Sunday, October 02, 2005

Lovely spam, wonderful spam

Okay, I'm such a comment whore that I'm flattered by the spam comments recently, but two in one day is an EPIDEMIC!!! Just a heads-up that I'll be exercising the nuclear option of turning on the word verification.

This culture of corruption* must not continue.

*Talking point courtesy of the DNC.


jasdye said...

hell yeah! i'm still pondering doing that.

i got three last night. the problem is, i can barely make out these things now. [is that a c and l or a d?] and i get a lot fewer comments than you (yes, i'm blog lazy).

Captain Backfire said...

My word is "itxhp".

I mean, Hey this blog is awesome! Want herbal viagra? Click on Free Scissor Sisters Downloads . And check out my blog at Cheers! And keep up the good work!

Micah said...

I hate that it's come to this, but enough is enough. Sure, I'm all for learning about new and exciting ways to cure my erectile disfunction, but I WILL NOT STAND FOR ALL OF THIS SLEAZY MORTGAGE AND ONLINE DIPLOMA TALK.

If it's any consolation for the inconvenience, even I - the blog's owner - must partake in the word verification. Right now it's "khulv."

Anonymous said...

"Khulv" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Shamrock said...

Off Topic per usual:
(also duplicate post from spydrzweb, but I am steamed 'W' had a chance to move the court in a direction that gets them out of our lives, but NOOOOOOOOOOO!)

Looks like GW screwed the pooch on this one.

We now get to have another Lefty on the Bench. We must all welcome Harriet "Sutter" Miers. I do not care if she a woman, nor do I care that she lacks any judicial experience (may in fact be a positive). I care deeply that she "ONCE GAVE $1,000 TO DEMS 'GORE FOR PRESIDENT' AND 'SEN LLOYD BENTSEN'" (Drudge)Come on Bentsen!

Compassionate Conservatism can bite my Baboon Rectum. I hope the Libertarian Party will take advantage of the mass of disavowed Republicans to grow their ranks, but alas one of the pillars of Libertarianism is, of course, apathy.

I Guess I will HOPE that the Senate "REPUBLICANS" will vote against her...Yeah Right!...Heck, maybe I'll join the Baldwins in Canada, for at least I know what I am getting there, but I digress.

Shamrock said...

You know me cannot spell...Sutter aka Souter. I am a dope, but you already knew that...Took me awhile to realize that I have been reading it the other (aka correct spelling) for years...

Micah said...

Just a little bit off-topic. When I heard the news this morning, I thought it was troubling, too. Hell, she was on the Dems' list of approvable nominees and that's GOT to scare you.

Bush dropped the ball on this one.

Anonymous said...

She has one thing going for her: not having the standard "glowing resume" of a Supreme Court justice. I, for one, am not ready to jump on the apoplexy bandwagon just yet...hell, there's no requirement that a Justice even be a LAWYER.

A lot of people are assuming things about this lady that they cannot possibly know. Taking politics seriously is cool, but this is a prime example of taking it too seriously.

Shamrock said...

First, I am pleased to see a non-judge/academic nominated, yet she is still a lawyer. Secondly, I would most often agree with TheDubin about the futility of taking politics too seriously (which I am often guilty of).

However, I feel the converse is far more worrisome, but that is a topic for another time and, I now realize, a more appropriate blog.

She may turn out to be the right pick, but as the "safe" pick, I think "we" avoid the needed ideological fight with those who want to subvert the Constituition and its Federalist principles.

Furthermore, the Court has some very important issues coming to them in the near future that will have direct implications on everyone's the Anna Nicole Smith's case.

Still, who in their right mind would give money to Sen. "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" Bentsen.

Anyway, I hijacked the thread, my bad. I shall digress...

Captain Backfire said...

A few thoughts:

First, will someone please give Shamrock his own blog? You don't get to pick the topic, dude: Micah does.

Second, I'm in total agreeance (thank you, Fred Durst) regarding Miers. Awful pick. Dems don't like her; real Repubs don't either. But Bush is too weak politically to go with a Luttig (easily the best choice out there) right now.

This was the best chance we (yeah, I said "we") had to shape the Court, and it's been blown by incompetence and the Brown/FEMA cronyism allegations (which makes it further maddening that Bush picked his damn personal attorney!).

Third: Scalia has nine children. None of them are judges to my knowledge. If you were looking for a non-sitting judge, George, why couldn't you have looked there? We've got good odds if you pick little Nino.

Now if it's alright with Shamrock, can we please go back to talking about boobies?

Micah said...

That's funny. Earlier today I was thinking, "does Scalia have a brother?"

Boobies...exactly. To get this back on track, I admit to being obsessed with Anna Nicole Smith back in the day. But this was when she was seen and not heard.