At Least 1,000 Fraudulent Registrations So Far; Prosecutor: "This looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s"

AS (no, not that AS; a different AS-- duh) sends these glad tidings along:

More than 1,000 voter registration forms and absentee ballot requests may be fraudulent in Lake and Summit counties, where investigations of irregularities are broadening.

Lake County Sheriff Daniel Dunlap said Thursday that he will investigate an attempt to register a dead person and other possibly fraudulent documents that were submitted to the Lake County Board of Elections.

Dunlap also said he has notified the FBI and the Ohio secretary of state.

...

"We've seen voter fraud before, but never on this level," Coulson said Thursday. "I grew up in Chicago and this looks like the politics of Mayor Daley in the '50s and '60s."

Lake election and law enforcement officials said their investigation is centered on absentee registration attempts by the nonpartisan NAACP's National Voter Fund and an anti-Bush, nonprofit group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT Ohio.

"Nonpartisan" NAACP. Okay.

The National Voter Fund could not be reached Wednesday or Thursday at its Washington, D.C., offices.

I'm sure they just forgot to answer the phones.

...

Several registration applications submitted by campaign volunteers for a candidate are also being scrutinized, Lake elections board Director Jan Clair said.

None of the officials would identify the candidate, however.

Dunlap said the probe will include visits from detectives to addresses of the voters in question.

In one other instance, an elderly nursing home resident who usually signs with an "X" appeared to have a firm, cursive signature when she registered.

"We are going to have to see who's alive and who's well," Dunlap said.

"We're going to have to burn up some shoe leather."

They're determined to win by any means necessary. Remember that when you sit back and say, "You know, I don't really need to vote. Let's face it, a couple of votes here or there won't make a difference."

They will make a difference, if only to offset the phantom voting of the unhinged left.

Another AS Tip Update: Dick Cheney calls John Thurston Kerry a weak opponent against terrorism.

I don't know why Cheney has to say over-the-top things like that. We all know that John Thurston Kerry and the DNC are allowed to argue that Kerry will be stronger against terrorism against Bush, but it's recklessly politicizing national security for Cheney to say the opposite.

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

An unimpeachable source informed me that Terry McAuliffe used the term "sugarcoated" before the 60 Minutes report on the Bush forgeries ran.

Now, partisan political operatives are claiming that McAuliffe's "sugarcoat" reference occurred in an email issued shortly after the program began running.

I have full confidence in my original reportage. The preponderance of the evidence suggests strongly that Terry McAuliffe did use the term hours before the 60 Minutes presentation of the forgeries; I have spoken to several time-displacement experts I found in a Star Trek chat site who assure me that most likely McAuliffe's email was written at 11:00AM but then slipped through a time-displacement vortex and only posted at 8:00PM.

When I am presented with definitive evidence that my reportage was wrong, I will issue a retraction. As you all know, if I was indeed wrong, I would like to break that story.

Until then, the original story remains accurate if not authentic.

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

And gee willickers, wouldn't you know it, but Dan Rather seems to be cutting off Heyward's head with razor-sharp quotes.

Anything to save Rather. Mapes, Howard, Heyward -- they all done wrong.

But not Dan. No, not Dan. He was a passive dupe througout the whole process; certainly Dan never went on national television and dismissed his critics as "partisan political operatives," nor did Dan dishonestly represent decidedly-partisan non-experts as "independent experts" to verify his transparently-sham crude forgeries.

To extend the Watergate analogy--

Right now poor Dan is muttering to himself as he walks down the hallway, looking at the portraits of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow on the walls, lashing out at the transcripts of his own recorded words.

"Dan Rather didn't say this," he mutters. "The Managing Editor of CBS News can't say that. Dan Rather didn't say any of these things."

This third-rate forgery is a cancer on the liberal media.

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it possible -- possible, mind you -- that perhaps CBS gave him advanced knowledge to help "sugar-coat" the Democrats' coordinated attack on Bush?

Nah. That would be irresponsible speculation for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Let's talk instead about the likelihood that Karl Rove and/or Roger Stone created the forged documents.

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd like to claim that bloggers and internet newshounds had something to do with that.

The truth, however, is that they did it to themselves.

To extend the Watergate analogy-- a gift that just keeps on giving -- they gave us the sword with which to stab them, and we all collectively drove it home with relish.

I have come not to praise the liberal media, but to bury it.

At some point the mainstream media is going to have to twig on to the fact that it actually isn't so very "mainstream" at all. They are entitled to their opinions; but they're not entitled to continue insisting they speak for a nation which increasingly looks at them like some sort of pot-smokin', hot-tubbin', wife-swappin' tick on the national underbelly.

Is it wrong to allege that an entire class of professionals engages in pot-smokin' and wife-swappin'?

Well-- I have "unimpeachable sources" who've passed me vigorously-authenticated documents which "raise serious questions" about the media's preference for tokin' ganj and gettin' the occasional dose of a little strange.

PS: Obviously, I'm really hoping for that appearance on Paula Zahn. Fingers crossed!

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm just an amateur wannabe commentator with no J-school degree, so forgive me if I haven't received the proper training in separating "distractions" from "real issues."

But, if my stupid, tiny, non-credentialed brain can process all of these difficult facts, it seems that the Bush campaign is to be faulted for running an ad showing Kerry windsurfing, making the quite-relevant point that his positions change with the wind, in the midst of a war in which American sons and daughters are dying. This is "tasteless" and "light-hearted" and inappropriate in this time of great peril.

Okay.

So, Bush is to be faulted for running ads, during a time of tumult and violence, about Kerry's windsurfing and, well, wind-policymaking.

Umm...

I guess the obvious question to non-reporter moron to myself is: "If it's wrong to run an ad showing Kerry windsurfing during a war, isn't it, like, you know, more wrong for John Kerry to actually be windsurfing during a war?"

The man is blowing off all of his national security briefings and intelligence committee public hearings in order to go windsurfing... during a war.

Again, I'm sure the geniuses and philospher-kings who run our very balanced legacy media can explain why this is a very stupid question showing my ignorance and why they and they alone are competent to determine the "real issues," but my half-a-retard moron-brain would like them to explain it all to me anyway.

Maybe with pictures. Pictures I can comprehend. Words, not so much.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Every once in a while, a new poster asks, "Gee, Ace, I kinda like your site, but what the hell is the deal with the cowbell?"

I feel I have to respond, because, as we all know, cowbell is the "real issue" in this presidential campaign.

Long story short, cowbell is good. I put the cowbell up for good economic news.

You're gonna want that cowbell. All you babies are gonna be wearin' gold-plated diapers if we just have enough cowbell.

And yet, some are still perplexed. This is a wonderment to me. I can scarcely begin to imagine that anyone, anywhere does not yet know of the magic of the cowbell.

If you want an explanation, here are two.

This is the video of the famous SNL cowbell sketch.

If that goes down, due to our scary-enormous Ace-o-Lanch effect, then you can content yourselves with transcript/description/ovation to the most awesome sketch ever involving 1) Will Farrell 2) Christopher Walken and 3) a cowbell.

The video was found on The Cowbell Chronicles blog. RDBrewer gets a double hat-tip for first pointing this out.

The quality of the video is pretty darn good, and it's pretty quick if you've got broadband (10-15 seconds download time).

Even if you've got dial-up, trust me, fellas-- you're gonna want that cowbell.

If you don't want to download video, you could at least listen to the theme from Simon & Simon, and ponder what the theme -- nay, the show itself -- would be without all that kickin' cowbell.

And of course this cowbell-enhanced Christopher Walken rap was redubbed for me by Blaster's Blog.

Kinda Related Update: The other big in-joke here involves Mr. Paul Anka. Any time you see some strange reference to "When I move, I slice like a fucking hammer," or "Vinny Falcone," or "integrity" versus "loose shit," that's all from this howlingly funny audio of Mr. Paul Anka cursing the life out of his band for five minutes or so, occasionally breaking to ask Zen-like questions like "Do you like your jobs? Do you want to keep your fucking jobs? Well do you?"

It's not exactly work-safe, but it's almost worth risking getting fired over.

And if you think it's pretty funny to hear Mr. Paul Anka tell his band "don't make a fucking maniac out of me," then you might want to check the additional material listed in the Almost Complete Paul Anka Archives, also found in the sidebar.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Mayflower Hill thinks we should all stop talking about Rathergate and start focusing on the "real issues." You know-- the issues that hurt Bush.

I hear this in the liberal media eighty times a day. Over and over again-- "Can't we talk about the real issues? Can't we talk about Iraq?"

Here's the problem with that, boys.

First, as Kausfiles points out, we can talk about more than one issue at a time.

Second, as Kausfiles also points out, this is in fact a major story, no matter how much the liberal media or their political wing, the Democratic Party, would like to pretend it isn't. You've got a high-ranking Kerry aide, former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart, on the phone with a CBS producer and an unhinged Texas Democrat who is at least the conveyer of forged documents.

We're told again and again that the media doesn't care which party a story may damage; they're only interested in a juicy story. Well, here's an objectively juicy story, ladies. And yet it keeps getting reported deep in the interior of the paper, and every night we have to listen to sermonettes from you insufferable pricks about what a "distraction" all of this silly CBS-abetted-political-forgery-to-corruptly-change-the-outcome-of-a-political-election seems to be.

Third -- and this is my point -- it sure seems to me that this was considered a "real issue" two weeks ago when it was assumed the documents were authentic and showed that Bush got special treatment in the Guard over thirty fucking years ago.

But suddenly, the issue can't hurt Bush -- indeed, it hurts Kerry both directly (to the extent people suspect his campaign was involved in the deception-- not a wild suspicion, given the Mapes-Lockhart-Burnett fogery Triange Trade) as well as indirectly, by wounding the credibility of the institution that is most helpful and most committed to getting Kerry elected.

The biggest part of media bias isn't their double standards, although those are quite egregious -- when Trent Lott says something nice about doddering Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, that's a media uproar; when Chris Dodd praises the life's work of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd, that doesn't even make the evening news.

And the biggest part of media bias also isn't slanting stories, although they're quite blatant about that. The Heritage Foundation -- both nominally non-partisan and conservative leaning -- is always identified as conservative leaning. Meanwhile, all liberal advocacy groups and think tanks, from the Institute for Peace to the Committe for a Responsible Federal Budget which are nominally non-partisan and also irrefutably left-leaning are of course described as "non-partisan."

A simple rule in the stylebook could end this practice once and for all. Either organizations will be described as "non-partisan" if they are in fact nominally non-partisan, or they can be described according to how they tend to lean ideologically, or both; but all such organizations must be described the same way. Not one rule for right-leaning organizations and a completely different rule for left-leaning ones.

A simple enough rule, of course. But the media won't institute this very simple, bright-line, black-letter rule, because they want the freedom to brand conservative-leaning organizations as "conservative," while dishonestly calling nominally non-partisan but transparently left-leaning organizations as simply "non-partisan."

The rule would be simple to declare and easy to follow and enforce. This isn't difficult, guys. They don't announce such a rule, nor adhere to such a rule, because they don't want to.

But even that sort of dishonest shading isn't the worst form of media bias.

No, the worst form of media bias is simple bias in story selection. The media gets to decide which stories get front-page play for weeks at a time (Abu Ghraib) and which get virtually no mention whatsoever (Sarin shells discovered in Iraq).

I have less and less interest in what the media thinks the "real issues" in this campaign are, because, coincidentally enough I'm sure, the "real issue" always turns out to be the issue that can most damage Bush and most help John Kerry.

When we captured Saddam Hussein in December, and it seemed as if Iraq would become a less dangerous place, the media was quite insistent that the economy -- the slow job growth -- was the "real issue."

Trouble is, from January through May we had explosive job growth, and yet the media -- previously deeming this the "real issue," remember -- suddenly wasn't so terribly interested at all in job growth. The better the economy got, the less of a "real issue" it suddenly seemed.

Of course, the economy went through a soft patch, and became a "real issue" again; but now job growth seems back on track, and the economy seems to have regained its "traction" (according to Fed Chair Greenspan), and guess what? It's not a "real issue" anymore.

The "real issue" for this week is of course Iraq, because Iraq is in pretty shitty shape. Should the unlikely happen and the level of violence decrease in Iraq, our media wisemen will decide that there's a new "real issue" we should all be terribly concerned about-- probably health care. That's always a go-to "real issue" when you've got nothing else.

So, forgive the fuck out of me, Dear Liberal Media, when I tell you that I don't give a rat's red raw ass as to your enlightened conception of what the current "real issue" facing all of us might be. You don't think that a major media organization participating in a clumsy forgery in order to change the outcome of an American Presidential election a "real issue;" I hope you will not be terribly put off when I inform you that I do.

And I hope that you're not offended further that I've even dared to express my opinion on the matter, and thereby showing the temerity to challenge your self-asserted right to judge on my behalf what ought to be occupying my thoughts at any particular moment.

This was a "real issue" when it could be used to hurt Bush. Need I list the stories on CBS News, 60 Minutes, CNN, Hardball, etc? Need I link the print stories in USAToday, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe?

So, two weeks ago it was a "real issue." Now that this "real issue" has backfired and is wounding the candidate you support, as well as your ability to continue propping him up, it has ceased to be a "real issue."

Go fuck yourselves.

Was that a little unclear? Perhaps the teensiest little bit indirect? Maybe a little too subtle?

Well, let me clarify my previous remarks:

Go fuck yourselves, assholes. I didn't elect you as my own personal fucking mentor, and I'm getting goddamned sick of your presumption in telling me what the fuck I should be interested in and concerned about.

P.S.: Does anyone doubt that if Keith Olbermann's evidence-free speculation turned out to be true-- that, O Happy Day!, it did turn out that Karl Rove was in fact the author of the forgeries-- that the Liberal Media wouldn't suddenly proclaim that this is in fact not only a Real Issue once again, but furthermore a Real Issue of Extraordinary Importance Requiring Flood the Zone Front Page Coverage Seven Days a Week and Repeatedly Compared in Terms of Impact to Watergate and the McCarthy Hearings?

Can Chris Fucking Matthews even look himself in the mirror and not crack a shit-eating grin as he says, "I swear, if Karl Rove were behind this rather than a partisan Democrat with shadowy connections to the Kerry Camp, I would be equally insistent that this is not a 'real issue' and should not 'distract us' from the real issues confronting us in this election"?

I'd like to be there when he tries. I'll hold the box of Kleenex for wiping his eyes after he stops laughing like a maniac goofed up on happy-gas.

And This Isn't Just Me Ranting Like a Lunatic Either; Instapundit Says So Too Update:

And it matters because Big Media are still the main way that our society learns about what's happening, and talks about it. A serious breakdown there, which seems undeniably present today, is very important. In many ways, as I've said before, it's more important than how the election turns out.

Instapundit's quite right; Presidents come and go, but the Liberal Media is Forever. They seem to almost grasp the challenge to their self-presumed authority, and they're reacting predictably to it.

They knew Bush was going to be on the ballot this fall, and possibly tossed out office. They didn't imagine that they themselves would be.

They don't seem to be liking the idea of that very much at all.

They all seem so happy to burble on about getting more "diverse voices" in the media when they assume those "diverse voices" will be ideological soul-mates -- better than soul-mates, actually; soul-mates to their left, who can help drag the media even further to the left (where most reporters and editors think it ought to be anyway) while they, the normal establishment liberal media, can pose as moderating centrists in the mix.

But now that they're getting a taste of genuine diversity, they don't seem to like the flavor so much.

I was trying to explain to a fairly moderate woman why I cared so much about Rathergate. I said, half-jokingly, that if I had the choice between beating John Kerry or beating Dan Rather, I'd have trouble making a decision.

I was, as I say, half-joking.

But not entirely joking.

Because the refs in this game -- the liberal media -- are hopelessly biased in favor the home team, and the home team is always the Democratic Party. I don't know about you, but, given the choice, I think I'd be tempted to lump a major loss if in return I could receive a permanent change in the umpire corps.

A loss is just a loss. But a change in the rules of the game to rules which don't always disfavor your team-- well, that's potentially a dynasty.

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 PM | Comments (51)
Post contains 1695 words, total size 10 kb.

Cedarford tips me that Iowahawk has a new Dan Rather Mystery (TM) out on the bookshelves. I like it. I like Dan Rather's hot secretary Mary Mapes, with her coltish legs and her "nose for Republican plots."

I actually dabbled in this genre myself in the past, being the ghostwriter behind the world-famous Michael Moore Mystery Series (TM). You can catch the first few chapters of my own novel here; it's called "The Case of the Missing WMD's," although in Britain it published under the title "Farewell, My Pork Chop," because Mike Moore thought that sounded sexier.

I think maybe he was right.

If that link doesn't take you exactly to the right place, go up or down a little. Sometimes these dumb blogspot links take you the previous or next article.

Posted by: Ace at 08:42 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Right-leaning bloggers uncovered a serious hoax perpetrated by the mainstream liberal media -- so serious, in fact, it might just be an actual felony.

The mainstream liberal media insists it's 1) not liberal and 2) its politics (which, by the way, aren't liberal, but are straight-down-the-middle centrist moderate) had nothing at all to do with being so receptive to, and eager to republish, this libel by fraud. (See, e.g. Jack Shafer's "What Liberal Bias?" apologia in the amateur liberal webzine Slate.)

Well, by gosh and by golly. Since the media's so damn moderate centrist, and since the right-leaning blogosphere exposed the what is probably the biggest journalistic fraud in history (much bigger than the Hitler diaries, by the way-- last time I checked, Adolf Hitler wasn't running for President of the United States, although it seems someone named "Bushitler" is), of course New York Newsday would contact someone involved in exposing this transparent hoax for comment.

Well, not quite. Seems New York Newsday looked far and wide for a right-leaning blogger who actually had something to do with this story, but, goshdarnit, they couldn't find one. What they did find was the left-wing author of a left-wing website:

Danny Schechter is the editor of the Web site, Mediachannel.org. He is the director of "WMD," a new documentary film on the media coverage of the war in Iraq.

But of course! Who else better to comment on the blogosphere doing the Mainstream Liberal Media's job for them but a left-wing website editor!

And let's look at the scary-important observations of this undoubtedly fair-and-balanced independent-minded "I just vote for the man, not the Party" centrist moderate:

The reputation of veteran news anchor Dan Rather is lying on the floor, bloodied by a mistake he has now admitted, flanked on the political right by "we told you so" finger-pointers led by GOP operatives demanding his head.

See, Danny, the problem is that we did tell them so. We told you so, too. No one listened until Charles Johnson and others proved the case with smoking-gun evidence -- only a "preponderance of evidence" was required to support an anti-Bush hit-piece, but smoking-gun, irrefutable visual proof was required to debunk it.

A news outlet once headed by "the most trusted man in America" is accused of being the least trustworthy. With Rather apologizing for airing a story based in part on memos that CBS cannot verify, it looks bad for network news in general and critics of President George W. Bush in particular. And that fits the M.O. of the people behind the hit.

It's our "M.O."? Telling the truth and proving it beyond dispute is "our M.O."?

Praytell, Danny-- what's yours? Obviously you have a different "M.O.," or you wouldn't be whining about it.

...

Over at Fox News, they were breaking out the champagne when the admission of error came down from Black Rock. Fox, of course, has its own (wink, wink) "standards" and never makes mistakes worth acknowledging.

Care to list them, Danny? Do they include perpetrating a transparent fraud on the American public fifty days before a Presidential election?

Their playbook in this regard feeds and follows a well-established White House approach: When confronted by unwelcome truths, avoid them, deny them or tarnish the critic.

Or, you know: Prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that "documents" presented by the Mainstream Liberal Media are in fact forgeries.

Is proving forgeries for what they are now considered "tarnishing the critic"? I suppose it is, in Danny's world. In Danny's world, he and his fellow travellers have the right to lie "in the public interest," but no one has the right to expose their lies.

That, it seems, constitutes an "assault on their free speech."

Fox News branded this dust-up a scandal,...

What does Danny brand it?

This doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the veracity of Danny's little WMD documentary.

...a "Rathergate," using a familiar "change-the-subject" tactic to deflect attention away from persuasive charges that President Bush has not told the truth about his military "service." Allegations about a media misdemeanor were quickly blown up into a felony demanding Rather's career termination with prejudice.

Danny thinks that presenting forgeries as fact, while deliberately avoiding the sort of verification that would expose them as frauds in order to not "overcheck the story," is a "media misdemeanor."

"Business as usual," it would seem.

"Misdemeanors" are things like speeding -- a lot of us commit misdemeanors from time to time. So Danny would seem to be telling us that he engages in such petty little "misdemeanors."

On the other hand, Bush completing only the minimum number of points necessary in his last two years of TANG service -- more than thirty fucking years ago -- is a serious felony that has to be investigated vigorously for... going on five fucking years now.

And if the investigation doesn't go anywhere-- contact an unhinged rabidly-partisan Texas Democrat and put the forgeries he provides on national television.

The right-wing attack machine works by personalizing issues and demonizing "enemies" with overheated language and cartoon-like characterizations. Osama "the evil doer" bin Laden

I wonder what Danny calls him. It's so judgmental to call a mass-murderer an "evil doer."

... gave way to Saddam "the butcher of Baghdad" Hussein

Danny prefers "Saddam 'The Romance Novelist' Hussein."

... and now John "the phony war hero" Kerry has been displaced with a "lather over Rather."

That last bit doesn't even make sense.

It's a textbook example of how attacks against journalists are used to denigrate news not to the right wing's liking by planting items in the media food chain and cranking up an echo chamber of feigned indignation.

Oh? We planted what, exactly? The forgeries?

It remains an amazement to me that every goddamned liberal reporter can go on TV and claim "we can't speculate about a connection between Burkett and the DNC, there's no evidence of that" -- despite the fact that there was a forgery Triangle Trade between Mapes, Lockhart, and Burkett, and despite the fact that Burkett is a very-active Texas Democrat -- and yet Keith Olbermann can go on the air every night and specualte without any evidence whatsoever that Karl Rove, or now Roger Stone, is behind this all.

...

It's possible that CBS was flim-flammed

It's possible, you understand. In theory. Hypothetically, there's an infintesimially small chance that these are forgeries. More likely, Jerry Killian had a MS Word computer fall through a temporal-distortion wormhole; he then printed up his "true feelings" on Bush and gave them to an unknown, shadowy livestock enthusiast named "Lucy Ramirez."

... but TV's need for visuals did them in.

This is so knee-jerk leftist. I swear, these people watch TV 24/7, but they carry on as if their noses never leave their dogeared copies of Ulysses or the collected poetry of Rilke.

Let me clue the New York Daily News, and the virtually illiterate Danny, on a few facts:

Bill Burkett is a left-wing "partisan political operative," although you all seem to refuse to acknowledge him as such.

Danny and the liberal media like to claim that "Republicans" are behind stories they don't like, with little or no evidence to back that allegation up; however, they seem to require much higher standards of evidence to impugn their precious Democratic Party.

No "Republican spin machine" pushed this story anywhere. No one from the GOP contacted me; indeed, I don't even think I know anyone in the party heirarchy. I'm registered independent and the last two presidents I voted for were, get this, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton (in 1992). I hate to admit it, but I haven't voted since. (I thought that would keep me off the jury rolls... but guess what, it doesn't.)

And lastly, Danny--

The proper reaction is this: "You uncovered a shameless and gross lie; congratulations. You are my political opponent, but I'll say good job as far as this matter goes."

Instead, you are whining and screaming and blowing spit-bubbles like an infant. You're angry that a useful liberal media tactic -- simply lying about the facts -- is now coming under attack, and is now much more hazardous to employ.

Well, Danny, no one ever granted you the right you believe that you, Dan Rather, and Mary Mapes all have, the right to "lie in the public interest, lest they be deceived by 'distracting' facts, evidence, and truth." You've never actually had that right, although you've frequently behaved as though you had.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, Danny, but the days where you and your buddies can get away with this bullshit unchallenged are quite over.

There's a new sheriff in town, pardner. Get used to it, or else mosey on down the trail and into the sunset, if'n you can't handle that.

Okay, Danny?

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 1520 words, total size 10 kb.