[cpbell0033944]

Welcome 1st_Tsurugi! I do like your style, and you can rest assured that, had I been at that art show, I'd have been fully supportive. 😉

[cpbell0033944]

Seems to me you've caught her attention.  😉

Source: POWER GIRL! Art by MC Wyman

Wyman's style is very distinctive and I like it. 8)

[cpbell0033944]

Indeed it was…and I've got a few blisters, scrapes, bruises and cuts to prove it.

And Night #2….occurs in less than an hour.

Hehehehehe.

Sorry DP, I've been up to my neck in work recently, and I must have forgotten to check the calendar.

[cpbell0033944]

Which brings me to a question I asked recently – has anyone heard any news of Debra Haley of late?  She seems to have disappeared.

[cpbell0033944]

Does anyone know a link or something form Wanda Moore 'Hulking-out'of her shirt video?
Thanx.

Sorry, I don't.  Can I just point-out, though, that we are at risk of letting this thread wander from its focus?

[cpbell0033944]

No Cindy has never ripped open her shirt, Lindsay Cope and Elena Orepa, I don't know how to spell her name.  They have ripped out of their shirts including Wanda Moore as well, and Annie R.

May I be of service?  Her name is spelt Elena Hreapca Oana.

[cpbell0033944]

I was just re-reading that last panel of the comic and it got me to thinking. What would happen if Tetsuko said yes to Slade's offer? Like he said, there would be no force on her earth that could stop her. Like AlexG pointed out, Slade is still an old man despite his treatment. So when Tet-chan is tired of him pulling her strings, she could off him and assume full control.

I think that would make a good "What If?" story arc.

It could, but DCM doesn't write Tetsuko as being like that.

[cpbell0033944]

My only comment to that can be best stated as nonplussed.

My only comment is that it's hilarious and I'm going to memorise that line! ;D

[cpbell0033944]

FOX keeps O'Reilly on because he gets good ratings; same reason MSNBC keeps the even more vitriolic Keith Olbermann.  Limbaugh has very little in common with either of them – the sort of nightly invective that assclowns O'Reilly and Olbermann spew is vanishingly rare on Mr. Limbaugh's program.

Also, I chose not to use the term "liberal" because it has lost its original meaning in the U.S. and doesn't work well in trans-Atlantic discussions.  By the standards of the term as you mean it, the Republicans are the more "liberal" party.

For example, the Republican Party repealed slavery, supported women's suffrage for 40 years against Democrat obstruction, resisted FDR's attempts to make himself dictator, voted for the various civil rights acts of the 50s and 60s in greater percentages than Democrats and fought communism unreservedly.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican.  Democrat Harry Truman called MLK a "damn troublemaker" and Democrats John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson ordered the FBI to spy on him.

Europeans and Britons tend to believe that the Republican Party is the equivalent of their Christian Democrats or Tories, because that's what their socialist-controlled media tells them.  That is not the case.

OK, here goes:

1.  O'Reilly must be good for ratings in a "car-crash TV" way.  Olbermann is more vitriolic, but he focusses his bile on those in positions of power who he feels have done the wrong thing.  O@Reilly spews bile on anyone he doesn't like.  Plus, Olbermann at least explains his rationale most of the time, though some may not be intelligent enough to notice.  O'Reilly just shouts, and speaks with intellectual vacuousness.
Limbaugh is even worse than O'Reilly, IMO.  As a disabled person, I can never forgive him for his prejudiced rant about Michael J Fox, nor his dreaming about seeing a city his HIS COUNTRY descending into rioting just to disrupt the Democratic Party conference.

2.  Wnen I say the word "liberal", I'm referring to beliefs/traits such as the following :

A belief that we have a moral duty to help the disavantaged.
A belief that the free market alone can never deliver prosperity for all, but that it must be matched by governmental intervention.
A belief that business cannot be left to do whatever it damn well likes because humans are greedy by nature, and that business must be regulated to ensure that wealth is distributed more evenly.
An absolute belief in the principle of free speech.
An interest in alternative ideas and exploration of non-traditionalist approaches.

3.  I am well aware that the Republicans were once a great party.  I am fascinated by the US Civil War and have seen Ken Burns' PBS series twice (once on BBC TV, and recently serialised on YouTube).  I despise the southern Democrats who formed the KKK and prevented the then new Amendments providing absolute equality from being a factual entity.  I was not aware of all of the other facts raised by Lingster and demented20, though I knew that Teddy Rooseveldt was a Republican and greatly admire his work to end the coalminers' strike and ensure better protection for workers.  My point is not that the Republican party has always been dominated by the likes of W, Cheney, Rove etc. but that it has been so for the last 8 years.  People don't vote based on what Presidents or Congresspersons did 50 years ago, they vote on the policies or a candidate/party NOW.  I still maintain that the most recent Republican Presidency has been marked by:

A cavalier attitude the the economy.
The rushing of the US and its allies (including MY country) into a war before plans were ready, without full justification, and because of the wrong reasons.
The way in which they have been pro-big business and against the small guy, in direct conflict with the "American Dream", despite being so-called conservatives who are supposed to support the ideal of people gaining wealth through personal endeavour.
The way in which they have wholesale ripped the heart out of civil liberties – Habeas Corpus, the FISA bill, Homeland Security Act etc.

4.  I am not a conservative, but I do not broadly object to conservative principles, and, as a liberal I have no beef whatsoever with public discourse and the promotion of conservatism as long as there is no barrier in place to prevent liberalism being discussed and promoted equally.

5.  I would agree with you guys who said that party lines are often blurred and we should vote based on the persons' policies, not on which party they represent (though that fits better with the US system than that of the UK, when the Prime Ministerial candidates are tightly-linked to the overall party manifestos and policies).  I once heard it said that GOP and Democrat voters would vote for a mule if it was their party's Presidential candidate.

6.  I would suggest that Bush is not a true conservative; rather, he is right-wing and somewhat despotic.

[cpbell0033944]

Done and done.  Though I hope you prefer 1960s rock.

http://jimmydimples.deviantart.com/art/Hamilton-Slade-Sings-83181232

Great work!

[Author]

Posts