Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[dtb]

So someone just sent me a photo that this board would probably find amusing (everyone -- not just righties or lefties). My question: it wasn't an internet "properties" picture, but it was sent by Microsoft Photo Editor or something. Anyway, if I save it to my computer and then post it here, could some unscrupulous person (not that there are any such people here, of course) find out where I am by looking at the source or whatever? (My computer-speak is woeful.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by dtb
So someone just sent me a photo that this board would probably find amusing (everyone -- not just righties or lefties). My question: it wasn't an internet "properties" picture, but it was sent by Microsoft Photo Editor or something. Anyway, if I save it to my computer and then post it here, could some unscrupulous person (not that there are any such people here, of course) find out where I am by looking at the source or whatever? (My computer-speak is woeful.)

Send it to me and I can post it onto our server.

replacedtexan at hotmail dot com

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by dtb
So someone just sent me a photo that this board would probably find amusing (everyone -- not just righties or lefties). My question: it wasn't an internet "properties" picture, but it was sent by Microsoft Photo Editor or something. Anyway, if I save it to my computer and then post it here, could some unscrupulous person (not that there are any such people here, of course) find out where I am by looking at the source or whatever? (My computer-speak is woeful.)

Unlikely. There may be hypertext that tells you something about where the file was created, but it is unlikely that your office's system would add anything to an image file that would indicate where you are.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Send it to me and I can post it onto our server.

replacedtexan at hotmail dot com

Done.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by dtb
So someone just sent me a photo that this board would probably find amusing (everyone -- not just righties or lefties).

Anything's possible, of course, but of course you realize that this little statement has raised expectations to an almost unattainable level. If it doesn't contain JFK or THK doing something anatomically improbable, expect Hank, Slave et al to give it the big razzberry.

In other news, I note an interesting article from Slate making the argument that the Supremes won't be deciding the election this year, largely because the Supes are scared shitless of having to deal with the issue again, and because political mechanisms do exist to resolve problems. Those mechanisms usually inure to the benefit of Republicans, so there's hope in Bushland.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In other news, I note an interesting article from Slate making the argument that the Supremes won't be deciding the election this year, largely because the Supes are scared shitless of having to deal with the issue again, and because political mechanisms do exist to resolve problems.

I'm really hoping for a blowout, either way. We really don't need another court-decided election here.

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
When did you become such a little bitch? Stewart hasn't changed. He's been the same since day one on the Daily Show. They brought him on Crossfire and he kicked their ass.

Did you watch the same show? The unfunny Stewart hijacked their show with his pathetic whines and sounded like a pedantic schmuck.

They didn't address his accusations once.

What accusations? That a decades-old show [that the ratings will show, no one watches anymore] has ruined the political discourse in this country? Why would anyone bother answering it - it's a ludicrous statement. Especially coming from someone who's makes a bundle on mocking the political process.

And for them and you to hold him to the same standard as everyone should be holding them is outright stupid.

Actually, if you think that all three of them somehow aren't in the same business, then you're the one who is being stupid.

And if you can't admit that Tucker Carlson is a dick who needs a good ass kicking (from any junior high school girl), then I can't believe you when you say that Paigow wasn't the best you could do.

Funny that Stewart chose not to personally attack Begala, wasn't it?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Funny that Stewart chose not to personally attack Begala, wasn't it?

My guess is the bow tie sent him over the edge.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My guess is the bow tie sent him over the edge.

Begala (I never watch the show -- maybe he's a dick too) wasn't the one attacking Stewart and saying how little fun it was going to be to have dinner with him (or something like that).

Also, after the show, Tucker Carlson himself admitted that he was a dick a lot of the time.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by dtb
Also, after the show, Tucker Carlson himself admitted that he was a dick a lot of the time.

I've only watched that once, but isn't the whole point of the show that they become partisan dicks and thrash surface stuff out?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/art...ing%20Standard

Unbelievable.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've only watched that once, but isn't the whole point of the show that they become partisan dicks

Kinda like here.

Originally posted by bilmore
and thrash surface stuff out?

Except for this little part.

[dtb]

Here's the photo:

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In other news, I note an interesting article from Slate making the argument that the Supremes won't be deciding the election this year, largely because the Supes are scared shitless of having to deal with the issue again, and because political mechanisms do exist to resolve problems. Those mechanisms usually inure to the benefit of Republicans, so there's hope in Bushland.

Not sure I buy the logic here. There are several small statements I disagree with (for example, that the Court was surprised at the blowback over their Bush v. Gore decision, and that the Court utterly eviscerated the precedential value of Bush v. Gore). They all add up, though, to a very different view of these justices. I don't think they are at all frightened of wading into electoral controversy, and I think many view the controversy over Bush v. Gore as relative minor in comparison to many other controversies. The Florida elections are not the same minefield as abortion, for example.

But, here's a different thought -- given the way the votes came out last time, would there be a bias this time in the court toward Kerry? After all, it is a very different thing to decide the election twice in four years for the same person than to decide the election twice while promulgating consistent rules in a non-partisan fashion. If they decide for Kerry, it would cut a lot of the criticism from last time around that it was a results driven decision (of course, it would do so by being results driven...)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by dtb
Here's the photo:

I thought it was established that she didn't swallow.