PDA

View Full Version : General Politics WH admits using tax dollars to send spam emails on HC reform


mlyonsd
08-22-2009, 12:13 PM
White House Reveals Identity of Firm That Sent Unsolicited E-Mails on Health Reform

The White House revealed to FOX News that it hired a private communications firm to distribute mass e-mails, including unsolicited spam to help sell President Obama's health care plan.


FOXNews.com
Saturday, August 22, 2009

The White House hired a private communications company based in Minnesota to distribute mass e-mails, helping to shed light on how some recipients received e-mails in support of President Obama's health care plan without signing up for them, FOX News has learned.

The company, Govdelivery, describes itself as the world's leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides a fully-automated on-demand public communication system.

It is still unknown how much taxpayer money the White House provides to Govdelivery for its services.

Click here to view Govdelivery's Web site. (http://www.govdelivery.com/)

The revelation comes after the White House acknowledged this week that people were receiving unsolicited e-mails from the administration about health care reform and suggested the problem was with third-party groups that placed the recipients' names on the distribution list.

Govdelivery sent hundreds of e-mails from senior adviser David Axelrod asking supporters to help rebut criticism of Obama's health care plan circulating on the Internet. It also sent e-mails highlighting Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and the announcement of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court nominee.

Several FOX News viewers complained they received these e-mails even though they had never requested any communication from the White House.

On Monday, the White House implemented several new changes to its Web site, apparently aimed at reducing the number of people who receive unsolicited e-mails and at fighting charges that it's collecting personal information on critics.

The White House also pulled the plug on a controversial e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov, that was established for supporters to report "fishy" information about health care reform.

Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union told FOX News that if the White House used the private firm, it's the same as if it had sent the e-mails.

The White House insists that Govdelivery aggregates nothing and plays no role in the formation of its e-mail list; it is merely an end-product e-mail distributor.

Govdelivery does extensive work with a bevy of federal, state, and local agencies, including 11 Cabinet-level departments such as Defense, State, and Justice. Among the tasks Govdelivery performs are FBI internal e-mails and external regional crime alerts, and FEMA hurricane or other natural disaster alerts.

In fact, before Jan. 1, Govdelivery handled 85 percent of mass e-mail deliveries for federal agencies.

The White House said it hired Govdelivery based on its performance with those agencies. The company was hired after Jan. 1 but before Obama took office on Jan. 20, the White House said.

The White House notes that Govdelivery also handles mass e-mails for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, both Republicans.
Earlier this week, Govdelivery's president, Scott Burns, declined to comment to FOX News on whether the White House had used his firm to send out the Axelrod e-mails.

FOX News' Major Garrett and Eric Shawn contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/white-house-reveals-identity-firm-sent-unsolicited-e-mails-health-reform/

kcfanXIII
08-22-2009, 12:17 PM
your tax dollars at work.... jesus, can i get a fucking refund already?

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 12:47 PM
Its so out of control, this guy is slime.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-22-2009, 12:47 PM
Pay to be propagandized, it's a beautiful thing that we have people being thrown out on the streets because they weren't bailed out but we can keep hitting them with the love from the WH.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 12:47 PM
In fact, before Jan. 1, Govdelivery handled 85 percent of mass e-mail deliveries for federal agencies.

Can somebody explain the outrage? I'll bet this is cheaper than taking out 60 second spots on the networks.

Jexsus Christ, this is HCF level stupidity.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 12:57 PM
Can somebody explain the outrage? I'll bet this is cheaper than taking out 60 second spots on the networks.

Jexsus Christ, this is HCF level stupidity.

So you think tax dollars should be spent ny the white house to advertise their positions?

BucEyedPea
08-22-2009, 01:00 PM
That's against the law. It violates the Can-Spam Act. If private businesses get in trouble for using spam then impeach the WH NOW!

orange
08-22-2009, 01:13 PM
This story is really a followup. The main story is here:


E-Mailers Contacted by White House Through Variety of Online Services

The White House tells FOX News that third-party groups sending online petitions to the official administration Web site could be to blame for a rash of e-mails that have gone out to people who never requested them. But online petitions are not the only culprit, and critics say the White House still has some more explaining to do.
FOXNews.com
Monday, August 17, 2009

Third-party groups and their online petitions might not be the only reason people across the country received unsolicited e-mails from the White House, even though that's the explanation given by the administration.

The White House told FOX News that third-party groups sending online petitions to the official administration Web site could be to blame for a rash of e-mails that have gone out to people who never requested them. The theory is that these groups are including the names and e-mails of members and petition-signers along with the petitions themselves, in turn embedding those e-mails into the White House distribution list.

The White House has already taken steps to add filters to its site in a bid to reduce the number of people who are receiving these e-mails.

But online petitions are not the only culprit, and critics say the White House still has some explaining to do.

Several people who received the White House e-mails have told FOX News they're not members of any organization and have not been advocating for any cause. And they're puzzled over how the White House got their information.

"I find it very disturbing and a little scary to say the least," said Sarah Griffith, who got a widely circulated e-mail on health care reform from senior adviser David Axelrod last week. "I have no idea how they got my e-mail address, and they have it."

Griffith, who works for the American Association of Christian Schools in Washington, D.C., said she got the e-mail in her office account even though she's careful not to use her work e-mail for anything that's not office related. She said she has submitted questions through the Whitehouse.gov Web site using her personal e-mail address, but those questions were never answered. She said she never signed up for any updates or petitions with any group.

Despite the Axelrod e-mail arriving in her office inbox, she said other employees at the organization did not receive the same message. And the association apparently never sent any employee information to the White House either.

Anita Donaldson, a stay-at-home mom in Arlington, Va., told FOXNews.com she's received a slew of unwanted e-mails from the White House on everything from health care reform to Father's Day ever since she sent some e-mails to Washington via the FreedomWorks Web site.

That was not a petition, though. And it was not sent directly through the White House page. She sent the messages, protesting the stimulus package and other proposals, through one of many "action alerts" featured on the FreedomWorks page. The pages allow readers to submit comments to the White House and other government officials through an application called Capwiz.

"Apparently it has put me on some mailing list," Donaldson said. "I get fairly frequent e-mails on a variety of subjects. ... One was even from Michelle Obama herself."

She added: "I just delete it."

CapWiz, owned by Capitol Advantage, is a widely-used online service that sets up a line of communication between everyday people and officials.

But a company representative said the program does not automatically sign up people for e-mails from the office they're contacting.

There's also the lingering concern that the Obama team, which during the campaign ran what was arguably the most sophisticated online political operation in history, is somehow complicit in lumping together its official distribution lists with those of outside groups.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote in a letter Monday to White House Counsel Greg Craig that he wants to obtain the "full truth" behind the e-mails.

He said reports that people received the Axelrod e-mail without having contacted the White House raise concerns that "political e-mail address lists are being used for official purposes."

Another e-mail recipient, Lisa Kaldrupt of Maine, told FOX News her Axelrod e-mail was sent by a company called GovDelivery. That company, based in Minnesota, bills itself as the world's leading provider of government-to-citizen communication solutions and says its e-mail service provides an automated, on-demand public communication system.

GovDelivery does extensive work with a bevy of federal, state and local agencies, including a number of Cabinet-level departments.

But Scott Burns, president of the company, told FOX News he had no comment on whether the White House used his firm to send out the Axelrod e-mails.

Following the controversy over the e-mails, the White House has added two new filter devices to its "Contact Us" section on its Web site, which could reduce the number of people who receive e-mails unsolicited.

Now, anybody who fills out a comment on that section must uncheck a box that says, "sign up to get e-mail updates." The box is automatically checked when the page loads, so commenters must take an action to uncheck it.

Anyone submitting a comment now also must type in two words that appear on the page in a strange font -- a security step similar to one that appears on many commercial Web sites.

In a written statement released to FOX News Sunday, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the White House is working to correct the problem.

"We are implementing measures to make subscribing to e-mails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individuals' behalf," he said.

The White House indicated its Web site managers were going to seek out and block online petitions so that people can only sign up for information individually.

White House officials say they're not intentionally trying to contact people who don't want to be contacted, and they don't want the controversy to deepen.

But Scott Stanzel, former spokesman for President George W. Bush, said the White House, and not advocacy groups, are to blame.

"The Obama White House developed their own Web site. They are in charge of Whitehouse.gov and what people do on there. They are responsible for monitoring that and they are responsible for making sure that people can't misuse Whitehouse.gov," he said. "On that point, they failed.
From that respect, the explanation is not thorough and, in my view, places blame where it shouldn't be. They should be looking in the mirror instead of pointing the finger at third parties."

Shapiro said Sunday that any recipients who got unwanted e-mails can unsubscribe "by clicking the link at the bottom of the e-mail or (telling) whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore."

FOX News' Major Garrett, Shannon Bream and Eric Shawn and FOXNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/questions-remain-unsolicited-white-house-e-mails/

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:15 PM
So you think tax dollars should be spent ny the white house to advertise their positions?

I get emails from my Representatives monthly. Spam like emails. I haven't actually received one from the White House. (Prolly won't send me one since I vote for Ron Paul).

But I have zero problem with it. Like I say, it's cheaper than TV spots.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2009, 01:17 PM
I get emails from my Representatives monthly. Spam like emails. I haven't actually received one from the White House. (Prolly won't send me one since I vote for Ron Paul).

But I have zero problem with it. Like I say, it's cheaper than TV spots.

Not even if its illegal. You have to have given them your email for them to send you anything. How many people give the WH their emails?

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:18 PM
That's against the law. It violates the Can-Spam Act. If private businesses get in trouble for using spam then impeach the WH NOW!

The CAN-SPAM Act is commonly referred to by anti-spam activists as the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act because the bill does not require e-mailers to get permission before they send marketing messages.[3] It also prevents states from enacting stronger anti-spam protections, and prohibits individuals who receive spam from suing spammers. The Act has been largely unenforced,[4] despite a letter to the FTC from Senator Burns, who noted that "Enforcement is key regarding the CAN-SPAM legislation." In 2004 less than 1% of spam complied with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

Alright! Another law enacted that's unenforced.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 01:18 PM
I get emails from my Representatives monthly. Spam like emails. I haven't actually received one from the White House. (Prolly won't send me one since I vote for Ron Paul).

But I have zero problem with it. Like I say, it's cheaper than TV spots.

The anti-spam laws aside I tend to agree. We pay to fire up Air Force One all the time. But it is kind of slimey and something that would have prompted ten new threads by Jaz if it were the Bush White House pimping out the Iraq War via unsolicited e-mails.

But double-standards are par for the political course...

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:19 PM
Not even if its illegal. You have to have given them your email for them to send you anything. How many people give the WH their emails?

Spam emails are sent every day by every possible business. You know what I do with them? I ignore them/delete them.

The law has no teeth because it's unenforceable.

orange
08-22-2009, 01:20 PM
Alright! Another law enacted that's unenforced.

And is completely inapplicable here in any case.

This is not "commercial email."

banyon
08-22-2009, 01:21 PM
That's against the law. It violates the Can-Spam Act. If private businesses get in trouble for using spam then impeach the WH NOW!

No it's not. The act only covers commercial (for-profit) emails.

Also, it's pretty stupid to auggest that it's illegal for a government to make contact with its citizens.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 01:21 PM
Not even if its illegal. You have to have given them your email for them to send you anything. How many people give the WH their emails?

This coming on the heels of the request for people to turn in others who have "fishy" information doesn't help either. But I have to believe that even if illegal a court would be hard-pressed to push something that happened over a short period of time. The political egg they've had thrown at them for their stupid tactics vis-a-vis health care is punishment enough. :)

BucEyedPea
08-22-2009, 01:21 PM
Alright! Another law enacted that's unenforced.

Harvesting of emails from other people's lists or other sources is illegal too.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 01:22 PM
I get emails from my Representatives monthly. Spam like emails. I haven't actually received one from the White House. (Prolly won't send me one since I vote for Ron Paul).

But I have zero problem with it. Like I say, it's cheaper than TV spots.

and you dont distinguish spam emails from White house from a rep sending a letter or newsletter to you at your request.

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 01:23 PM
No it's not. The act only covers commercial (for-profit) emails.

Also, it's pretty stupid to auggest that it's illegal for a government to make contact with its citizens.

If true, there you go.

I'm sure they wish they hadn't gone down the fishy e-mail/spam route anyway...politically it didn't gain them anything and played into an unfortunate stereotype that government shouldn't be trusted at the same time they're trying to persuade people that government should be trusted...

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 01:23 PM
How will the Directorate of Propoganda and High Minister Gibbs explain this...and apologize to Major Garrett?

banyon
08-22-2009, 01:25 PM
Harvesting of emails from other people's lists or other sources is illegal too.

Where, what law?

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:25 PM
She added: "I just delete it."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/17/questions-remain-unsolicited-white-house-e-mails/[/INDENT][/INDENT]

Like most reasonable people would.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:28 PM
and you dont distinguish spam emails from White house from a rep sending a letter or newsletter to you at your request.


In what way should I distinguish a spam email from my rep from a spam email from the WH?

The only thing that would distinguish them among my emails is they would both be deleted. Distinguishing enough?

mlyonsd
08-22-2009, 01:30 PM
Where, what law?

I'm sure it's not against the law seeing as our guy is such a distinguished Harvard grad and all. I'm sure he'd know better.

I just started the thread to point out where our tax dollars are going.

banyon
08-22-2009, 01:32 PM
If true, there you go.

I'm sure they wish they hadn't gone down the fishy e-mail/spam route anyway...politically it didn't gain them anything and played into an unfortunate stereotype that government shouldn't be trusted at the same time they're trying to persuade people that government should be trusted...

4) PROHIBITION OF TRANSMISSION OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL AFTER OBJECTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- If a recipient makes a request using a mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive some or any commercial electronic mail messages from such sender, then it is unlawful--

(i) for the sender to initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than 10 business days after the receipt of such request, of a commercial electronic mail message that falls within the scope of the request;

(ii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than 10 business days after the receipt of such request, of a commercial electronic mail message with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that such message falls within the scope of the request;

(iii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to assist in initiating the transmission to the recipient, through the provision or selection of addresses to which the message will be sent, of a commercial electronic mail message with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that such message would violate clause (i) or (ii); or

(iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows that the recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient (including through any transaction or other transfer involving mailing lists bearing the electronic mail address of the recipient) for any purpose other than compliance with this Act or other provision of law...

...- The term `commercial electronic mail message' means any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).


http://www.legalarchiver.org/cs.htm

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 01:34 PM
How will the Directorate of Propoganda and High Minister Gibbs explain this...and apologize to Major Garrett?

Can somebody call HCF's myelin sheaths and ask them to contact an oligodendrocyte and have that contact a neuron and ask that neuron what the above post is supposed to mean?

RINGLEADER
08-22-2009, 02:24 PM
4) PROHIBITION OF TRANSMISSION OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL AFTER OBJECTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- If a recipient makes a request using a mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive some or any commercial electronic mail messages from such sender, then it is unlawful--

(i) for the sender to initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than 10 business days after the receipt of such request, of a commercial electronic mail message that falls within the scope of the request;

(ii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to initiate the transmission to the recipient, more than 10 business days after the receipt of such request, of a commercial electronic mail message with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that such message falls within the scope of the request;

(iii) for any person acting on behalf of the sender to assist in initiating the transmission to the recipient, through the provision or selection of addresses to which the message will be sent, of a commercial electronic mail message with actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that such message would violate clause (i) or (ii); or

(iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows that the recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient (including through any transaction or other transfer involving mailing lists bearing the electronic mail address of the recipient) for any purpose other than compliance with this Act or other provision of law...

...- The term `commercial electronic mail message' means any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).


http://www.legalarchiver.org/cs.htm


OK.

I don't care enough to debate if it was right and wrong and frankly think it hurts Obamacare to employ these tactics -- so I'm glad they're doing it.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2009, 02:29 PM
OK.

I don't care enough to debate if it was right and wrong and frankly think it hurts Obamacare to employ these tactics -- so I'm glad they're doing it.

See, you are screwed. You operate on a right vs wrong view. The left sees no such thing, the end justifies the means and everything is done in gray areas with that smarmy lawyer approach to always having wiggle room.

banyon
08-22-2009, 02:39 PM
See, you are screwed. You operate on a right vs wrong view. The left sees no such thing, the end justifies the means and everything is done in gray areas with that smarmy lawyer approach to always having wiggle room.

He agreed that what I was saying was right. I don't know what more I can do than to cite the actual law that was being argued about. Somehow that's "wiggle room" in your addled brain, but don't let that stop you from being douch-ey about it.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 02:57 PM
See, you are screwed. You operate on a right vs wrong view. The left sees no such thing, the end justifies the means and everything is done in gray areas with that smarmy lawyer approach to always having wiggle room.

People from both sides would have a shred of respect for you if you just admitted that you're a hack on these issues. You have all the smarts of Rex and martyr complex of mecca.

Not a good combination.

Simplex3
08-22-2009, 07:00 PM
No it's not. The act only covers commercial (for-profit) emails.

True, and if anything is obvious by now it's that government always operates for-loss, not for-profit.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2009, 07:39 PM
OK.

I don't care enough to debate if it was right and wrong and frankly think it hurts Obamacare to employ these tactics -- so I'm glad they're doing it.

He's wrong. I was talking about email harvesting for how the WH may have got those names—from others who didn't give out their email addys.

See here:

Third, the Act defines certain practices, such as e-mail address “harvesting” and “dictionary attacks” as aggravated violations.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/03/canspam.shtm


Now, let's look at what the WH was actually doing:
They were advertising or promoting the govt delivering health insurance....aka trying to sell it to those people and have us pay for it through taxes ( as well as more debt and inflation). The govt is not Constitutionally authorized to be involved in such a commercial activity or to provide such a good/service whether it runs into the ground without a profit or not. The word commercial stemming from the word "commerce" which implies an exchange going on.

It's pretty obvious it was commercial emails. Still, I was talking about getting addys from people who did not give them to the WH aka harvesting emails.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 07:44 PM
Can somebody explain the outrage? I'll bet this is cheaper than taking out 60 second spots on the networks.

Jexsus Christ, this is HCF level stupidity.

Just pull David Axelrod's pants down and get it over with. Bill.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 08:29 PM
Chairman obama is a liar...

he said he would not have any lobbyists in his administration- LIE

he said he would be transparent- LIE

he said he would have the most ethical administration of all time (just like Slick Willie)-LIE

he said he would be bipartisan- LIE

There is no such thing as honest debate from chairman obama- it's just an empty term thrown around by the jackass (just words, just words)

There is no debate, just "Let's collect the names of Americans who disagree with us and spam the nation with e-mails"...


in less than seven months this sad, evil piece of shit has been outted as a complete fraud, and has lost the nation.

Only 3 years and 5 months to go.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Just pull David Axelrod's pants down and get it over with. Bill.

Hey, look who made it back!

Get a job yet you parasite?

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 10:59 PM
Hey, look who made it back!

Get a job yet you parasite?

Get on your knees. Bill.

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/images/2008/03/05/david_axelrod.jpg

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Get on your knees. Bill.

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/images/2008/03/05/david_axelrod.jpg

So tell us what you're doing for employment these days, Mr. Leechsprayer? Find anything yet, you bum? Or are you still sucking at the teat of the state?

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:09 PM
So tell us what you're doing for employment these days, Mr. Leechsprayer? Find anything yet, you bum? Or are you still sucking at the teat of the state?

Axelrod hung? Bill?

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:12 PM
Axelrod hung? Bill?

Still hung up on homosexuality? Dude, I can't help you out. Maybe you could put that secret to work for you in AC?

It'll get you off the state's teat.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:21 PM
Still hung up on homosexuality? Dude, I can't help you out. Maybe you could put that secret to work for you in AC?

It'll get you off the state's teat.

Why are you so angry? Bill?

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2009, 11:23 PM
Why are you so angry? Bill?

Angry? The implication or your rhetoric and sig....tell us who the real hate-monger here is.

If you can't win an election, an 11 cent bullet or two, will serve your purpose as better...eh?

What a fuggin' P.O.S.

Holy fugg...that sig sends you into a new realm here. Congrats on that, you stupid sorry fugg. :shake:

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:24 PM
Angry? The implication or your rhetoric and sig....tell us who the real hate-monger here is.

If you can't win an election, an 11 cent bullet or two, will serve your purpose as better...eh?

What a fuggin' P.O.S.

Holy fugg...that sig sends you into a new realm here. Congrats on that, you stupid sorry fugg. :shake:

Do you even know who those guys are, you moron?

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:26 PM
Why are you so angry? Bill?

Such passive/aggressiveness from you these days.

Are you getting all the mental help you need? I's suggest EAP but the first word in that anagram is Employee. And we know your situation...

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2009, 11:27 PM
Do you even know who those guys are, you moron?

I do....you are hoping the others here at C.P. do not know who they are....

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:27 PM
Such passive/aggressiveness from you these days.

Are you getting all the mental help you need? I's suggest EAP but the first word in that anagram is Employee. And we know your situation...

You should seek help about that rage. Bill.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:29 PM
I do....you are hoping the others here at C.P. do not know who they are....

Are you smoking crack?

L to R:

Bloody Bill Anderson
Jesse James
Paul Quantrill
Nathan Bedford Forrest

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:29 PM
You should seek help about that rage. Bill.

More of that pssive aggressive. Uh-oh. SHTS getting a little upset. Usually happens to the chronically unemployed. You tend to lash out at those who have bettered themselves.

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2009, 11:29 PM
Are you smoking crack?

L to R:

Bloody Bill Anderson
Jesse James
Paul Quantrill
Nathan Bedford Forrest

B.S.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:30 PM
More of that pssive aggressive. Uh-oh. SHTS getting a little upset. Usually happens to the chronically unemployed. You tend to lash out at those who have bettered themselves.

Whats wrong... Bill?

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:31 PM
B.S.

Oh okay you got me. It's Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer, David Hinkley, and Mark David Chapman.

:rolleyes:

KC Dan
08-22-2009, 11:33 PM
B.S.I don't like the sig either but you are wrong. He has identified his sig pictures accurately.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:33 PM
So the delusion of SHT continues. Aligning yourself with men who had a line drawn in the sand before them? LMAO

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:35 PM
So the delusion of SHT continues. Aligning yourself with men who had a line drawn in the sand before them? LMAO

Squeez my nipples, Billy. I like it when you squeeze them hard.

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/images/2008/03/05/david_axelrod.jpg

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:36 PM
I don't like the sig either but you are wrong. He has identified his sig pictures accurately.

I'm not crazy about those guys either, but I know that the day is coming when I will have to do the things that they did. The Communists will leave me no choice.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:36 PM
Squeez my nipples, Billy. I like it when you squeeze them hard.

http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/images/2008/03/05/david_axelrod.jpg

Does Quantrill whisper that in your ear at night?

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:37 PM
Does Quantrill whisper that in your ear at night?

What a perverted thing to say. Bill. You must be some kind of a sicko.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:37 PM
I'm not crazy about those guys either, but I know that the day is coming when I will have to do the things that they did. The Communists will leave me no choice.

LMAO

Of course you will. You klown.

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:39 PM
LMAO

Of course you will. You klown.

:o)

What's wrong, Billy? You don't like yourself?

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2009, 11:41 PM
I don't like the sig either but you are wrong. He has identified his sig pictures accurately.

Either way....this guy is beyond the pale. If his ass isn't tossed, given the shit he's sprayed on this board....pun, intended...and not.

Mods???

***SPRAYER
08-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Either way....this guy is beyond the pale. If his ass isn't tossed, given the shit he's sprayed on this board....pun, intended...and not.

Mods???

Get real.

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:47 PM
:o)

What's wrong, Billy? You don't like yourself?

Awww. SHT fancies himself a rogue hero. More delusion. This is outstanding. So who is drawing this line in the sand that you're going to be forced to act on Mr. For.. um.. Mr SHT?

WilliamTheIrish
08-22-2009, 11:49 PM
Get real.

Yea.

J Diddy
08-23-2009, 12:05 AM
Awww. SHT fancies himself a rogue hero. More delusion. This is outstanding. So who is drawing this line in the sand that you're going to be forced to act on Mr. For.. um.. Mr SHT?


Here's the question I have about mr. shtsprayer.

The economy goes to hell under the administration of a republican. He loses his job due to the economy. The people that extend his leaching benefits he hates.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-23-2009, 12:09 AM
I'm so happy i skipped the evening movie to watch this drama unfold, don't post anymore for 5 minutes i have to get a snack. :)

Taco John
08-23-2009, 12:45 AM
How funny would it be if we couldn't impeach Bush for killing and torturing so many people, but Obama was impeached for spam.

J Diddy
08-23-2009, 02:00 AM
How funny would it be if we couldn't impeach Bush for killing and torturing so many people, but Obama was impeached for spam.


Oh that would be hilarious. Get Ron Paul's dick out of your mouth.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 12:04 PM
How funny would it be if we couldn't impeach Bush for killing and torturing so many people, but Obama was impeached for spam.

ROFL That really made me laugh!

KC native
08-23-2009, 01:51 PM
Can somebody call HCF's myelin sheaths and ask them to contact an oligodendrocyte and have that contact a neuron and ask that neuron what the above post is supposed to mean?

Am I the only one who found this fucking hilarious?

***SPRAYER
08-23-2009, 10:35 PM
Here's the question I have about mr. shtsprayer.

The economy goes to hell under the administration of a republican. He loses his job due to the economy. The people that extend his leaching benefits he hates.

What about black leaches? Care to comment? By the way, I'm employed.

:drool: