Funnily enough, I don't disagree with much of the above... though from this side of the pond, Obama looks way, way better than anyone the Republicans have fielded as a candidate in my lifetime.

Surely, as an American, you'd prefer having someone representing you on the world stage who can speak without appearing like an utter moron? And who won't waste thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars invading a country 'cause his daddy's friends think it's a good idea...

If Obama, were he to get elected, actually tries to deliver any change, then best of luck to him.

A generous triple 2 this time, rather than commentless quick exit your attempts typically invite, Ms. T., as this one a) unlike many, at least completes its run at the targeted OS,and b) sacrifices less egregiously than most parodic technique -- pacing, etc. -- to message. Wrong-headed as I personally consider your politics, they're irrelevant to the quality of any parody expressing them, and the latter is of course the issue here. Furthermore, I expect most amiright parody readers' interest and attention are drawn more by and to the parodies themselves than by or to lengthy pre- and/or postscriptive political harangues, regardless whether echoing or opposing their own opinions. Vituperative parodies are often among the best but, like a poorly told joke, lose their punch when poorly crafted. You're already armed with strong opinions; now try arming _them_ with strong parodistic punch.

Oh, and by the by, re politics: even were your assessment of Obama accurate one wouuld feel--and be--safer aboard a rudderless ship than one sailed purposefully edgeward by the the current flatworlder helmsman or any of his successor-wannabes.

Gee, I wonder why Obama is calling for change? Because the people are demanding it! So what happens in 2109, will that extra 100 years be enough to "win" in Iraq? Or to straighten out the economy? Face it, Linda: A lot of things need changing, including you, because you're full of (expletive deleted, as your pal Nixon would've said).

The sheep are back - cool. But I'm missing the parts about demoncrats and baby killers. However I did think that "rambles" and "ignorant" were an interesting choice of words for you as your ignorance tends to ramble on and on and on and on and on. By the way, "perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence" is actually a very funny line - but you don't understand humor, do you?

Good Gad Stan Hall! What a tedious bunch of line-shooting and periphrastic yakety-yak! --- --- Do you normally write in such an ambagious braggadocio fashion? I ask this because it seems as if your intent is to derogate the elfins around you by displaying your (self perceived) naturally endowed intellectual virtuoso. Perhaps you are unaware that the real perception you emit is that you are an arrogant braggart who enjoys degrading piddling people in your life so that you can appear genius. However, those who can see through this type of unimpressive self-proclaimed grandeur, also know that it is normally just a speech-act to hide a precarious soul overwhelmed with insecurities and self doubt. If you cannot speak plainly, you run the risk of appearing to be nothing more than a counterfeit intellect ...and that's counterproductive for you isn't it? ** This is my effort to make you aware of this reality, because apparently, no one around here has the guts to inform you, (great friends, huh?) ** PS - If you are to continue with this sort of pompousness, you may want to sharpen up a bit. At least three of your "fancy words" were not even real words - and making them up to suit your quests can defeat your entire purpose!

A. It's refreshing that you "don't disagree" with what I wrote ------- B. You must have lived a very short lifetime. ------- C. As an American, I would much prefer having someone representing me on the world stage who could not speak without appearing like an "utter moron" than have someone representing me on the world stage who was actually a moron! (And the president doesn't appear on the world stage as a moron, if that is your implication - that title was given to him by a lot of poor losers who would rather feed their own egos by constantly calling names, belittling and degrading the president, than to admit to themselves that they lost, are losers and and have extreme ego issues preventing them from accepting defeat and moving on). -------- D. I realize that you need to, (that ego-feeding thing), call Iraq Bush's daddy's good idea, but in reality, (that thing that you have seemingly let go of), he went into Iraq for the exact same reasons Clinton did when he attacked Baghdad. The only difference is that Clinton was more interested in his popularity than he was in the mission, so he bombed and ran, (like the many other parts of the world he attacked and ran from) - oh, also he didn't even consult with the United Nations, he just sent the bombs on their way, got on our TV sets and told us he was attacking them, (again, for all the same reasons). Finally, -------- E. Obama won't get elected - so your last point is mute. -------- Obama getting elected would be like a hospital custodian applying for an opening surgeon's job and defending his blatantly unqualified background and poor resume by telling the chief of surgery that he has worked in the hospital for 1 1/2 years and that the hospital needs change and he is the one who can bring that change!!! He can't really say how he will change the hospital in his job as a surgeon, (for better or worse), but he can guarantee change! "Surely, as an American" you'd prefer having someone operating on you who has actually operated more than a floor buffer!

Do I even *need* to post the obvious statement here? :D

Back to the ole poo songs.

Take that Stan - you counterfeit intellect you - you should learn proper phrases such as "your last point is mute (sic)" or real words like demoncrat. And remember, even though than 70% of the Americans think that Bush is a moron, there are less than 30% who think he isn't. And if you were any kind of American you would realize that these people are holier than thou because they don't kill babies or raise taxes and they believe in the real god. Stan, you piddling elfin - gad, why don't you just go out with the other sheep and kill more babies? And raise taxes while your at it.

Oh go ahead, Aggy. I'd like to read it. The predictable can still be interesting if done well.
By the way Linda, the phrase is "your point is moot," not "mute."

It's kind of comic, seeing Linda choking on her own vitriol again..

OK, Linda, enlighten me: which Republican candidates in the last quarter-century have been intellectually on a par with Obama, or even close?

Nice try junior – however, 70% of Americans do not think Bush is a moron, there is no such poll, not outside your fantasy dreams in any case. But alas, there is bigger news this week and its bigger than your fabricated moron claim! You may recall, (but probably hate to face), the Democrat congress accomplished an all-time-record-breaking low approval rating earlier this year with their whopping 11% It appears that in their effort to make sure no other congress in the future will beat their already record breaking low, they have made it to an even more unimpressive 8% approval rating! Jeepers, the new improved democrat majority has really come back with vengeance, huh? Their idea of change is to drive the entire lot of them to lows that are much more shameful than Bush’s – or any other congress in history…. GO TEAM! OH, and you missed some reasons that we ARE holier than thou. silly boy! While true it is because we don’t kill babies, we don’t wish to go back to having big brother steal 33.3% of our hard-earned paychecks for their pork and illegal alien entitlements and that we believe in God – so are not pagan self-serving sinful baby murders – but also ---- we don’t believe in stealing money from social security every few years as the democrats have done, (depleting the funds to pay for debts), we believe the people ruling the government, not the government running the people and their lives as the demoncrats seem to believe and act on continuously… we believe in free enterprise and that with hard work, not handouts from those who work hard, we can achieve anything, (the way our country was set up, not the way your party is trying to “progress”). We do not push for open boarders, we don’t create laws that give those who break our laws, welfare, housing assistance, free public school w/bilingual teachers mandatory, food stamps, free college tuition for all, or social security, (again, depleted by the demoncrats who robbed it blind). We don’t support the sanctuary cities where criminal illegal aliens get to perform multiple crimes while here illegally and are against giving them more entitlements – while your party has a new updated even bigger list that we need to pay for from our hard earned money. We surely are not for open boarders while whining about security and don’t promise the people that if elected, there would be NO walls… - We know that socialism doesn’t work – while your party marches toward it like ignorant little sheep heading for a slaughter… - speaking of slaughter, we don’t believe pulling out of Iraq and leaving them to be almost certainly slaughtered, (men, women and children), is an ethical thing to do, while your party – driven by intolerance, selfishness and a need to win so badly – that they work hard to convince the country that pulling out is the only way to end this war and is the right thing to do…. Obviously, your party would sacrifice the lives of millions of men, women and children by promises of pulling out of Iraq just to win elections... And there is more, much more…. You are simply too blind to see past your incredibly large ego – for yourself, for others or the good of this country, and that, my pagan little friend, is the honest to God truth, oh, sorry, you don’t do God in your party, you just set out to kill millions of babies, millions of Iraqis (our allies) and go on living your selfish pagan existence.

McKludge - I am not one to claim superior intellegence as others here seem to - and thank you, I stand corrected.

So to summarize: you can't give any examples, and have to rant for half a page with the same tired lies to try and cover up.

If you're not one to claim superior intelligence.. then surely this can't be the same Linda T who was talking about her genius-level IQ on the messageboard not that long ago?

She may be talking about it, Phil, but as the man who should have been elected last time, John Kerry, would say, saying it doesn't make it so.

Just about any change would be welcome compared to Bush. Even McCain will be better if he actually gets elected.

Linda - I may live in Texas but that is because I work here. I'll more than likely live elsewhere when I retire for good. I voted for Bush twice and Hillary once. No one is against Obama more than me, except maybe Hillary. I identify with McCain because of my very miilitary background. But girl, you need to learn how to play this crowd of liberal minded well versed writers. You need to add more funny to your writings and a lot less fist pounding.

I wrote an anti Obama parody about 6 weeks ago and never took a hit from anyone. I used a line like "He's got the biggest caucus" and I clearly put him down but the thing is I was respected for the way I delivered it. I learned the hard way out here as I was beat about the boards quite soundly when I first started writing. You will find this bunch more than fair if you play right with them. Your song is about "change", well take your own advice and change the way you write. That is unless you like to fight. It really hurts to see someone where I was once so I have to speak up and let you know. Take some time and look through the authors' pages for some ideas about how to write good political parody. Spaff.com comes readily to mind. Look and learn from the master. As much as I dislike Obama as a candidate I cannot say anything much good about your parody. It is way to authoritarian and this turns people off no matter what the subject matter is. Think satire. What you are writing is not satirical in the least and that is where the problem lies.

Let your parody do the talking for you. Long winded speeches using 50 cent words reminds people of six hour speeches by Fidel Castro or Nikita Kruschev pounding his shoe on the table. Lighten up, you have a talent for putting words and phrases into a poetic posture but no matter how good the lines are if the music shounds like a cat fight people hear a cat fight. I hope you can take this with the spirit and intent that it was delivered. You have potential, you are just using it wrong.

forget the politics, this is a very funny idea, and congrats on being first to come up with it Linda - Obama is exciting enough, but that "change" word is wearing a bit thin

oh, and if you are interested in improving your parody skills Linda, (although I suspect you don't really care that much about it) Guy's advice is right on the money

Phil Alexander - I know you feel all superior = thinking that you "called me out" because I didn't answer your question. But in reality, you look more like an impatient oppressor - attempting to use bully-tactics on me and show your grandness to your lib pals. For the record, I wasn't ignoring your silly question. I was busy answering a post that came before your post and yours wasn't even on the screen until after I hit the "leave a comment" button. Being that I had just seen your question, I thought, (how silly of me) you could wait = but NOPE! Almost immediately after seeing my response to the other person, you suddenly feel ignored and justified in posting your childish "to summarize" yada yada. Feeling a bit dejected Phil? Throwing another temper-tantrum are you? ==== Your terribly impatient, blowhard of a response, is further evidence that you and the other far left loons like you have the mentality of juveniles - self-centered, bitter, bullying blowhards who can dish out the crap time and time again, but have no spine to take even a tiny bit back. I will answer you; however, don't get the idea that I somehow owe you a response every time you decided to post a question that is preceded by an insult and posed as real. For the most part your questions are full of sarcasm and are only asked rhetorically (your type doesn't even want real truthful answers or solid facts that could somehow harm your fragile egos) When I do answer you, you reply with "liar" or some other slant that helps you restore your dignity, heal your ego and make you feel all better again. You really think that I have any motivation to respond to your crap when you are always so full of it, rude and infantile when you post to me or ask something? Hey, you are a big boy, if I don't get to your pressing "question," answered in split seconds and before all others - cry in the corner for gad's sake! You calling me a liar or inept just to feed your bruised ego is not only lying yourself (constantly, as this is your biggest defense to facts and reality), but it makes you look like a fool! If I don't reply to you straight away, you see it as yet another opportunity to attack me because I didn't kiss your silly pinko arse, (especially when you are far from deserving a response from me in the first place). Have you ever considered that it may just be that I don't want to answer your phony questions or respond to your juvenile, 'starved for attention' spoiled child routine? Hey, it’s my right – and for the record, I will exercise my right more often with you, because frankly, you are a never-changing - always consistently bashing with nonsense, temper-tantrum throwing sort who can’t seem to control himself and feels the need to judge me, call me a liar, insult me and then whine like you’re just out of the crib when I don’t respond to your crap. You dish it out, but can’t take it and your best arguments for your party are always the same, mockery, sarcasm and calling others who don’t share your thwarted vies liars. Of course if you really want a response, you can always take a giant step in your personal growth and act as if you had an ounce of adult in you - post real questions minus the slams and sarcasms – of course, that is up to you and how you wish to represent your party and show everyone what your party members are truly made of. =============== ======== ===== Now for your question, (which of course was another rhetorical one that was preceded with insults and created with your signature touch of sarcasm – as usual) --- ---- A. Simply because Obama is in the Democrat party and is currently the flavor of the month for your ilk, doesn’t make him an intellectually gifted scholar who’s appeared from the muck as the intellect of the last century. Merely because he speaks as if he believes he is the reincarnation of Martin Luther King Jr., doesn’t mean he has the smarts that go along with his message of change. The fact that Obama had been working as a lecturer for 11 years before entering the US Senate may have some bearing on his ability to speak well in crowds. Most presidential candidates don’t spend 11 years as a lecturer – the most qualified has had executive experience, were actually in charge of running a show somewhere, like in a governors position in which they have been responsible for entire states and millions of people. So as far as being a good speaker, Obama wins (and one would hope so having that many years of practice!) But really, that’s his grand intellectual contribution, a good speaker. So? The ability to talk at people doesn’t give him substance, smarts or common sense! If he were such intellectual giant, he wouldn’t be so stupid as to travel from state to state boasting of his opposition to the Iraq war, (from the beginning) when he is clearly and outright lying (and even more stupid, having evidence that proves his support of the war and Bush with the war and as the president. If he were smart, he wouldn’t have run such failure of a campaign against his own party member, Bobby Lee Rush, who had served four terms in the house already. A wise and scholarly person is not one that runs just because he wants it and then later, when there is virtually no competition – runs for his “second choice” and enters the senate --- which gave him the honors of being the senator who has been absent in his role the most of all senators to date, (and that record was pretty darn low, and also held by a democrat senator). His foreign policy shows more of a “wet behind the ears” wannabe than real presidential material. So all in all, it’s not that difficult to name republicans in the past who are clearly ran with all their lights one, not just the left side of their parking light, as Obama seems to be. Dwight Eisenhower – conservative – was an extremely bright president and actually had real accomplishments, not empty speeches of “change” without substance… Abraham Lincoln always tops the list for intellectual bright stars in our history – he rates high for several reasons, least of all for his outstanding contributions to our country and his stand against the democrats who pledged to keep slavery going, fought and killed to keep them as slaves… Ronald Reagan is one of the brightest presidents we’ve had. Say, here’s an idea, compare Reagan’s writing to Obama’s book – (which contains more proof of Obama’s inability to be an honest person & ability to be a political opportunist). You will be able to see immediately the difference between a good speaker and a great speaker, with real smarts who had many real accomplishments, a great deal of experience and who had those things before running for president! Obama has the gall to give us a very weak resume as a sitting, Junior Senator of only 1.5 years, (who never actually goes to work much, so those years are not really ones to count) – a person who had an insignificant state seat, has absolutely no executive experience, tons of ego and talks really well. A well-rehearsed guy with tons of ego who can talk his way out of a paper bag and can fool people into thinking he is some savior for the country, is more crooked and sly than smart or even caring for that matter! Ford was another republican president who is thought to be one of the smartest presidents, an intellect who also had a very successful career before becoming president. His accomplishments and record, his solutions on the hill and regard from both parties, (before the moveone org hippies bought the liberal party and claimed ownership that is) . Richard Nixon was nearly a genius, according to his IQ scores and his impressive mind --- a crook, (poor whining libs), but nevertheless, a much more accomplished, much much smarter man than your Obama – who is all talk and hot air with no substance (but a darn good political opportunist!)

… Well now, aren’t you just the old black worn-out pot calling a kettle black and in defense of another old black worn out pot to boot! I bet you thought that your post above was actually a really great contribution to the dialog and you couldn’t wait to post it too, huh? Tell me Michael, do you think Phil’s telling me that I “couldn’t give any examples” was like your Kerry reference and that he too fit in that same category as “saying it doesn’t make it so” too? – Phil was lying, bold face lying and it doesn’t take a genius to know that! Both the statement calling me a liar and telling me I couldn’t answer him were lies… and yet, you come along and not only offer your support, but do so with that bit? LOL, that’s more than irony, it’s big arse balls is what it is! By the way, you can say “Kerry should have been elected” until the cows come home, (no surprise you are still suffering over your loss w/Kerry & you haven’t bothered to face it and deal with it like healthy adults have been able to do LONG ago)… but the facts are, “should have been” is meaningless. Just a year plus some, people around the country, (millions of them) were asked who they would like to run in the 08 elections on the dem ticket and who they would not want to run for president --- Your own party placed Kerry second to last, way at the bottom of the barrel by a substantial number – So apparently, your ego issues aside, not even your own party wanted him around --- “should have” – is more accurately in his case, “glad he didn’t” And as for your little “saying it” line you acquitted to Kerry, that’s rich too! Being that he is a well documented liar with proof all over the place, (as are Hillary, Obama, Billy and of course, PHIL) .. It’s like saying Kerry would mean this when he said that……. “Saying, saying it doesn’t make it true, doesn’t prove you are honest at all, it only proves you are trying to appear honest” – in an attempt to cover up his cover for being such a big fat liar! It’s almost as ballsy as the fact you defended Phil’s lies with that pile of hot air and nonsense! I am not surprised though, there is power in numbers and you obviously have each other’s backs, even when you are being outright morally reprehensible.

Seeing as you seem to delight in calling me a liar, repeatedly, I'm sure you'll be able to tell me specifically what lies I have told.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Oh Linda? The biggest tax increase in American History would be the unjust war in Iraq. I hope that your enjoying the maimings and the killings - you're paying for it.

Hey McKludge: "The pot calling the kettle black." ...but add whatever you feel is suitable in addition.

Mark Foley, Rick Santorum, Larry Craig, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Rev. Mike Huckabee, the NRA, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, King Bush I, King Bush II, Bill Napoli, King Richard (Nixon) I, Ted Poe, Newt Gingrich, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Linda Terhune. What are Republican nut jobs?

Gracious me, Ms. T.! Is it more amusing or ironic that your response–whose dodge of content to decry its diction in the comment addresses, precision, not mere prolixity, prompts to be explicitly thus characterized lest it be mistaken for anything “reply” connotes—follows a thinly-veiled blasphemy you’d likely yourself condemn upon others’ fingertips with a stylistically dithyrambic rant whose own more highfalutin reaches reek less of mockery than of flattery by imitation? Indeed, you even desert what your exchanges here with Mr. Alexander reveal are your stock nanny-boo-boos (“ego issues,” bruised ego,” “fragile ego,” etc.) for a more circumlocutory ascription to me of that same old fireside Freudian’s favorite. (As of this reply’s posting, and ignoring those in the present paragraph, I count an even dozen appearances of the trigram “ego” on this page, one embedded in the word “category” in the web page boilerplate, one identically embedded in one of your messages, the remainder serving a barrage of puerile name-callings that not only conjure an akimbo-armed, chest-thrusting, squinty-eyed, tongue-out-sticking playground pouter rather than the risen-above-the-rabble reasoner that’s your pose, but encourages the ignoring as twaddle all intervening verbiage. You may want to sharpen up a bit re that.) Oh ... before parting, do let me not forget to answer my opening rhetorical inquiry: I’ll go with ironic. Plainly put, twitted, the twittette twitters like a catbird.

I can has snark.
Yeah, Aggy, I was considering a statement like "Excuse me, Mr. Kettle? Phone call for you from a Ms. Pot."

Linda, I think Stan just won.

P.S. Please learn how to use page breaks. I'm more than willing to read what you write, but I'm tired of holding a ruler up against my monitor as I attempt to follow along.
Thanks...

Amateur, not "Armature" Hour. "Change" is a deviation from a previous status. It is neither good nor bad. A new war, a tax increase, a law that deprives the people of one of our few remaining freedoms are also "changes". It is easy to "change". It is much more difficult to "improve". Now I see why that other guy doesn't allow comments. It does eat a lot of space when you have something controversial to say. And now I'm adding to the clutter.

As a public service, this is how you create a line break in your post.

Enter a less-than sign, followed by a capital B, followed by a capital R, followed by a greater-than sign. Those 4 characters together will create a line break in your post.

BTW, Stan....

Brain ... hurt ... too much ... alliteration ... can't ... breathe ... [thud]

Mr. McKludge...you've explained the line break perfectly ;-)

IB - Yeah, a bit better than last time :-)

McKludge - If you want a blank line using a page break it must be done twice back to back and this will put a blank line in the comment field. A single set of Left Arrow BR Right Arrow will only move you to the next line and not put the blank line in between in paragraph form which is what long winded comments need. Here is the result of a single page break, The page break in this example is inserted right behind the word "HERE"
Here is a double page break inserted right before the words

"RIGHT HERE". I hope this is not too confusing. And yes the 'B' and the 'R' are both case sensitive. Page break on this forum will not work with lower case characters. And that is my 2¢ worth. =;-)

I sure hope this worked or I'm going to look really dumb.

It appeared to work and I do not look dumb. The single page break was inserted in the comment about right after the word "HRER" - too bad it was near the end of the line. It would have emphasised the point better had it landed near the beginning of the line. My bad.

The double page break was inserted right in front of the words "RIGHT HERE" as you can plainly see that there is a blank line inserted in the text. Another 2¢ worth of semi useful computing technique. And if you are wondering how I made the cent sign do a google search on Alt Key pad and read how to make a whole lot of characters that are not native on your keyboard .

The cent sign was made by turning on the "Num Lock Key" Holding down the "Alt" key and entering a value of 155 on the keypad on the right side of your keyboard. When the alt key is released a cent sign will appear. Alt keypad maps are available if you google for them.

Guy,
Interesting you say you will leave Texas, I was sort of hoping to move "to" TX Is there something I should know before making that move, some reason why you do not want to stay there? By the way, if I lived in TX now, I would has voted for Hillary as well.
While I truly appriciate your post and all its sincerity, I don't agree with your logic. I create non-political parodies and even light-heartred funny polical ones, but they still still fire me with their meaningless triple ones and their personal attacks, (and then blame when I give it right back to them). On their message board they had members actually admiting (and still do I suppose), that they give me ones on all my parodies "out of spite" - they are hardly the tolerant bleeding hearts that they claim to be in that party, that's for darn sure!
You tell me to “add more funny” when the hundreds & hundreds of bashing trashing misguided, vulgar and rude left wing parodies flood the place? You want to advise me to make nice with these attack dogs? I give in to their bully tactics and their pack-dog style personal attacks and “play nice” as you say , and what is the payoff exactly? They will suddenly stop stop writng their vulgar parodies so I’m not upset by their songs and feel good when I come here? ... not a chance!
Be more funny…. Change like you did…. Play nice with them… hmmm. So you are not expecting much in return then huh? Just that they don’t bully you or give you bad marks on your parodies, what a rip!
To appease these hateful sorts – those who would say to you personally, “ “”Guy: "Wingnuts" is short for "right-wing nuts." In other words, you. I support our military far more than you ever will, because you want them to fight for Bush's many, many lies, and I do not.””
They attack me too, always personal, always responding to my parodies or the fact that when they bash, I bsh back… Here, read some:
"linda you stupid b**** who the hell are you to call any one anything? go get laid or drop dead."
Now wait a minute Linda - Carol may be right - when was the last time you got laid?
So...just WHEN did you go off your Meds, anyway? Not voting because this parody mistakes "ludicrous" for "funny"...
linda--use your mouth for something really useful like sucking on a big one.
So I will say it again: go get laid you stupid, rantin b****. And I'm still laughing at you.
Please be advised that this lunatic is not representative of the citizens of the United States of America.
Linda, you would almost be amusing if you weren't so full of vitriol and unhealthy bile...and so willing to freely dispense it
loony linda the psycho b**** I hope that drives you a little crazier than you already are.
I believe the only way to communicate with Linda-the-Liberal-Slayer is with over-the-top ridicule.
Linda, you right wing fascist, your posts are just unreadable - is the kool-aid screwing up your mind that much? No wonder why half the country is stupid and voted for the incarnation of Satan currently sitting in the White House.
They don’t seem to care about your feelings or how comfy you are on this site… They only care that you do not irritate them with your thoughts, facts or parodies that are not in step with their over-the-top ‘way gone’ beliefs. They don’t like to be bothered with your freedom of speech or your freedom of expression and certainly cannot take even a fraction of what they give out, not even a tiny fraction! They don’t care that you changed to “make nice” with them –after all, that was their goal, to shut you up and continue on with their trashing…
The US has a policy not to give in to terrorists, and even though they beat you soundly into shutting up, I don’t give in to their type of bulling. They stop their countless nonsense over-the-top bashing, I stop writing the political parodies… they know that, they won’t stop, they want me to… but they won’t – but who said life was fair – just look at the people here on the left – they are proof of that! And they WILL dish it out, non-stop, no matter how much you kiss their hinnies – they really don’t care about you – or me – or anything that is good, decent or of moral value – and they see nothing wrong with their views – nothing wrong with their parodies… nothing wrong with them at all… it’s all us evil right, we’re the problem, we are what needs to be silenced ---
Here are their intellectually stimulating titles and content text from just a tiny sample of the thousands they proudly stand by as great masterpieces --- these are from those “seasoned writers” you tell me to learn from:
(and some are from that same choir boy who questioned your support for our military in response to your KIND post/comment)
“George! You don't got a mind!” // “He can talk about faith, but his own is just lies” .// "We Just Loathe W." /// "Scum On The Water", /// "Odor In The Supreme Court", /// "Crosses Got Run Over By The Brain-Dead" , /// “he's so dumb, dumb, dumb” /// “a moron warmonger who won't tell the truth.” /// “Goodbye You Bush Boot-Lick Toad”, /// “from this fascist Bush abomination!” /// “Hate-filled GOP” (RICH they call others haters!!) /// “Rumsfeld is a psycho” /// “Rummy's Dummy! Rummy's Dummy!” /// “Just a cold fascist thug, Shrub” /// “Cause Bush is a little con boy, lying every night.” /// “We're gonna smash this suckin' con boy 'cross the U.S.A.!” /// NOW, here are the replies (which are from the very same who bash me all the time, say my songs are lacking substance and are NOT FUNNY etc– This is how much they are offended by un-funny, poorly written, name calling vulgar parodies (the above songs) -- “5s for shared sentiment,” /// “John and Vicki in D.C., F-*-C-K-I-N-G.” /// “Fabulous stuff...LOL also!!” /// classic stuff..” /// “Lotta good stuff in here Mike; nicely done.” /// “this is really clever stuff. i'm kinda jealous. nonetheless, nice work! kudos!” /// “nice bit o' bashin'” /// “Good job, Michael. the parody is very clever”
Nuff said.
You seem like a nice guy, Guy & I too hate to see the remarks I read that were directed at you too... and maybe you don't mind the "beating" they gave you was an effort to make you stop & maybe its okay for you to give in to them when they wouldn't for you... more power to you... but it's not the answer for me - not by a long shot.

Immoral Person -

I see you are still calling it “unjust” (and must be really upset at Clinton who attacked bagdad for the very same reason, but without even consulting with the UN – or maybe Kerry, “who thought of attacking Saddam before Clinton did and bragged about it) – but that’s just you!

I am paying for unjust baby slaughtering by the millions each year – I am paying for the programs costing billions and billions a year that help illegal aliens get welfare, food stamps, free grade school – high school and college tuition, paying for these illegals who broke our laws and continue to do so, to have free hospital care, Social Security, (already robbed 8 times by democrat leaders, dwindling thanks to your party of entitlements for illegals, social security!

(I will be paying even more if Billary or Hussein are elected – they want to fight the boarder fence immediately, give full scholarships to all illegals for college and hand them some free health insurance on our dime! It’s not enough there are sanctuary cities (and NM) run by liberals who help the illegal alien criminals to run the streets, escape courts etc so that they can have “rights” and not be deported – only to commit more crimes… murder, rape, but we pay billions to the prisons that house TONS and TONS of illegal aliens – and then, if that is not enough, they tell us English as the official language is wrong and that we as Americans need to “do what I couldn’t do” (HILLARY), and learn Spanish so that these people will have the vital services they need like schooling and health care and they can communicate with the serve people” --- NOT that THEY should learn English, but US learn Spanish… that will prepare us to have open boarder, something that both Billary and Hussein want for the country.. “Two countries, not under God, with liberties the tax payers pay and justice for illegals” (our new pledge under democrat’s wish book toward socialism no. 666)…

I am paying for government employees who want sex change operations but can’t afford them on their own to get them, on my dime, my hard-earned money for sex change operations for all who want them! I am paying for our kids to have the mandatory reading material in the 2nd grade called, “My Two Mommies” and for the upcoming text book, “Great Gays in History” and the newly released “Gay History Month”

n I am paying for those drug dealers on welfare that can be supported as long as they wish --- I am paying for full-term abortions – that partial birth fun that has those over-paid abortion doctors pulling babies head out so they can be crushed and their brain innards sucked out so they’ll fit nicely out of the womb. I am paying for children’s right to get abortions without parent’s consent, (when one cannot even get their teeth cleaned if they are under 18 and their parent’s are not there to sign permission for them) n n

n I am paying the salaries of dead wood democrat hill leaders who broke their all time RECORD breaking low 11 percent approval rating last month with a new even more harder to break, 8 percent approval rating – all of which were all talk before their elections, and all inactive thugs after they got in! n

n If Billary or Hussein come into office – We will pay for more than any American has had to pay for in history, (except the huge costs associated with those terrible years with Carter, the gas rations of every other day…. The price being 50 percent of min. wage per gallon, the 33.3 percent taxes… etc etc… and even worse, paying for his salary - not hardly worth my hard earned money for a president who left our hostages to die for over a year and did nothing, (sort of like Clinton and his lack of action against bin after four attacks and a declaration of war – he was allowed to run freely in the open = like those who took our hostages – never fearful of a pinko panty waste cowardly president! )

n n You are sour grapes, I know that… but hey, you want to wallow in your misery until a demoncrat is elected president? Good then! Wallow for the next 8 years at least… cuz that’s how long you’ll need to wait MINIMUM … and if you think Billary or Hussein will really be elected, think again! They’ll get WAY WAY under what Kerry got – and that’s being generous to them!

If I were you, I would resign myself to that fact now, save yourself the next big blow to your already bruised ego – and hey, if you really want to vote for an actual winner who will win the presidency and actually feel good about winning for once, register republican, vote for McCain and then enjoy a victory for a change!

Invisible BOY -

Stan won what?

As I see it - he has merely proven my point with yet another blowhard post of nonsense and self-promoting chatter.

People like Stan need our pity, not our competition -- our help, not our slants... our honestly, not appeasement...

McKludge

Thank you!

That was a very helpful public service and I appreciate it!

I think I got the hang of it...

so cool...

you were really sweet for posting that -

thanks again!

Invisible BOY

Yes, McKludge did explain that line break perfectly!
Apparently, he saw the merits behind actually providing solutions

rather than do what you did...

complain and offer NO SOLUTIONS other than to say... "learn it"

Linda, my problem with you is that you automatically hate me just by virtue of who I am because you don't know me. . .that's my problem with you and the vast majority of the republicans, and for the record I am not a democrat either, but when one of the top 5 issues on republican's agendas is forbidden me to be me--without knowing what it's like to walk in my shoes, the beating you are complaining about. . .that's what I feel every single time You, Guy or anyone else goes on about people who are gay. I have to defend myself constantly from people with opinions like yours, and the other thing is you do write a number of parodies that truly don't pace--that's not personal--but it's true. I don't like hating you, I also am not among the ones who goes out of my way to write bashing parodies against republicans or republican candidates, I am not a fan of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I feel it was half @$$ed on Bill Clinton's part, but because I disagree with you--you call me a demoncrat, I'm asking honestly--how can you call someone that and not expect them to respond in similar nature to you. . .I know I will get either a response that is candid, or just goes off on me--but I'm giving you an honest question--looking for an honest answer. . .you call anyone who is more liberal than conservative Demoncrats--among other names--how is that any better than Wing-nuts? I personally feel that anyone who blindly votes one party or the other is a bit naive, but that's me. . .not all republicans think the same way you and Guy do towards gay people, and not all democrats support my freedom either. . .

Linnie, sweets, re "As I see it - [Stan] has merely proven my point with yet another blowhard post of nonsense and self-promoting chatter," what you seem to need--and desperately--is some remediation in reading comprehension. "Blowhard" or otherwise, my post to which you refer is as empty of self-promotion as it is full of accurate statements regarding _your_ post that _it_ addresses. Perhaps, then, this rather than willful obfuscatoriness explains your pattern of corresponding almost exclusively in non sequiturs that's onnly exacerbated by a parallel pattern of increasingly inarticulate expression as a series of of exchanges with real or perceived "opponents" progresses. As this problem's persistence appears to exceed your ability to "sharpen up" on your own, I respectfully suggest that you seek outside help. You and your correspondents will both enjoy exchanges more if/when your skills supporting that activity improve.

Linda,

I think Stan just won again...

Thanks for the "vote," IB, but I've no need or intention, and less desire to "compete" with Ms. T., nor has my correspondence with her here been in any sense adversarial, despite that her off-topic contributions' knee-jerk contentiousness do make it seem so. Really, I've just been trying to urge a course correction, as it were, back to the tack of my as yet still unaddressed original comment. Blinded as she is by vitriol--I'm guessing her fingertips alone can't handle the flow and that eyes, ears, ... quite possibly her every pore oozes it--that may well be a vain ambition. So, bye from here, amigo ...see you 'round the fun/interesting parodies. :-)

Oh no, what have I done? By revealing the secret of the line break, I've allowed Linda to take up even more screen space than ever.

Now I know how Prometheus felt.

Never a dull moment here when Linda Terhune is here!

Linda your lies are laughable. Yes, and I have to pay for an unjust war resulting in the killings and maimings of thousands and thousands of innocent humans - genocide with a high price.
From your wing nut BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life. -- yes, another example of the absurdity of the christian right - baby killers

Apparently Ms. Terhune has no idea have how a democracy or a republic works. You can't pick and choose what you want to fund. If you want to live in a Theocracy then move to Iran. May I also remind the anti-choice Terhune that a woman's choice is Constitutionally protected - if you don't want an abortion then don't have one. You have no right to infringe on the rights of those women who are legally justified in their choice. You hypocrite.

Shrub = worst president in American History
Unjust War in Iraq = biggest tax increase in American History
Gore = actual winner of 2000 Presidential Election (stolen by the GOP)

Yes McKludge.
And as punishment you are to be chained to a rock and forced to read these comments day after day. (although I admit, I'm the one who asked for it)

Linda,
Would you be so kind as to indulge my curiosity ? Is the correct pronunciation of your last name Ter-HOON..as in "hu" sounds like "who", silent "E", accent on the second syllable ? I just want to be accurate.
Thanks...

Uh-oh ... IB, it sounds like you've rhyming in mind. But maybe that' really is a wholly innocuous request. I, too, like to believe I'm "thinking" a name correctly. Once in a wine-related forum I corresponded with a pair of participants both named "Theiss," but unrelated and unacquainted outside the forum. One pronounced his name to rhyme with "ice"; theother pronounced her name to rhyme with "lease." Shrug. :-)

I believe her name is pronounced to rhyme with "loon".

Ms. Terhune, on behalf of the rest of the group and speaking for Mr. Seeger, please refrain from using our music as we stand against everything of which you are for. We believe that you would be better off putting your ideas to the music of Ted Nugent.

Linda - Ask Michael Pacholek if I put up with any shid out here. He will tell you straight up that I do not. Two things to remember.

1. When arguing with an idiot make sure that he isn't doing the same thing.
2. And never argue online. If questions about rule 2 consult rule 1.

I write what I want out here and I don't care what people think or say about me. I think I wore them out, they did not wear me out. I write out here as a hobby and if the hobby is upsetting then it is not a hobby. So I worked hard for my hobby and I rolled with the punches. I earned their respect and if you don't believe me, just ask them.

And as for what they say, I endured 21 ¼ of military service to this country. I was duty bound to defend to my death if necessary the right for anyone to say anything within the context of the first amendment of the constitution whether I agreed with it or not. I have a right to swing my fists as much as I want but that right ends where another person's nose begins.

As for the way I feel about living in Texas, lets just say that I have been a lot of places and the ideal would be to live in Northern Minnesota in the summer and Arizona in the winter, Second winter choice would be South Texas. Nothing more than that. I can be happy anywhere I live. I've learned that from moving around alot. Hope this clears things up for you Linda and I wish you the best of luck.

You have spunk, I'll give you that. I will never slap you around or anyone else for that matter for anything they write. I did get on one writer once who wrote an atrocious parody on dead babies. He promised he would straighten up. I wrote a parody about him. He then renegged on his offer to behave. I had the site webmaster delete that parody and he did protest and I ignored him. He finally went away.

And there were an awful lot of hitting below the belt with the comments that were leveled against you. I do not agree with these tactics and I believe that they are very WRONG. They lose my respect when they do these things and I do not join in with them. I do not think the comments are funny in the least.

My best advice is the two rules I have above in this comment. You keep writing all you want girl, it's your right. Roll with the punches and wear 'em out. Good luck to you Linda. And as for the Gay Voice person - My philosophy on things of this nature given my belief system is to love the sinner, no matter what but to hate the sin. Our enemy is not our brother. We lead best when we lead by example. Putting people down and bashing on them is not leading by example in my book.

Linda - I neglected to mention that a lot of my early parodies bashed different groups like gays in an ugly way and I deserved what I got for doing that. I would not say that I have given into their ideals just to be accepted. I was wrong and I simply corrected my mistakes. I lost a daughter to suicide and I was quite angry as I did not allow myself to grieve for over 10 years. The toll that it took on me nearly killed me. I took a two plus year hiatus from the site and my wife and I wrote and published a website that is dedicated to people in grief. I am finally moved onto the acceptance stage of grief and I am a lot better for it. You can view my website at the following URL:

http://healingourheartsandsouls.com/

My anger from ignoring the grief process reflected in my writing. I am still the same person and I still have the same ideals. I just have the anger out of my life now.

Well, I am the only one that walks in my shoe Guy, and I do not feel that my emotions and literally being as I was born is a sin, but I will drop it because you admit that you used to bash us, those are the parodies I've seen by you to which I was referring. Linda also chooses to bash. . .and while I have a problem with people judging me based purely on a book--and ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary, I have also learned that hate is a wasted emotion. I am glad you know longer bash gays in that way, and though I think that in the afterlife you will see that those who are gay (as they do exist amongst all mammals--not just humans) are not sinners--but that is something you will find out on your own. . .my thing is I don't bash those who don't understand me in the light of the parodies I've read by you, so I'm glad you accept that it was wrong. As for Linda, she never has and never will accept that her way of bashing gays and other groups, but then not being able to take it back the other direction--is at the very least hypocritical. I do hope your daughter's suicide can be forgiven on your part, from personal experience I know what suicide can do and how angry and confused you must have been, and for that I am sorry you have to go through that, I don't wish things of that nature upon anyone, but I will never believe that being who I am, whether or not those who don't walk in my shoes believe it, is inherently evil or a sin, but so long as you don't post hateful slams as your dagger like parodies of the past Guy, I can live and let live, and still care about you as despite my stark difference in belief from you, you are human and like me--you have a different set of beliefs. . .as for Linda, I can't live and let live, or forgive her because she doesn't want it, or even see the error in her way of hateful and vile words. She claims to be hurt when she is called numerous horrible things but then turns around and posts/comments using horrible, hateful and down right painful wording/names of her own. . .

GV - I don't judge anyone. Only God can do that. He will judge you and me and everyone in this world. I do not know what or who I will see in the after-life. The Bible tells us that anyone who has accepted the gift of the Blood of the Lamb has their name written into the book of life and will have peace and happiness throughout all eternity, but at the same time the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. God bestows mercy as well as wrath and performs by grace. A saved person knows they are saved. There is no question. But only God and that person know for sure. I am sorry to have offended you through my anger ridden parodies and your forgivness is a Christian virtue that I gladly accept but do not deserve.

I happen to believe what the Bible says and I would never take the chance when the Bible says that something offends God to the point of it being an abomination. I guess that is the difference between you and me. I'm not willing to risk eternal damnation, It all boils down to what you want to believe. God gave each of us a free will, something he did not give to any other life form on the planet. We are all children of God and He does not want His children, well acting like children. Everyone sleeps in the bed they made for themselves. I don't try to second guess God. God does love you but we are all sinners and all sin hurts God no matter what kind it is. We all must anwer for our own sins, God bless GV and peace.

stuart mcarthur - thank you --

Guy’s being “beat soundly around the board” was his motivation for changing for the good of these people here and they STILL are vicious to him. Super group – super “Seasoned Writers” And those same “seasoned writers” will praise each others bad or kiddie bashing stuff that looks as if the author spent three min. writing the little changes they made & insert in the nasty name calling stuff, wow, seasoned isn’t necessarily good ----- not are 82 points for a bash that bad!!! --- And it was not even written well… but giving that author such a feeling of greatness that he actually believes it – hundreds of parody songs later, lots of peer supported praise and total admiration for the HATE remarks (cuz it couldn’t be the parody itself) and lots of practice over lots of time to build their self-righteousness, gall, mean-spiritedness and outright bully behavior. So ------- playing nice, fair, etc., is the way you agree I should go!

Bush Is Sh*tty Anti-Bush Songs
We Loathe The Looney Right
Baby Bush
Rummy's Dummy
O Little Brain of Dubya
The Little Dumber Boy
Pea Brain
Republican Dummy
Right Wing Loons Spread The Bullsh*t
Sleazy Bush Baby
Bush The Puppet Man
Lazy Little King Called Shrub
We Don't Trust Bush Baby
Dubya Deceptions
Bush Baby's a Joke
Bush The Panderer
He's Mr. Sleaze
Right Wing Loons Spread The Bullsh*t
Dubya, Don't O.D.
Trash Talkin' Woman
So Snide
Shrub, Pretender
Dubya, The Bogus POTUS
Sleazy Bush Baby
Bush The Puppet Man
I Thank You (Ode to the Bushies)
Lazy Little King Called Shrub
We Don't Trust Bush Baby
Sleaze Is The Word
I Don't Want That Bush As King
O Come, All Ye Wingnuts
Con Boy
Dubya Governs Like He's Stoned
We Gotta Get Bush Fired
Dubya Deceptions
Keep On Mockin' Bush Baby
Bad Lies
Stir Up Trouble
Bush Baby's a Joke
Bush The Panderer
Don’t Be Kind To Shrub
You're A Shill For The Right
Kills The Air That We Breathe
Aren't They Loathsome, The Right?
Bush Is Sh*tty
Anti-Bush Songs
We Loathe The Looney Right
Baby Bush
Can't Stand The G.O.P
Can't Stop Hating You
Say We Loathe Him
I Can't Help Feeling Disgust For You
Shut Her Up
I Cant Stand W
Tell Laura We Loathe Her
Big Fellow Nazi
Make Them Pay
Another Prick Who Must Fall

…and they call my parodies hateful – mine: facts and certainly not that “tight fisted” as guy says, maybe he hasn’t looked at these songs above…. And how healthy can you be after thousands of these songs? Year after year drilling that crap in your head? Not hardly, no wonder they are so far gone, so way off and so nasty!

… ’ I mean one parody they do not agree with is a reason to be more toxic – even when to each one right wing parody, they have hundreds of the hate-filled, little talent “kiddies bashing” songs to counter it… But no tolerance, still attacking and that kind of gutter is not what people try to appease, who would want to accept those in their own group who build each other up by praising those songs and the authors and cheering their “talents” when all they produce are pasted in name calling like “dummy Romney, dummy bushies lies dummy dummy neo-cons, hate bush bye bush dummy, drunk dictator lying killer dummy dummy bushie wing net stupid” They ARE NOT EQUIPT TO SCORE, GIVE REAL FEEDBACK OR EVEN REAL WRITING TIPS TO ANYONE…

Linda - I usually ignore those parodies and my mind is well adjusted - thanks for caring. right. Come to think of it I don't ever remember you doing any comments on my parodies, but I may have missed them. But I really can't recall your name ever on one of my parodies. If you are looking for someone to joint your crusade, it's not me. I've had my fill of that sort of thing - that is why you probably won't see my name weighing in on very many of the parodies you have provided in your laundry list of from the, left flank, MARCH. bashing parodies, I have consulted my rule number 2 and I think see rule number one applies here.

I'm very disappointed and feel that the time I've put in here giving you advice has been wasted. Do your thing girl. See ya around.

HEY-E OVAH 'EAH, HUH? Wud iz wit diz shid messin' wid "Funny-Guy Tunz"? Hez tole youz like id iz. Hiz inneress iz inlined wit da "Waist Managed-mend Biznezz" hooz subbord uv da Republikin' pawdy iz more in wutz inlined wit owah biznezz inneress. Hez also inclint ta keeb udder fam'ly inneress from conflictin' wid owahs. He nose wud iz best fer owah inneress an' iz simbly keepin' da piece wid owah compedidoors. Id jus' makes fer gud biznezz centz. 2-LOUD OUTTA 'EAH!

Well, Linda, seeing as you seem still to be incapable of answering a simple question, I'll ask it again: where have I told lies?

Though I'm in two minds about you: it was Goebbels who said "repeat a lie often enough, and people will come to believe it as truth"... I'm not sure if you're one of those people knowingly repeating lies, or someone who has come to believe them as true.

Phil: What about "...full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."? Linda, I don't think you an idiot, but that you've managed to lose even Guy in less than a week... wow.

Aside from William Tong (who writes ~90% 'right bashes') and Michael P. (maybe 15-20%), please show me any other author here whose anti-right political parodies make up even 5% of their total.

About this work, it's your best political parody hands down. You worked in some good humor, refrained from absolutes (the "sheep" lines need to go though) and made a timely and mostly accurate parody. The fact that this parody doesn't have a single 111 vote and has a smattering of marks in between also proves you did more than create an agree/disagree parody. The pacing needs a bit of work, but overall this was good. 444

Red Ant raises an interesting question. Two of my favorite liberal parodists are Robert J. Pagliaro and Melanie Lee, and I find an "anti-right" message in approximately 1/3 of their parodies. I also think that Red Ant's estimates for Will Tong and Michael Pacholek might be conservative (pun intended), and I suspect that there are others at AmIRight whose "anti-right" output exceeds 5%. In any case, I would guess that anti-right parodies outnumber anti-right anti-left parodies at AmIRight by a 2-1 ratio, and anti-right comments outnumber anti-left comments by a greater margin.

So, like Guy, I am somewhat disappointed that Linda Terhune never comments on my parodies, but I appreciate her attempts to bring a little left/right balance to AmIRight.

Stan ... sigh and Stan
still – blowhard. - perpetual, unbounded, undying blowhard

Invisible Boy
Besides fact that it is not a “competition” and putting aside the apparent fact that your goal here is to amuse yourself by antagonizing me --- I find it very interesting that of all the posts here you could use for your that amusement, you chose Stan’s. I must conclude that you either must truly believe that he cannot fend for himself or that my statement to him regarding his insecurities is correct and you are giving him moral support. Really though Invisible child, either way is sort of an insult to your friend Stan, (and I am totally okay with that, just pointing it out to you)

McKludge
– true, you did just that and I still appriciate and thank you for it --- so much so, your comment “what have I done” – was actually amusing to me!

Jason
– thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment!

Immoral Liberal
- EVERY TIME YOU POST to me you are just over-the-top and EVERY TIME YOU POST to me you say the same old things over and over like you’ll never ever grow up – EVER!
A.
I don’t lie.
B.
You tell me I lie in just about every single parody I write – and I do not lie. So your posting that every single time, (and being wrong every single time), makes you look more and more stupid every single time.
C.
Besides looking like an over-the-top, redundant, somewhat mislead and ignorant bore – in all your posts to me, your use of “liar” “lying” and “lied” in all your posts (w/out explanation, fact, reason etc., just “lies” – tells me that you are just “giving it your best shot” – because that is the first thing that pops in your less-than-informed head. You have no real rebuttals for your posts, no specific reasons, but you just say “lie”… as if it’s your only defense against the truth and the facts – the only way you can make it all “not so”.

Young kids do that a lot, but I figured that if I began writing parodies here a few years back and had this kiddy mentality, at least by now, 2008, you would have grown up a little. But NOPE, you are doing the exact same thing, same way, same old stuff as you did then – I am embarrassed for you – one would hope you grew up in those years, but all hope is lost on you!
D.
The “lied, lies, liar” norm – most of the time also has some comment about “being off meds, on meds again, needing a shrink, drugs”, etc – is yet another sign that you have not grown up at all, not even a little. If you think you are doing your party a favor by making public your personal, ignorant, silly little name-calling posts and w/out merit or explanation for your lying accusations or name calling – you make it seem like democrats are terribly immature and uninformed people who’s best argument is that which they learned in elementary school hanging out with the bully kids “LIAR, TAKE YOUR MEDS, SEE A SHRINK, YOU LIE!” (OH BOY!).
E.
Because you call me a liar when I am not, you do it constantly to the point that I expect it from you, -- it is logically proving to the people who see your silly posts, that you are actually lying every time you post that! Simply calling me names or a liar, doesn’t make your party correct, it makes you a liar for calling me one! Even if you feel justified in some strange and terribly value-less way, to “stand up for your party and defend their honor” (LOL, Honor!), with your crud, you are still lying! And you lie all the time, great guy that you are!

I guess democrats really truly believe that their platform and candidates are so sub-standard, so weak and so unpopular in their stances - that in order to win, they have to personally attack people, (not their ideas, not their opinions, but them personally), call them liars, tell them the whole meds thing, drugs thing, doctors thing etc., (like Stan, who used the old democrat “see a doctor” bull, (gad). While that is probably more true than not, (your party insecurity about party platform, their really bad, immoral, unpopular stances etc. make it impossible to win without name calling, personal attacks and deception to win votes --- democrats show their true colors when they do! (like a catch 22) – and you, immoral loser, are the perfect example for that! (Still, it is a very unflattering, juvenile, ugly thing to do – and you practice it all the time… - what a horrible testament to your party! Go Immoral – you’re do great campaigning for the donkey’s arses you love so!

MCKludge, your new online name is Prometheus.

Linda ... sigh and Linda still – blowhard. - perpetual, unbounded, undying queen of non sequitur response.

In words of one part (for you loathe “les mots hauts”)
read back thru’ my posts here. One notes
all I say of your views
is “don’t share but don’t use--
spoofs’ own pros and cons earn their votes.

But the point of those posts you have missed
or I ’spose it could just be you’re pissed
by my spoof vote (2-point)
and so, nose out of joint,
‘stead of chat in re that you’ve just dissed

the words that I chose to say “Here
is why your spoof won no loud cheer …”
That you’re not a bad sport,
just of skill a bit short
to stick to the point I think’s clear.

“What a piece of work is man …. th[e] quintessence of dust,” muses Hamlet. “What a waste of time is Linda … the quintessence of gust,” muses Stan. ‘Nuff said.

I don't know, Aggy. A handle like Prometheus is a bit pretentious. Although a liver that grew back everyday would do wonders for my drinking habit.

Points taken, John J. I meant to type "anti-Bush" instead of "anti-right", but in any case while there are a few authors who do more than 5% political topics (of any nature), they are few and far between. Yeah, Tong is more like 99% and MP, well, I think 25%, tops. I've only seen a few of Robert's parodies - he wrote maybe ten more after I joined the site back in early 2005. You have to admit Bush gives us a *lot* of material with which to work.

As for left leaning parodies outnumbering right leaning ones - well, this site has been around for 8 years. Had it been around twice that long (covering the Clinton years) I imagine you would see virtually even numbers. If Obama or Hillary wins, there will be parodies about their flaws and missteps for years to come.

Funny you mention the comments: I rarely see huge mud slinging diatribes posted under other 'right leaning' authors' parodies.

Like you and Guy, Linda has never commented on one of my parodies, even to slam it. Mind you, I'm not terribly upset about that, but it does irritate me that she either ignores, skips or misreads any good comments she gets on her parodies but writes out the most lashing, term paper length vitriol she can think of to anyone who disagrees in the slightest with her views (which, apparently, is everyone left of "Absolute Right" - you and Guy included). Finally, regarding balance: ten pounds of sand weight the same as ten pounds of silver, but I'd rather have the latter.

PS: Why is it that almost all political parodies (left or rigtht) trash the other side instead of promoting the good things the author's side has done/is doing? ISTM the answer is both parties suck; it's just a question of "which sucks more?" I can count on one hand the number of "pro- my party" parodies I've read in the past three years here.

Ant & JJ - I was looking through some of my old parodies yesterday and I did notice someone named "Linda" who gave me a plus comment for a bash job I did on the ACLU to OS YMCA Published in Aug 2003. - But then sometime after mine published a YMCA OS song called ACLU was writen by this Linda jumping on some of the same things I was on about. So she may have commented on one of mine but that could have been any Linda, but it did seem odd that the YMCA/ACLU parody was also written by a writer with the first name of Linda. There was an "original" and a part II written by Linda. Pt II was published in Aug 2005 about one day after the comment I found by "Linda" on my ACLU parody . I don't know what Linda is complaining about. She got a lot more attention and votes then mine did. None the less I think it was less than an original idea.

Linda you lying lunatic - yes, you continue to lie and we can always tell when you are off your meds as your drivel goes on and on and on and on. You have no interest in humor; only an interest in attacking those who do not follow your Nazi thinking.

Oh, thank you for posting the list of all the Bush parodies - "gad" damn the titles are hysterical and I'm sure that the parodies are just as funny. That's what happens when you have a dummy in office, the wit comes out. Maybe someday you too can be funny - for now, take your meds, take your meds - now sleep, sleep.

Although my political beliefs differ from most on this site. I am able to put thise aside and feel a much closer kinship to most of you because we share a love to write parodies and there is a brother/sister hood here. It is satire and done correctly is championed by all sides. Flaming only brings on more flames. I am proud to rub shoulders with you mass of mentally unstable whacked out people who are quite a bit like me. Politics are just a means to one of our many ends out here. The idea is to ridicule and lampoon the inane, obscure, insane, and leave no one immue from our spearheads. It is all in good fun and when it is done correctly it is great fun. Whether each of us wants to admit it we are all cut from te same mold. We just love to show off our wit and humor and I'd bet most of us display ADHD tendencies which indicates a sharp wit and an above average intelect. Disagreement on content or not, it is the art that I am here for and this IS most definately a legitimate art form. I'm just proud to be associiated with the bunch of you. Mutual respect for one another is the key to the haromy.

To “Democrat” (or who ever you are who is afraid to use their regular name)

I am perfectly aware of what a democracy is, (although astonished that a democrat today would even use that word since they are hell-bent on making this a socialist / Marxist country – hence taking away the democracy for all real purposes – by the way, socialism doesn’t work, it’s proven not to work and it goes against everything that our forefathers created for the country).

And it is not about “me” picking what I want funded, (but apparently, your party, even judging by what is written on this page alone, shows that you are selective about what you want to pay for or not pay for… if you feel this strongly about it all – then of course, you have NO PROBLEMS at all with funding the war, correct? – and furthermore, if you don’t like it, move yourself to Iran (so rude!)).

May I remind YOU,
Ms or Mr. Too Chicken to Use your Name Pro-Baby-Killer,
that although your party has seemed to actually change the constitution about every 8 years or so of the last 50 years, the real Constitution says NOTHING about the right to kill babies. I am sure that our forefathers would be shocked to no end if they knew your value-less party put that in there, even our forefathers who were democrat. Taking the “right to choose” from God and giving it to women is an abomination and as such, I should not be forced to pay for it. It is against my beliefs and my personal rights --- but knowing that your party is really only dedicated to the rights of those they “pick and choose” to give rights to, (and pro-life supporters are surely not one of them --- BUT giving billions and billions a year to illegal immigrants shows that they have many more rights than many Americans do – so, are one of the “chosen” ones as far as rights go)

And there is nothing hypocritical about what I said, even if it was fun to say and get off your chest! I am far from stupid and I understand that I do not have to get an abortion and that is my right - however, it should BE my right to NOT pay for other women, millions a year, to have abortions with the money out of my paycheck.

Was this more clear for you to understand? I hope so… GAD, “I’m the hypocrite when your party on this very same page cries about the war… see, works BOTH ways doesn’t it Demoncrat?

By your logic, Linda, the Constitution also says NOTHING about having abortions (and, for once, you are correct). "Pro-Baby-Killer"? You are not pro-life, you are anti-choice. It's curious (more like "extremely suspicious") that you are so eager to send people to die in pointless wars (that FAR exceed the cost of abortions and illegal immigration combined) and cream your pants whenever someone gets executed, but think a group of minutes-old fertilized cells has more rights than everyone on this entire planet. Life is sacred for you up until the moment of birth, then you don't give a f*** about that person.

You make the same mistake most extremist Christians make, and that is that non-Christians care about what the bible says. You pick and chose from the bible what serves your motives at the moment, and crap all over the rest of it when it suits you. I prefer some consistency and reject it altoghter. "I am perfectly aware of what a democracy is..."; perhaps so, but you seem to be unaware of what a theocracy is. Maybe you might remember one reason why this country was founded: freedom from religious oppression

You are a hypocrite of the highest order, and that you have not addressed my comment proves you a coward as well: unless, that is, you are so unable to think for yourself that you simply don't have any answers of your own. If your sky fairy (aka "God" ) gave everyone free will, then why the f*** are you complaining about what people do with it? If he does exist, then it's his place to judge us, not yours. Tell me, how are your "personal rights" affected by abortion? I suppose you would also tell me marriage is "sanctified" as well. So why do ~55% of them end in divorce? I suppose it's only because the evil, baby killing, Ted Kennedy worshipping, liberal demonrats get married: the Repugnicons ( I can sling mud, too) never get divorces, right?

Trying to get through to you is like running inside a Mobius strip: pointless and boring. As Guy alluded to, "Arguing with stranger online is like entering the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded." Here's a clue, Linda: Guy (and others) write funny parodies: you don't. Most everyone else on the planet admits when they are wrong: you don't.

By the way, next time you think of posting your usual "Demoncrat" crap, you might also consider this:

"Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason."

Now you've done it Red Ant. A threat of censorship is EXACTLY what Linda wants to hear. It only validates in her mind that she is 100% right on everything and that us "Lib'ruls" are bent on silencing all opposition.

Well thanks JJ - and you and Guy are two of my favorite right-wing authors. Red, it's probably fair to say that at least 25% of my work is Bush bashing. (But it became too easy and not funny as this administration has made New York life painful - it's tough to find humor in something when you walk around with a target on your back, pass machine guns on your daily walk to work and wonder everytime the subway stops in a tunnel.)

And Linda is angrier than I am? (Guy, love this "BR" space thing - Linda is almost readable at times.)

That being said, I wrote a parody once under "spot.paw" titled "I.M.U.S." - I got bashed by Pacholek but I think JJ liked it. So Linda, we all don't think alike now do we?

Later bob

Just checked my dog's parodies - wow, she's up around 50% in Bush bashing (if you count the anti-Ari Fleisher parody - he was a liberal in high school.) But that dog is now in the big kennel in the sky - see, I believe in heaven for dogs. The new dog, Rigby, is not political in this way. Hi Linda.

I'm not afraid to use my own name - this is it - you made me in your own image. And I don't believe that you do know what democracy is or you wouldn't post the rants that you do. It's one thing to post an opinion and truly another to post lies; and that's what you do - you lie. Where in my post did I talk about Marxism? Yet you tell me that's what I want. Where did I say that socialism worked? Or that the founding fathers - who are turning over in their graves over you - wanted socialism? And you calling me rude is just laughable given the vile that you spew here on a somewhat daily basis. May I remind my anti-choice friend once again that being pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion. But you're too thick headed to realize that now, aren't you? Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Name one instance where the Constitution was changed by the democrats in the past eight years? Political minds would like to know. Surely you can give us one of the six in the past 50 years, can't you? May I remind YOU that God is not the law of this land so "taking the right to choose from God" is moot. And may I say that if there is a god, he is probably very upset with you given the image that you have created of him - you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Or does god speak to you and tell you to spew such bile? I doubt it. And yes, you are a hypocrite - you are the very definition of a hypocrite. What would Jesus think? What would Jesus think? (And I have no doubt that you have an answer for that - although he's probably shaking his head.) And yes, the way is unjust. We could have used a lot of that money right here at home, couldn't we? Instead, YOU chose to kill and maim innocent Americans and innocent Iraqui's - and for what? What, "pray tell", did this accomplish? Please stop the lies - you're really looking foolish.

McKludge: It's not a threat, it's a promise, one that Linda knows from experience on the messageboard I will keep.

Bob: Machine guns? Ouch. I didn't realize Homeland Insecurity had turned parts of NY into what seems very close to marshal law. I wouldn't put anything past this administration. I admit I haven't read much of your work, but your "The Words 'Here's Johnny'" is an Amiright classic IMO.

Red - yes, the National Guard is stationed in Grand Central, Penn Station and other areas around the city. They and the NYPD carry rifles - Guy is probably laughing at me because I don't know what kind of rifles they are but they look like machine guns. I don't know how this stops planes from flying into buildings nor how it stops chemicals from being released in the subway system. I do know that it doesn't make me feel any safer. We are also subject to random searches when entering a subway - although you have the right to decline and go to another subway entrance where randoms aren't being done. This just seems like a lot for a city without monuments, doesn't it?

Red, thanks for the nice words re: "The Words 'Here's Johnny'" but that was all Johnny and not me; it wrote itself. But I do appreciate it.

Red Ant -
I DO answer all questions, only, I answer them in order. If I have time to answer one or two, then I read the posts I have NOT responded to, from the top downward.
If there are a lot under the last one I responded to, I don’t even read them, or, I will feel way too compelled to respond and then, if I am running late or ready to fall asleep in my chair, I will answer anyway. And since I tend to be long-winded, it doesn’t turn out well.
Your angry assumption that I didn’t respond to your questions (surprise) is wrong. (I have just responded, now below, to a post from Guy… which took a lot of the time I had, so I have no more to answer you. But I did happen to see your post – it’s length and so read it. I wanted to point out how I read posts and how I respond, so no one else feels the need to get all angry, self-righteous and justified to attacking me or declaring my inability to answer any questions, (that is really big of you, by the way, and a few others who make declaration like that ... you don't know the truth, yet, you declare that I cannot, will not or in other ways, avoid people's direct questions - that is judgmental, makes you and those who do that, liars & it is not only a bully response declaring my lacking - but it is mean, (but that part, not surprising) Lots of you feel justified when I am not fast enough in addressing their personal posts, many of which are questions in attacks, not meant to sincerely ask something, but rather, slam in a sort of round about way. Some, rhetorical even... Some, like one on this very page, that was full of sarcasm and rhetorical, was asked, I was busy answering someone else's post... they saw it when it went up (moments later) and then attacked me = call me names, whined about not answering his question, and totally putting me down, like you, saying "see, she CAN'T or WON'T answer - she's a liar ... etc. When I did answer, I not only answered, but told him that I was not motivated to answer his questions when asked so sarcastically --- so what does he do? Asks another stupid question, in a super sarcastic manner and attacking -- expecting a quick response even though he didn't seem to want to respect my simple request. Shows me that a lot of you are not patient at all - and demanding answers while treating someone like shyt, is not only wrong, but I don't respond well... they are mean, I am mean back. I don't put up with the bull they all throw at me, and you blame me.

You wrote,
"You are a hypocrite of the highest order and that you have not addressed my comment proves you a coward as well: unless"
cont.......

You asked, (as if you really honestly want an answer and have only the best intentions when asking it... (right)...
"Tell me, how are your "personal rights" affected by abortion? "
That's simple! (asked in your usual pompous way with your lead up to it as well... like all others here, but hey, they are right... ) -but first, in oreder to answer it, I need to address one other thing you said in your lovely (almost angelic) post,

"Maybe you might remember one reason why this country was founded: freedom from religious oppression"
First of all, I don't know if you think that I am stupid OR you actually really believe in what you just said. Are you trying to tell me or others here a big fat fib - or, are you just so programmed, (as you think I AM) (right) that you actually think that statement is true? Why on earth would you say, "maybe you might remember" - remember from what? Propaganda pushing atheists who make it a point to go after Christians because they threaten their own personal views and do not want the "enemies" view voiced for their own political gain? (maybe because Christians tend to vote against your party). Why remember something that is only made up by the current pagan trend to hell? Freedom fighters did NOT found this country on "freedom from religious oppression" - that is completely utterly untrue. My gad, I really thought you were a lot smarter than that and even a fair enough individual that you would not be suckered into believing something like that, whether you believe in God or you don't - that is just historically wrong, a propaganda bullshyt statement and if you think it is true, it is a sad testament to what the truly gullible can be suckered into. I am not as stupid as you hope I am and with hope, others don't buy your lines. Not for religion's sake, but rather, so they don't carry around misinformation and propaganda simply because they fall for what you write - staying ignorant indefinitely. .Our "freedom fighters" as you call them, would not likely call religion oppressive - only the insecure, lying sort who want to force their lies on others to make their own cause more strong. In case you really do believe that "freedom from oppression of religion" bull, the truth is the US Constitution says, '"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." --- i.e., not freedom FROM religion, not freedom FROM religious oppression -- NOT to PROTECT you from the horrors of religion but rather, freedom OF religion - As if you need some protection against those nightmares that go to church on Sunday and pray each day. Your new-revised version or translation is a creation by atheists, secularists, and most liberals who hate religion and want it all gone.. (another example of intolerance and ego and the elitist "I am right, everyone else is wrong and should be silenced" bull) It says in the First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof; or ABRIDGING the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" --- which clearly you want to do with me and anyone else who dares have a different view.

"Tell me, how are your "personal rights" affected by abortion? "
My answer; I am totally, fully against abortion, (and to address your other nonsense question), I am pro-life and anti-choice - but anti-choice has nothing to do with this question or my answer). I do not support abortion, it is against all that I believe in, all that I have inside is against it fully. (I understand you don't think I should feel this way and I understand that you don't care about the personal rights of others that do not agree with you and you wish to suppress those who do not agree with you) but nevertheless, it is my right to feel this way, believe this way, and my right to voice my feelings about it -- all covered for me under what our "freedom fighters" set up" Pro-baby killing is NOT something the "freedom fighters" wrote, set up or protected at all, not there. But, I am protected - my free exercise of my religion is protected and CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME OR MY RIGHT TO EXPRESS MY BELIEVES BY PETITIONING THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT IT -- AND - ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ABOUT IT AND ASSEMBLE TO DO SO. Clearly, my rights are NOT considered - thanks to those who's main goal in life to make sure we can kill babies, kill them small or large or even when they can survive on their own -- and we partially take them out only to crush their heads and kill them alive, (live abortions) i.e., democrats who fight their right to kill any baby, live or just 3 months into growth. MY rights to NOT do it are fine, but really, not. I work, therefore, pay taxes -- our taxes are used to kill millions of babies a year. Our "freedom fighters" did not set up some rules that said anything about taking my money and killing babies with it. While your party of baby killers gives the full right to have abortions - they do NOT have the right to make me pay for them... making my hands bloody - I don't work so that others can kill babies - which is against all I believe in - yet, they force me to. Our taxes are paying for free sex change operations too -- anything liberals want to spend my money that I worked for on -- they don't care about my beliefs or my rights. They care about paying for illegal aliens who broke and continue to break our laws, they protect the rights of gay persons, woman who want to kill their babies -- or the PICK and Choose who's rights are important and who's are not. That's all good and even livable, just so long as they do not force me to kill babies and take that right away from me -- But like you and your liberal friends here prove over and over again, it is only their rights, the liberal rights that matter - and to hell with anyone who isn't on their personal page. Can YOU understand that or is trying to get through to you pointless, like running inside a Mobius strip - pointless and boring?
cont..

"Guy (and others) write funny parodies: you don't."
Tell it to Michael and his parodies that do not try to be funny, are slapped together, redundant and many have inaccurate information and some even hateful. or, better stilll, tell it to Malcolm Higgins who has posted 2057 parodies, the most here, and all that I can see, are juvenile, un-funny, some vile in nature, attacking and in many cases - propaganda truth - i.e., filled with lies and deception and completely un-funny. Finally, ask me if I personally care, (as if you actually care about my feelings or what I care about or others not in your spiteful hypocritical party care about), what your personal thoughts are on my parodies - funny not funny or indifferent. I write them when I read one. Is it the few I have written that disturbed you, not the 2057 bashing trash that your no. one guy wrote? I don't see you attacking others with political parodies that are un-funny - not at all... and I do see praises and gushes over those who have the same sort I do, and much much worse. And you called ME a hypocrite?
You also wrote,

"By the way, next time you think of posting your usual "Demoncrat" crap, you might also consider this:
“Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason."
at the end of your ever-so-civil angelic post.... filled with love peace and tolerance, (like all liberals), love peace and tolerance like "If your sky fairy (aka "God" )" - which attacks my religion, which our "freedom fighters" protected, yet you ignored. OR some of your other peace love tolerant statements......
"extremist Christians,
you a coward as well
unable to think for yourself
why the f*** are you
Trying to get through to you is like running inside a Mobius strip: pointless and boring
others) write funny parodies: you don't
You are a hypocrite of the highest order
OR HOW ABOUT some selcted comments from others on this page (which are mild compared to some),
" Linda you lying lunatic -
her name is pronounced to rhyme with "loon".
we can always tell when you are off your meds

only an interest in attacking those who do not follow your Nazi thinking.
( yet another hypocrite -- but you say to me... " Most everyone else on the planet admits when they are wrong: you don't."
- why don't YOU?
for now, take your meds, take your meds - now sleep, sleep.

Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Linda Terhune. What are Republican nut jobs?

If you notice, after I write a parody, my comments are fine... up until someone comes in and just personally attacks me -- then I do so back.. but still.....

"By the way, next time you think of posting your usual "Demoncrat" crap, you might also consider this:
“Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason."

McKludge -
THEY HAVE ALREADY CENSORED ME.
- THE TOLERANT,
PRO-FREE-SPEECH,
PRO-EQUAL RIGHTS,
PRO-CONSTITUTION,
PRO- FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
AND ANTI-CENSORSHIP
bleeding heart LIBERALS
(who can dish it out any way possible, and do)
ARE, IN REALITY NOT ABLE TO TAKE IT
AND ARE IN FACT,
INTOLERANT,
AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ALL,
ANTI-EQUAL RIGHTS
AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AGAINST FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
PRO-CENSORSHIP
And you were right about one thing... McKludge, although it wasn't "exactly" what I wanted, (but thanks for trying to read my mind and know all about me), it IS true that it validated all I have been saying... the cover of the liberals are all for the rights of people, when actually, just a cover to a book of a totally different party

Guy,
First of all, you don't need to "wonder" about the "Linda" who commented on your parody perhaps being the very same "Linda" who wrote a parody "ACLU" anymore. I, in fact, know t hat answer because both "Linda's" are I - I wrote the comment & the ACLU parody.

In regard to your post here about your ACUL song, the facts you presented here, are simply inaccurate. As you commented here, you seemed to deliberately "suggest" (while not really suggesting - which is sort of passive-aggressive), that I commented on your song, gave you all 555's - what ever, and then, the very next day, I, or "this Linda" posted an ACLU song "jumping on some of the same things I was on (sic) about"

First of all, shame on you, your implications and conclusions! You posted something like that without even knowing the facts first and whining about it on top of that. You are nice one moment - helpful - sweet - make me feel horrible about your past / family & cry when I see the site and all.. and then the next moment, you are beating me up like you are some authority father figure - seemingly upset over gad knows what, (maybe you felt I should have answered you sooner or learned something from you and respond - what ever - Then, nice - then - complaining about me (on one of the parodies I wrote - on the same page no less)!
What the heck?
Why would you be so downright accusatory making these statements when you could have EASILY looked them up?

You wrote your ACLU song August 25, 2003
I submitted my first parody on June 28, 2005 - a few years later -
My ACLU parody was put up on August 10, 2005
A comment on my parody page by, "Been There Done That", was posted under my parody. That poster simply wrote your ACLU parody link under his/her "Been There…" name.
The next day, I read the post from "Been There…", got curious, (being new, uncertain, not sure what that person's post meant - had an idea what it meant), and I went to the link provided by "Been There…"
I read your aclu parody and commented on it, (as it appears you read), on August 11, 2005 - plainly not the day before I wrote or submitted it - a big big difference!
CONT....

cont....
I got the idea for my - what, 7th or 8th parody ever written and the actual idea came from a trip or two to Hooters, (where my college-age daughter works). The girls there play part of the song (YMCA) and dance to it on chairs making funny motions etc That's how the song got into my head and once a song is there, it repeats over and over again until I hear another one or a TV commercial and my mind goes to that one to repeat in my head over and over. I got the idea because I was fed up with some things they were doing (the ACLU) at the time and the coverage I was seeing on them. So, I wrote the parody. At the time, I didn't know to, think to or consider looking up the YMCA song to see if others had done so, so I did not see one you wrote - what - two years before?

Secondly
You added to all that "misleading" post,
"I don't know what she is complaining about"
That's obvious! I wasn't complaining about anything you even brought up. None of it! Were you just enlightened about the aclu thing when going through your old parodies and thought to yourself "hey, I want to whine a bit - I think I will find a current parody that Linda did and people are still posting to and complain about what ever I want to make up - it's my 'cranky' accusatory mood time"?
(so fitting with your comments about peace and getting along - when you are moody and always changing like that - one moment you have a halo, the next, lecturing, the next braggin, the next all sad and stuff…
! At least the liberal democrats at this site are more stable in that regard - they don't change moods with the day, hour - whatever, they are always cranky & miserable - with you, who could guess!

then…
"She got a lot more attention and votes then (sic) mine did"
Jealous much?
So what is the deal there?
Did you see any indication that would tell you that I was "complaining" about not getting more attention and votes than you got?
Did you see any indication that I was "complaining" about anyone getting more "attention" and "votes" than others got?
I don't think so - but nevertheless - you got that whine off your shoulders at my expense, (just like at least one other time on a parody I wrote (for no apparent reason, again) n just so long as you feel good, that's the important thing huh?

Finally…
"None the less I think it was less than an original idea"

I suppose that your statement depends on what you mean by "original idea" (oh, I DO get the implications, the passive-aggressive message, but other than that…) At the time, I had never seen anyone write a parody on that song (I didn't look, but still, didn't know). If that person didn't post your link, I would not have known some guy posted the same title a couple years back either. But - now that I think about it, I would take an educated guess and assume that your idea for that connection was NOT an original idea! I don't really think you are the first person ever to come up with that connection and then I was the one who found it and (coincidently) the very next day after seeing it, ripped you off! I bet there are a lot of people who put that title on that song -- -- so what is your point, or, is there even one?

As for the part one and part two… I just noticed that one of the two were taken down from the site and I wouldn't have even noticed had I not just looked to get the dates, (knowing you were wrong, and having the (all of one moment) bit of time to verify by getting them. I still wouldn't think anything other than this was a glitch, it came off because of some confusion or something, you know, give them the benefit of the doubt here. (Sadly, I don't have a copy of the ymca 2 - the one you are referring to is ONE). But today, I know better. It probably had something that was too truthful or real for the site and it's folk here…. Why do I think that? I got the idea for my - what, 7th or 8th parody ever written and the actual idea came from a trip or two to Hooters, (where my college-age daughter works). The girls there play part of the song (YMCA) and dance to it on chairs making funny motions etc That's how the song got into my head and once a song is there, it repeats over and over again until I hear another one or a TV commercial and my mind goes to that one to repeat in my head over and over. I got the idea because I was fed up with some things they were doing (the ACLU) at the time and the coverage I was seeing on them. So, I wrote the parody. At the time, I didn't know to, think to or consider looking up the YMCA song to see if others had done so, so I did not see one you wrote - what - two years before?
cont,,,

Secondly
You added to all that "misleading" post,
"I don't know what she is complaining about"
That's obvious! I wasn't complaining about anything you even brought up. None of it! Were you just enlightened about the aclu thing when going through your old parodies and thought to yourself "hey, I want to whine a bit - I think I will find a current parody that Linda did and people are still posting to and complain about what ever I want to make up - it's my 'cranky' accusatory mood time"?
(so fitting with your comments about peace and getting along - when you are moody and always changing like that - one moment you have a halo, the next, lecturing, the next braggin, the next all sad and stuff…
! At least the liberal democrats at this site are more stable in that regard - they don't change moods with the day, hour - whatever, they are always cranky & miserable - with you, who could guess!

then…
"She got a lot more attention and votes then (sic) mine did"
Jealous much?
So what is the deal there?
Did you see any indication that would tell you that I was "complaining" about not getting more attention and votes than you got?
Did you see any indication that I was "complaining" about anyone getting more "attention" and "votes" than others got?
I don't think so - but nevertheless - you got that whine off your shoulders at my expense, (just like at least one other time on a parody I wrote (for no apparent reason, again) just so long as you feel good, that's the important thing huh?
Finally…
"None the less I think it was less than an original idea"

I suppose that your statement depends on what you mean by "original idea" (oh, I DO get the implications, the passive-aggressive message, but other than that…) At the time, I had never seen anyone write a parody on that song (I didn't look, but still, didn't know). If that person didn't post your link, I would not have known some guy posted the same title a couple years back either.
But - now that I think about it, I would take an educated guess and assume that your idea for that connection was NOT an original idea! I don't really think you are the first person ever to come up with that connection and then I was the one who found it and (coincidently) the very next day after seeing it, ripped you off! I bet there are a lot of people who put that title on that song -- -- so what is your point, or, is there even one?

As for the part one and part two… I just noticed that one of the two were taken down from the site and I wouldn't have even noticed had I not just looked to get the dates, (knowing you were wrong, and having the (all of one moment) bit of time to verify by getting them. I still wouldn't think anything other than this was a glitch, it came off because of some confusion or something, you know, give them the benefit of the doubt here. (Sadly, I don't have a copy of the ymca 2 - the one you are referring to is ONE). But today, I know better. It probably had something that was too truthful or real for the site and it's folk here…. Why do I think that?

Happily for you, you can rest better knowing that I, the person you wanted to help, then b**** about, then be nice to, then attack, then accuse etc., won't be posting any more parodies here.
It seems the site owner or staff helper - who ever - stopped taking any of my parodies in his tribute to tolerance, fairness and freedom of speech and expression!
For a couple days I have posted parodies I wrote - (kind of fun, lighter-hearted bits) - and both days, the submissions were not posted along with the others. I wrote the site's owner, or, Chucky, if he is the owner, and Chucky decided not to respond.

Linda, can you not see the irony in which you post pages and pages of comments complaining about being censored?

You also say "I DO answer all questions, only, I answer them in order" - so tell me, as I have asked before, when you have called me a liar WHERE ARE THE LIES? It's a simple enough question, it won't take a page-filling answer, just a simple quote of something I've said which can be called a lie. I'll be happy to return the favour: there are a lot in what you've posted up to now.

I would most certainly see the irony in that if it were the comments that were censored - but since it was my apparently more ‘offensive than most' parodies that were, then I don't really see the irony - okay, maybe a little - but its not the censorship, (but I am sure it would be if their programming were able to censor comments - they censor (and then lie about the reasons and give lies for examples claiming they "deleted the posts") - so I am sure they would do so in this case too.

Your question is really answered all over the place. If you didn't see the "why" or didn't understand it when I explained it, that's one thing. But I know I DID explain the fact that I am completely unmotivated in answering your questions because you cannot ask a question without being sarcastic while me questions. Yet, after I just explained that, you asked again, sarcastically so I ignored you.
You lied exactly how Red Ant did (and you've done it more than once or twice). I explained that when I posted to Michael too, and again a bit above. Red Ant, like yourself, made untrue statements simply because I didn't address or answer a comment.

Red Ant told me, "You are a hypocrite of the highest order", and, "a coward" and, "unable to think yourself” and "you 'simply' don't have any answers of your own"

""You are a hypocrite of the highest order, and that you have not addressed my comment proves you a coward as well: unless, that is, you are so unable to think for yourself that you simply don't have any answers of your own""

All untrue - all lies - and just like you do when you say things like "you can't give any examples" but rather just "rant with the same old tired lies to cover up the fact” I can't give you want you want when you want it! You wanted an answer before I had even seen your post, hadn't gotten there and was answering someone who posted before you. Since I did not cater to your needs in a timely manner (which I really didn't want to do simply because when I did see it, it wasn't a normal question, it was like all your others, a challenge marked in sarcastic crud), you choose to declare that I am a liar, I can't give examples and I cover up for the fact that I can't give examples.
- all three, lies (and not the first time), like Red Ant who said I am not capable of addressing comments, don't have answers of my own, a hypocrite of the highest order BECASUE I am UNABLE to answer HIS comments and a coward to boot!
- all four lies.
Are you happy now? - I bet you are!

A post was made by “Demoncrat” on - March 07, 2008 (clearly not from me – if one read that post, it would be clear it wasn’t from me
Red Ant, posting on March 10, 2008 – gave the threat / promise / warning – whatever, after lying about me, calling names, putting God down w/his sky fairy crud… and he says, “no more “demoncrat”
Responding in order, I posted a response to that person calling him/herself “Demoncrat” on March 11, 2008 HOWEVER, I called them “Dear Democrat” – I did NOT say “Dear Demoncrat” – (and because I read in order, didn’t even noitce Red Ant’s warning/threat, or maybe I would have pointed out the fact that clearly I didn’t post that “demoncrat” message
ON MARCH 11th in the evening, I submitted a parody, (which ALSO did not say “demoncrat “ in it, and was fairly tame and not nasty at all (for the upcoming St. Patrick’s Day) …So, clearly I was “shut up” on the 11th (and possibly the 10th)
“Demoncrat” posted anohter comment to me on March 12th (clearly not by me) (I didn’t read it until yesterday eihter) (and I had already been censored)
McKludge (also on March 12, 2008) writes to Red Ant, “A threat of censorship is EXACTLY what Linda wants to hear. It only validates in her mind that she is 100% right on everything and that us "Lib'ruls" are bent on silencing all opposition”
Red Ant posted to McKluge on March 12, -- RIGHT AFTER -- that “demoncrat” person’s post saying, “It’s not a threat, it’s a promise, one that Linda knows I’ll carry out what ever…”
Red Ant had already validated the fact that I was “100% right and “Lib’ruls” are bent on silencing all opposition” – without my using that “word” HE does like, not even seeing his posts – responding to the person who WAS using the “forbidden word” and NOT using it back to them, rather using “democrat” – He silenced me before he even wrote that response – and knew it too.

Whether it had anything to do with the person calling their self “demoncrat” or not (or even if the two postings were done to make an excuse for it all) or even whether or not I read any of this stuff prior to last night, isn’t really relevant really. The relevant thing is that I didn’t use it, hadn’t even seen Red Ant’s posts, couldn’t respond to it… did not submit or post the word and even the fact that McKluge got that response AFTER I had already been banned or silenced – (as though he didn’t know he did it, when he did), proves it. The comment dates don’t lie – the comments w/those telling dates don’t lie --- but apparently, its common here.
Bottom Line: An ultimatum was made “don’t say this or you’ll be shut up
– I did not go against it, didn’t say it - (or know about it) -
Threat / promise / ultimatum – WAS carried out anyway
And I was censored while “appearances” were showing it was a “promise”

– An HONEST answer would have been….
– “that us "Lib'ruls" ARE bent on silencing all opposition and NOT even being truthful about it – not even to each other.

Hey Linda, if you can't take a clue, then let me spell it out for you: you have been banned from AmiRight. That means ALL further comments from you will be removed, regardless of content. You won't see any more of your parodies posted here either. You've been attacking almost everyone here for over 2.5 years, and we've had enough of it. I'm not even bothering to read your tripe above.

Can't say I'm surprised to see this happen. This is supposed to be a humorous parody site, or if not humorous, at least artistic. Unfortunately, Linda's parodies did nothing but instigate divisive name calling. I don't know who started it, and I don't care. All Liberals are NOT bent on silencing opposition. Red Ant decided for his own reasons to not allow Linda to continue posting here. That's all. Linda is not all Republicans and Red Ant is not all Democrats.

It is just as wrong for a Republican to think that all Democrats are pot-smoking, Barbara Streisand-listening fairies who, while killing babies, are also plotting to steal you tax dollars to pay for combination welfare center/movie theaters on every street corner that will show Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Michael Moore movies 24 hours a day (Dead Man Walking, Tim *directs* Susan!) as it is for a Democrat to think all Republicans are assault-rifle toting corporate board members who spend all day in their hot tubs filled with light sweet crude plotting the demise of the black man in America with their trophy wife on one arm and their secret gay bondage master on the other (your safe word is "Halliburton").

Good post, McKludge. Despite Linda's continued assertions that I am a Democrat, I have voted Republican several times on local and state levels, even including voting for Bush in 2000 (oh, the shame...). I'm not a Democrat, rather Independant leaning toward Libertarian.

My own political views aside, Linda's (as well as everyone else's) comments fall within my domain as a website editor. They have for over two years (I volunteered for spam control when spam was a major issue on this site: lucky me!!!). 99.99% of the time, no one here has anything to worry about as far as that goes. I have never received a complaint about my removing inappropriate comments during all that time. Aside from Linda, I can't think of another author here whose comments I have removed.

I am extremely anti-censorship, but I consider this place a "home away from home", if you will. That said, I do not allow any "personal attack" comments, just as I do not allow anyone to spread lies, untruths and hate in my home. If someone wants to slam a parody (even one of mine =) ), it's fine by me. Repeatedly slamming other authors is not.

My last comment to Linda probably was over the line, but responding to her in any other fashion (by anyone, even the 'right wing' here) has yeilded zero results in the past 30 MONTHS.

I do not silence opposition, but I will not idly stand by while one author continues to attack virtually everyone who comments under his/her parodies, even those who are 'on her side', and the same would be the case for any other author.

The decision to not accept any more of Linda's parodies was ChuckyG's: I do not have any input or control over that aspect of the site (nor would I want it).

I'm never happy when I have to make a decision like this, but Linda is free to post her parodies and comments elsewhere on the 'net.

I am disappointed in the decision to prevent Linda Terhune from being a part of AmIRight in the future. Yes, she got carried away from time to time, but I thought a lot of her parodies and comments brought insight and balance to the site. If readers don't like or agree with her comments or parodies, they are free to ignore them; but many readers seem to have a hard time ignoring her.

I like and respect both Chucky G and Red Ant, and I acknowledge that this is Chucky G's site, so he can run it as he thinks appropriate. But I will miss the contributions of Linda Terhune.

I can see why Red Ant's finally lost patience with you: when I asked repeatedly where I had lied when you called me a liar, you quote more about what he said than what I did. It seems that the only complaint you actually have about what I said is when I you were coming up with "the same old lies" - a statement which is completely true: Clinton a rapist, Democrats being pagan baby-killers (even describing them as "Socialist" is either intentional lying or simply ignorance about what socialism actually is).

You use some of the most abusive language of anyone on this site, yet you take exception to the slightest lack of respect from others. You repeatedly call others bad names, then cry foul when they return the compliment... Red Ant was quite correct when he said "you are a hypocrite of the highest order"

PS To return to my original question: using Reagan as an example of an intelligent Republican says it all (but at least he could read an autocue).. Nixon may well have been bright, but his last election was when I was two years old, so as I said: in the last 25 years, who has there been?

What JJ said - all of it. I'm disappointed.

I have no problem with censoring or deleting parts of Linda's posts when she is proved factually wrong. The First Amendment was designed to protect Linda, Me, Guy, Michael, Pat Buchanon, Rev. Wright and even Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Linda, I think you're crazy and politically and philosophically wrong - and you probably think the same of me. But I wouldn't want my speech censored and I don't want yours censored either - I support your your right to post. Did I miss something? bob

To all concerned about Linda's ban, please see this topic:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=31588.0

Thank you.

John Jenkins and
Robert J. Pagliaro - I appreciate both of your posts & admire your character more than you know. I was (am) fine with this, well, up until I read your posts, which actually made me cry (?).

JJ – It is true, I do get carried away – that’s what happens I suppose when I become too passionate about things, which I obvisouly tend to do w/politics. I will miss reading your contributions and well.

Robert, I know you think I’m crazy & politically / philosophically wrong – (it’s all good), but I don’t think you are at all crazy – and your politically / philosophically is not “really” wrong, it’s just yours & shows you are passionate about your beliefs, which is a good thing and much better than not be passionate about your country! …

Red Ant – let Chucky know that I understand. Its his own personal website I am sure he pays to run it, re-register his domain name, have it hosted, etc., and I would imagine that it would suck a whole lot to first, allow someone to write on it who you do not agree with – yet, still allow them to write on your site, (which in all honestly, in the same circumstances, I am not even sure I could do myself) and second, have a person on your personal site that was not respecting it on top of that – so honestly, you are a bigger person than I am and your efforts here with your whole program are commendable. –

And also, Red Ant, although the link to the message board site is a place your feel more comfortable about posting in – the board is searchable in Google – and I would appreciate it if you to edit your post there to remove my last name. I think you can agree that using it is not really necessary or a vital part of your message, (or anyone else’s messages). The post there, if you think about it, are not totally fair since I cannot respond – and again, to be honest, it makes me feel helpless and defenseless at the same time, (often what I really felt in here believe it or not)

Finally, I DID SEE that you said / wrote, “not” to post or submit again and I DID SEE (and understand) that you promised they would be deleted. I am sorry that I could not help myself this last time (and I know you know me well enough to believe that much about me) -– but sincerely, I know it’s not respectful of your wishes -- but I REALLY REALLY did not want to just disappear without saying those things to JJ & Robert, you and Chucky & make the “request” (not demand) about my last name being used on the message board.
Take in to consideration that I did not respond in any negative way, I didn’t respond (or more like “react”) to any of the other posts recently written in here (or respond in here regarding those posts on the message board) – even though I did not see them as necessary and more still, was very hurt by them, – (the add-on posts were sort of like having people add salt to an open wound, (as I bet you could probably imagine if you read while putting yourself in my shoes)
- and still, I didn’t get negative, didn’t defend or be defensive (a good thing, right).

n So in that light – if you could let it count for something, could it be that you wait to delete this posts OR at least pass my message on to those I addressed in it (and consider my request last name thing)?

And maybe it is too late to make a personal difference (being after the fact and all), but better late than never ever at all --- honestly, I am sorry for the disrespect to the site that has allowed me to learn something totally new & then allow me to post those things – it was a fun learn.
(sorry, but there is more...cont..)

(cont from above - the last last one!)

I am also sorry for my over-board / out of line posts, (but not my personal beliefs :).

In the “real-world” I am actually very sensitive, get along well with everyone I know, (both sides too) and regardless of how I was personally feeling or what others said or did not say, yada yada (water under the bridge), I am not that person and I did not need to take part in doing what I did not want to be done to me. – and in real life, I actually do know that – but with a faceless internet person, I guess for some reason, I am not the same person. I want you all to know that, even though I am not here, it is still important you know that.

I have a lot to learn, especially when it comes to getting so overly passionate, or crazy (as some would say here), with an entire topic that in reality, I have so little control over as a person – it is counter-productive to be that crazed – emotionally and physically and as shown, personally (even if online with faceless names… we are all still people – we all have importance, we all have feelings and we all deserve respect.)

Okay, hey - gotta run – this is killing me at this very moment and – it is too late in the evening to be this upset.

Sooo… if nothing else, the experience kept me ON MY TOES, there were many of you much of the time – sometimes feeling like an animal who’s been cornered & got defensive – my toes got TOO high off the ground –(if you know what I mean).. I need to learn to breathe, be real about what I am really feeling, (not the cover-feeling of rage, venom etc that I showed so no one would be able to tell they were getting to me or hurting me – I think they call that pride)
– and maybe next time in the next place, (if I can bring myself to go through this again, ever) , I’ll play my cards differently and take those things I learned here with me

Thank you to anyone who sees this before it goes, I’m a better person for being here – whether we got along or didn’t
(and Michael P – truth to you too – with less personal attacks than some others – you were more one to present your facts and ‘strong’ opinions on the topics, not a whole lot on telling me anything personal –you know - it was actually sort of fun “back then” when you would debate – very entertaining – you were the first memory in all that stuff --- and even “some what” nice then about my non-political parodies – so ABSOLUTELY no hard feeling)

(HEY, IT’S MY LAST POST – I HAVE TO BE TRUE TO MY NATURE AND POST LONG STUFF – AT LEAST I GOT THE PARAGRAPH THING DOWN FIRST! = SORRY - I MEANT WELL, I "HONEST To GOODNESS REALLY DID MEAN FOR THIS TO BE REALLY SHORT, LIKE THREE LINES OR SO AND SO SUPER SHORT WHEN I STARTED TO WRITE IT)

-- And with that I’ll say, (?) - Peace – bye!

Is linkis Linda Terhune under a different name? Should check to see if the IP addresses match up. Ah well, R.I.P. Linda T (or linkis)

Just for the record, despite vehement disagreement with her political beliefs, eye-rolling disbelief at her intemperate and interminable expressions of same in comment areas, a firm conviction that parodies should be written and trusted to deliver any embedded “message” unaided by long-winded preface and postscript, and despite her displeased (and defective because deflective) reception of my own comments to this particular parody—my first to any of hers, prompted both by its merit qua parody and by its remarkable appearance as more than merely parenthetical within its presentation context--unless it culminates a series of flouted fair warnings from our site host, LT’s summary banishment also disappoints me. Still, despite amiright's (surely) left-of-Linda constituency here, the breadth of parody/commentary _content_, political and otherwise, that regularly survives the censorial guillotine utterly convinces me that said banishment is no 1st Amendment matter, but a "behavioral" one related to LT's evidently incorrigible misuse of the parody pages as a forum, habitually treating her parodies, per se, as if merely boilerplate inconveniently mandated for thread-openings.

Assuming it actually appears today, folks who read my most recent “Pinball Wizard” parody may doubt my postscriptive claim that it’s actually self-referential. Whether or not any such supposition’s correct—I’ll not say, as I do believe in letting parodies speak for themselves—it’s a humorously-offered parody, and I think also fair and reasonably accurate based on amiright-viewable evidence.

LT – Tho’ surely you don’t give the proverbial rat’s rump _what_ I think, and despite that you would hate how I _say_ what I think, and even despite that I’d be unlikely to read or remark much of what you might say in future, I’m sorry to see you go. Clearly you’ve afforded much good and/or bad fun to many amirighters.

So what can we do to unban her? I just hate to lose her ideologicaly incorrect voice - a good percentage of the country happens to agree with her.

I may never learn anything from her but can I have the opportunity?

"All bob is saying is give her a chance" Thanks bob

Just want to make a comment on her abortion stance, that she shouldn't have to pay tax dollars for things she's against. . .I agree, end capital punishment and life time probation terms for drug offenses too though--or the three strike rules, I'm against those and my tax dollars are paying for them. Oh and the IRS audits, I'm against that too.

Well, RJP, I must demur a wee bit ... it's the _bad_ percentage of the country that "happens to agree with" LT's "ideologially incorrect" voice. :-)
Still, as you'll note from my comment just preceding your own, I wouldn't have LT banned, just maybe requested by to try a little terseness on the explanatory test on entry/exit. :-)

I definitely agree with Robert J. Pagliaro about "unbanning" Linda, but it might be appropriate that our final memory of Linda on AmIRight is the farewell addresses of linkis above. Very open-minded, very understanding, and very well expressed.

Red Ant, I commend you for being flexible and allowing the linkis comments to remain and for promptly editing the Messageboard.

JJ - hopefully not final memory. Agreed with respect to your assessment of Ms. Terhune's post - and, I believe, the real Linda. (I like that Linda.)

Linda, I apologize as I thought that I had responded to your last post(s).

Thank you for your kind words.

You're at your best when you express yourself from the heart; and your gender could help unseat JJ & Guy as my favorite wing-nuts. (Ha - I also knew that you were probably as sensitive as I am).

I love the "linkis" Linda - does she have a sister in NYC? bob

The song says it all, and fairly well. Just wanted to let you know that the ACTUAL smartest people in the country are still Conservative Republicans, not superficial populists like Obama. Still, I give him credit for his well-deserved dissing of Hillary ;-) We all miss you, Gipper!

Don - haha. So you would categorize George Bush as one of the ACTUAL smartest people in the country? Well here's a clue - the less than majority of voters who (s)elected Dumb-ya are the ACTUAL dumbest people in the country. Kool aid, kool aid, can't wait. Wish we had some, tastes great. Keep on drinkin' there Donnie boy.