GOP Supports Gore!
November 7, 2000 8:01 AM Subscribe
GOP Supports Gore! Well, sort of. The GOP Web site was defaced last night with a well-written diatribe about why Bush shouldn't be President.
Scared me for a second. For a few seconds it looked like it coulda been something I carelessly rambled and posted here or any number of other places on the 'Net. They coulda just copypasted my ramblings and posted it there and then I might get in trouble for it.
But there's no failed attempts at dry humor. So I'm off the hook. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2000
But there's no failed attempts at dry humor. So I'm off the hook. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2000
Just be thankful they didn't call Bush a 'fag0t' and then threaten to 'r0x' and 'sk00l' him.
F.
posted by frenetic at 10:15 AM on November 7, 2000
F.
posted by frenetic at 10:15 AM on November 7, 2000
How can you call this well written? If you wish to convince people, you need proof, not an emotional diatribe.
posted by qulaeo at 10:50 AM on November 7, 2000
posted by qulaeo at 10:50 AM on November 7, 2000
It's not well-written. It reads like the editorial column in a high school newspaper. I might add further that as a resident of DC, I was a bit chagrinned to learn "There is no sense of human camaraderie amongst those who live south of the Mason-Dixon line." That must explain my crankiness.
Also, I'm hard-pressed to figure out what the author means by the "Aesopian desire" of straight, white males to maintain their social dominance. I'm not sure which of Aesop's fables the author is referring to. I suspect the author doesn't know either.
Sweeping generalizations, ham-handed allusions, and not a shred of logos to go with it...
C-minus.
posted by ratbastard at 11:24 AM on November 7, 2000
Also, I'm hard-pressed to figure out what the author means by the "Aesopian desire" of straight, white males to maintain their social dominance. I'm not sure which of Aesop's fables the author is referring to. I suspect the author doesn't know either.
Sweeping generalizations, ham-handed allusions, and not a shred of logos to go with it...
C-minus.
posted by ratbastard at 11:24 AM on November 7, 2000
Let me rephrase......well-written compared to a good 3/4 of the crap that we mirror on Attrition.org. (See frenetic's statements)
posted by bkdelong at 11:44 AM on November 7, 2000
posted by bkdelong at 11:44 AM on November 7, 2000
« Older Looks like all the lobbyists | Bush Spams
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Karla at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2000