Gore won the Florida popular vote? All we ever asked for
was a count that wasn't quick-certified by Bush's campaign manager.
From: englands2nd@hotmail.com
Subject: something wrong...
BartCop wrote:
>So, a dictator is a person APPOINTED by crooked politicians?
>Rather than a person the majority of voters wanted?
Well,
1) Clinton failed to gain a majority of
the popular vote (majority = 50% plus 1)
in either 1992 or 1996. Therefore, it could
easily be said that the majority
of the voters (Bush and Perot supporters,
including obscure 3rd party folks)
did not want Clinton in either 1992 or
1996.
2) Applying the definition the way you did,
every President has been a dictator.
No candidate was ever awarded the Presidency
on the basis of the popular vote.
Brian, are you a lawyer?
I ask, because you have selected very specific words in order
to float your argument.
My rebuttal:
1. More people voted for Clinton than any other candidate.
President-Select Smirk cannot say the same.
2. No president has ever lost the popular vote and used trickery
by his father's allies
to prevent an accurate count to determine
the real winner, like Smirk did.
3. Bush was so certain he lost Florida, he was afraid to count the votes.
...and you think that's "just like" Clinton and the other elected presidents?
A new web site has appeared
They are selling bumper stickers.
Bumper Stickers (3 X 11) are $3.50 each or 3 for $9.00
BUT,
I have recommended they sign up with PayPal.
If you, the customer, sign up with PayPal, PayPal will give
you $5.
Isn't that the deal of a lifetime?
The bumper sticker costs you $3.50, but PayPal gives you $5.
And if you tell PayPal bartcop@bartcop.com
sent you,
those crazy PayPal people will send me $5, too, which
I will use to
increase the size of the BIG hammer to use on President-Select
Smirk.
So, you get the bumper sticker FREE plus $1.50 in change,
and PayPal makes a hammer donation to bartcop.com
What a country!
It may take them a day or two to get the PayPal deal working,
but when they do, getting your FREE bumper sticker and an
extra $1.50 in change will just be a click away - and, and,
and they are donating the proceeds to bartcop.com
From: skipmartin@mediaone.net
Subject: "B-Chip"
BC:
Do you think there might be a good business opportunity
for someone to develop,
following in the technological footsteps of the
V-Chip, a "B-Chip?"
This technology would filter out B(ush)'s smirking,
clueless, deer-in-the-headlights face
before it appears on my TV screen. I can
stomach a recession or even a Pickles tour
of the White House but the thought of having
to listen to this shallow, vapid, moron
who has the intellectual capacity of a breadcrumb
for the next four years is more
than my personal constitution will allow without
chemical intervention.
ha ha
I like the sound of that, but you're looking at this all wrong.
Smirk's press conferences are going to be great television!
Say he holds a press conference with Barak:
The press will ask him something about the West Bank and Smirk will
say,
"The only west bank I use is First National of Midland," and then he'll
smirk.
Eric Zorn has some good comments
Excerpt:
To those who now warn angry Democrats not to let lingering acrimony
destroy them,
as happened with the Republicans during their extended orgy of
Clinton hatred, I ask,
"Oh, you mean the Republicans who now control the House and
the Senate and
the presidency, the majority of state governments, talk radio
and the U.S. Supreme Court?
Those self-destructive Republicans?"
Meet Tina
From: dr.bomb@usa.net
Subject: Appointed Dictator George W. Bush
It isn't the fact that Bush won which leaves me disgusted (extremists)
and it isn't
the fact that Gore conceded in light of the facts which left me betrayed
(cowards.)
It is the fact that the media is LYING about "President Elect" Bush
and
that ALL the sheep who buy into the media for "news" missed a point
which I was quick to glom upon. The fact is he never was "Elected."
My right-wing conservative family started rubbing it in about how "President"
Bush won.
I just had to being up the fact that over 50,000,000 people VOTED for
Gore. I asked
them how many voted for Bush? They couldn't give an answer short
of stating that I
was a sore loser as they went upon one ad hominem attack after another
(conservatives don't think but react with loud volume.)
I asked them that are they totally behind Bush?
They said yes. I asked, "Do you believe in free elections?"
They said yes.
I then whipped out my stinging rebuke: "If you believe in free elections
then how can you be for five people within big government telling you
who your leader is despite the majority of the people?"
They were clueless. I kept the pressure on:
"You go to the voting booth and register your choice. If you feel you
have the right to vote
and exercise it then why still vote if you know your vote may be overturned
one day?"
They wound up dazed by that as I pummeled hard:
"If it was Gore who was decided in this fashion would you agree to
the results?"
Bloodied, they tried to call me names (Communist, Socialist, etc.)
which led me to
counter hard, bloodying them further: "In fact you propose a government
more along
the lines of the former Soviet Union, much less Communist Cuba.
Are you pro-democracy or a Communist dictatorship sympathizer?"
In short they were downright infuriated by the truth. I summed up my
position:
"In essence we have the death of democracy. It died on December 12,
2000 as
the dictatorship was confirmed by five members of the supreme court
and NOT the
people by ruling that a count of the ballots would be inconvenient.
I pity anyone who
voted 'Freedom First' and wound up voting for a Castro-esque government
that
you propose and fully endorse. Bush is not my president. Bush is an
appointed dictator."
Still they tried to counter but I had one ace up my sleeve which shut
them up:
"IF you feel that he won they let's manually count those ballots in
Florida before
your side seals them or, worse, destroys them. Surely you're confident
that they'll
confirm that fact, right? If there is no proof then how can you prove
that he was
elected by the will of the people?"
In short all three of my family members were stymied worse than Slappy
Thomas being accepted at a KKK gathering. To this day they still don't
want to fess up to the facts.
Yes, I've learned a lot during this election cycle concerning Republican politics:
Big government is a no-no unless it involves a woman's vagina.
Big government is a no-no unless it involves mandating which religions are "cool" in school.
Big government is a no-no unless it involves intruding upon ones' choice
to smoke whatever plants within their possession.
Big government is a no-no unless it involves two people making love
in a
way that Republicans don't like.
Finally, big government is a no-no unless it involves blocking a state-mandated
recount
which may swing to the Democratic opposition and therefore the need
to overturn states' rights
just because a Democratic victory is a threat to a Republican victory,
bi-partisanship,
fair play and good sportsmanship be damned!
In short, Republicans LOVE big government making those big decisions
making them all the
more socialistic through their own intents and actions than any liberal
that I'm currently aware of.
The free will of the people?
Fuck 'em!
President elect?
Try Appointed Bush Dictatorship!
Acknowledging anything less is an insult to the will of the people
who want the truth first.
Bush is not a President Elect. Bush is an Appointed Dictator by the
Supreme Court of Republicans,
by and for the minority of Republicans. My gunloon brother was right:
This IS a Socialist Republic after all!
I'll concede but only through my own form of bi-partisanship: I'll be
as gracious to Appointed
Dictator George W. Bush as much as Republicans were to President Elect
William Jefferson
Clinton during these last eight years. No more, no less, with fairness
being the cornerstone
of my beliefs. I'll be just as fair as they have been.
--dr.bomb
Bad News, Smirk
Someone, in an e-mail, suggested the term, "dictator."
What is a dictator?
According to http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: dic·ta·tor
Pronunciation: 'dik-"tA-t&r, dik-' (that last "dik" is Cheney)
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from dictare
Date: 14th century
1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power;
especially :
one appointed
by the senate of ancient Rome
So, a dictator is a person APPOINTED by crooked politicians?
Rather than a person the majority of voters wanted?
Yep, that's our unelected Smirk.
...given absolute power by daddy's allies in the Supreme Court.
...as a dictator!
From: Papabear
Subject: Christmas
Merry X-Mas, W,
"Only the finest presidency that money can buy."
Love, Junta Claus
The following is a draft of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, discovered in a dumpster on Capitol Hill.
Per Curiam
In keeping with the Court's ambition to provide an unambiguous and
unanimous decision
in Bush v. Gore, and thereby legitimate the outcome of the 2000 presidential
election,
we present herein a majority opinion signed by Justices Rehnquist,
Scalia, Thomas,
O'Connor and Kennedy, with a partial dissent to the majority by Justices
Rehnquist,
Scalia and Thomas, a full dissent by Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer,
and Ginsburg,
a partial dissent to the full dissent by Justices Breyer and Souter,
a needling, invective-filled
dissent to the partial dissent to the majority opinion from Scalia,
a spitwad [attached] from
Justice Stevens and a chunk of hair [attached] ripped from the head
of Justice O'Connor
by Justice Ginsburg during final deliberations.
The Court will note that it did manage on Tuesday afternoon to assemble
a respectable
6-3 majority in favor of the Chinese take-out.
This Court acknowledges that, under the Constitution, a presidential
election is truly a series
of state elections, all procedures of which are presumed governed by
state legislators and judges.
We hereby void that presumption in states whose configuration can be
described as "peninsular."
This ruling, though admittedly unusual, is grounded in our belief that
Florida is a rogue state whose
judicial apparatus is facially null per 3 USC Section 5 Chapter 11
Verse 21 Footnote 8.
None of the justices in the majority have actually read that clause
recently but we vaguely recall it
from law school. The accounting of an election must submit to the conjoined
priorities of accuracy
and finality. Obviously this election will achieve neither. No one
will ever know the "real" vote, and
this will continue to be a subject of fierce argument even as the Sun
begins to cool and gradually
expand and turn into what astronomers refer to as a Red Giant. We encourage
the public to avoid
conspiracy theories, and hereby reject the suggestion in the Gore brief
that, if you examine the
Zapruder film closely, it appears that James A. Baker is the "umbrella
man."
Deadlines in elections must be respected. There is clearly not enough
time to complete the recount
of ballots in Florida, expose that recount to legal challenge and judicial
review, and remain faithful
to the Dec. 12 "Safe Harbor" provision under which electors cannot
be challenged in Congress.
In retrospect it might be argued that this Court did not speed up the
process by halting the vote
count on Saturday: Castigating public officials for taking too long
in a process that we have stopped
altogether is something this Court finds amusing.
Moreover, this Court is extremely concerned that the Florida election
has resulted in violence to
the Equal Protection Clause – specifically,
the recount is unfair to those voters whose
unfair advantage had already been in place before the election. We
stipulate that, speaking very
generally, affluent citizens in precincts using optical-scanning equipment
enjoy a significant advantage
over the votes of poor and minority citizens in precincts using antiquated
punch-card balloting.
On the other hand, the Framers didn't think that blacks and women and
poor people should be
allowed to vote, period. Let's keep this in perspective.
We confess that it requires a certain intellectual finesse to declare
that the real victims in the Florida
recount were the Bush voters, but we will remind the public that we
have lifetime appointments and
cannot be fired. At times, we feel like gods. Chief Justice Rehnquist
can report with authority that
there is no greater pleasure in life than killing ants in one's kitchen
with a Supreme Court gavel.
Inevitably, this ruling will be criticized as "political." Cynics, unfamiliar
with the historic independence
of the nation's highest court, will point out that the majority is
comprised entirely of justices appointed
by Republican presidents, and that two of the justices in the majority
were explicitly criticized during
the campaign by the vice president. This ruling, however, is not the
slightest bit political.
It's personal.
Several of us on this court are desperate to retire. We don't want some
liberal Democrat to appoint
our successor. If Bush becomes president, for example, Justice O'Connor
can step down and spend
the spring playing tennis in Scottsdale. She is reputed to be unforgiving
and obstinate in her line calls.
Justice Rehnquist will also retire, and Justice Scalia will be appointed
the Chief Justice, from which
perch he can rain terror upon the sodomites and connivers and mushy-brained
liberals who have
brought this once-great nation to the edge of ruin.
Let us finally address the defendant directly. Mr. Vice President, we
have you surrounded.
Come out with your hands up. You will not be harmed. You still have
a great future ahead of you.
Think of your family. It is so ordered.
(Rough Draft appears periodically at washingtonpost.com but, as we speak, is preparing its concession speech.)
Our First Report from Nick Barlow
International Correspondent
From: piratecorps@onetel.net.uk
Subject: Hail to the thief
Here's a few pieces from The Guradian today
Opinion piece from Jonathan Freedland
'Can a system that allows the winner to lose
go unreformed?'
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,411117,00.html
Opinion piece from Hugo Young
'Democracy was poisoned to give Bush the Presidency'
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,411002,00.html
From G2, a guide to the rest of the world to help Dubya understand us all:
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,411198,00.html
Nick Barlow, reporting from the UK
Nick - good stuff!
Send more like that.
The Eve of Destruction
Read the Previous
Issue
It was the last issue written in a democracy.
Go Home to bartcop.com
e
u