Calling all Photoshop-pers: Let's "Find" the BushJack Photos!
George Bush says he Doesn't Know Jack - Abramoff, that is. (Though he sure seems to know Jack's powerful former deputy Susan Ralston, who left Jack to work for Karl Rove...)
But Time Magazine and the Washingtonian have seen one... two... three... four... five... six! photos of Bush and Jack together! And the Washington Post says there could be "about a dozen"!!!
Wouldn't you just love to see those photos? I'm sure millions of us would!!
Alas, I just searched images.google.com for "Bush Abramoff" and came up empty.
But maybe there's another way to "find" the six photos...
Calling all Photoshop-pers!!
We're inviting you to "find" those pictures of Bush and Abramoff together.
In fact, we'll make this a contest and pay $50 for the six best photos!
Of course we have standards, so don't "find" anything like this "photo" of Kerry and Osama because George and Jack would never do anything so naughty - isn't that right, Jeff Gannon?
But who knows what else George and Jack might have done together! So search far and wide and upload your photos (you'll need a user account) and put a link to them in the comments below. We will contact the winners through their user accounts.
Happy "hunting"!!
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
You know...
I am progressive and liberal... but I find such photos as the one in your post, supposedly in jest, of Kerry and OBL very offensive. I would like that the moderators remove it from this site.
Perhaps it would show better at Americablog.... because if tolerance and respect of the alternative lifestyles civil rights means I have to look at their private activities... I am going to rethink my politics.
P.S. While one has a choice as to view or not view media of specific themes... there is no warning on this political site that it will contain allusions to gain porn. In light of that, it does not belong here.
Um……….. is 50
Um……….. is 50 rectangles by 50 rectangles alluding to what was published by Republicans elsewhere such an offense? Especially since it is shown so that it might not be repeated here in DETAIL and to show the mindset of Republicans.
Civil Rights do not require one’s tolerance. One does not get a feather in one’s cap for putting up with Gays. It is simply right to respect fellow human beings.
By the way, sex is not a lifestyle choice, it is an imperative.
Are you aware that Bob owns
Are you aware that Bob owns this site? I don't think a moderator is going to trump Bob. Here is the point I don't get, why are you repulsed that Bob put the photo up here, shouldn't you be angry that a Republican was able to put that billboard up on a public street? MoveOn couldn't even get contracts to put billboards up because the Republicans didn't like the messages - Censorship plain and simple. Republicans are controlling the media and the message while we are being painted as "sour grapes."
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security
like it's some kind of federal program."
- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000
Moderators do not
edit material authored by the owner of the site.
They say your rights end where mine begin...
and your right to have sex may in fact impinge on my right not to watch you. And yes, the picture, no matter how small, is still an offense, even if the republicans created and bandied the same picture about first.
By the way, sex is an imperative for the procreation of the species... but for recreational and emotional purposes... the nature of your attraction may be primal but whether to act on it is a choice. There are lots of celibate straight and gay people...
Finally, I think you are mixing concepts... respect is not automatically deserved by being a member of the human race... I don't respect Hitler, Rush, O'Reilly, Bush, pedophiles or people of any persuasion who have an exhibitionist need to show the nuts and bolts (no pun intended) of how they get their jollies.
Sometimes religion is mentioned on this site and members get all whipped up and assert that this is a political blog not a religious discussion, so information about religion is not appropriate here. We separate the right to religion from the substance of the religion.
Well, I can separate someone's claim to civil rights based on how they get off from visual, descriptive or factual substance of how they do it.
I just can't abide political correctness in defense of something so purely lewd ,and frankly nothing you write will change my mind on this.
Are you proud of NOT being a racist?
You missed what I said and reframed the argument around guys exposing themselves.
As for sex being an imperative rather than a choice, I repeat: Sex is an imperative. I understand your note on “choosing” but I am not referring to such. I am speaking here of a teenage, bore through solid bedrock to get to a woman, imperative. Butterflies in the stomach, weak knees, nothing so beautiful as a WOMAN imperative!
Now that is from a straight guy, but you get the point. I have no choice in the matter. What you wrote implied (and I hope you give this a moments thought) that you grant Gays tolerance, as a gift that you apparently threaten to take back: "rethink my politics".
That is wrong minded, no? It certainly can lead to immorality across the board, including expending energy on minor matters like the above whilst letting a kid die today that you could have saved. If we want to use a construct of the Right –--Political Correctness--- then there is no better example than worrying about fluff while kids starve. (I am not making a general argument here just one that fits the moment.)
I do agree that off topic stuff can be thrown overboard, and that includes simple porn. I do agree that simple porn can offend you and that you do not need to explain that to me.
Well whoop-de-do. Your
Well whoop-de-do. Your self-righteous pomposity should give us pause... Okay, pause over.
You too, have a choice: don't look. But please don't tell me that you have the right to censor my choices. Free speech, like all freedoms, includes both the good and the bad -- and those definitions are subjective. Defining prevailing standards is handled by enacting laws based on the majority view, within Constitutional bounds.
sex
…And by the way, sex for procreation is not an imperative.
Sex is the imperative, procreation is the result.
Without the desire we would not survive as a species.
Life does not pontificate about the important things: The flesh makes demands. For example, we are not entertained by some ethereal intellectual argument that we should not move the arm that is wounded. Apparently we are not to be trusted, so instead we are paralyzed with PAIN.
I bother with the above because all we tend to hear from are those with the least knowledge, skill, and experience: the Religious Right. Maybe that should end and a debate begun.
(There are of course infinite foot notes with respect to the desire for children.)
Sweetheart...
I have seen that picture so many times on spiteful rightwing sites that I've lost count, and quite frankly I've become so accustomed to seeing it that I really don't react to it at all, anymore.
I have a question for you: If republicans are putting trash like that on their sites and they're in majority across the board, how does it make sense that we could somehow 'win' by playing all nicey, nicey and turning a blind eye to their spite and ugliness?
I mean, isn't it obvious what wins...and not just a little - a lot - as in, across the board, the whole enchilada, the whole shooting match....etc.
Please. Enlighten me, because playing nice with those rotgut politicians over the past, oh, almost 18 years has helped to make us what we are today, and that is the minority party - across the board.
Teach me, oh wise one.
Sweetheart?
Talk about snotty pomposity.... the law on obscenity ... (hard to define, meant to appeal to purient interests...but we know it when we see it)... well if a picture of two naked people humping is not obscene by your community standards, I cannot imagine where you live. In most places such material is segrated to places where interested parties have to seek it out... it is not foist upon the public. And when it is... don't be surprised when insulted and offended people push back. Not all speech is protected speech.
My post had nothing to do with winning at politics... it had to do with putting up images that are typically categorized as obscene on a site that is meant to be a site about ideas... If I wanted to hear vicious republican rant or see obscene pictures... I would not be visiting democrats.com.
As far as being outraged by the republicans use of the picture... obviously... Kerry can't even fight for himself, much less fight for the party... a misappropriation of likeness or defamation suit by the person most able to afford it(he is rich and married to a billionaire) would do more to nip such degrading tactics than any banter about it on this board. So far, all that has happened is that this blog has given the republican insult wider circulation.
I never caved to peer pressure (really.. this is no big deal... just be cool...) when I was 17, so I certainly will not in my forties. You can call me pompous, try to elevate obscenity to a protected speech class... or even have a "scientist" try to explain the nature of sex to me... no matter... The last word is yours.... Your self-righteousness seems as evident as my alleged pompous opinion.
I was being sweet!
gawlee...;-)
Have you considered relaying your complaint to the owner of the site, since we've told you that we don't edit his material? I mean, like, if your objective is really to get the picture removed because of your sensitivities, you'd have emailed him the minute we told you that we wouldn't remove the material.
So, really...have you emailed him?
You're outraged by a
You're outraged by a bogus Photo-Shopped picture?
We're outraged by an illegal war that has cost thousands of innocent lives. We're outraged by a PNAC neocon government that spies on its own citizens. We're outraged by the religious-right's assault on our Constitution. And, we're also outraged by holier-than-thou preachers like you who would rather bash the Democratic Party and this blog than focus on the real problems facing this country.
And you're outraged by a picture? Get a life, and if this is all that you have to contribute, find another blog to be outraged on.
What an unholy waste of space...
The Repugs thought the pic up. They painted or photographed it. They photoshopped it. It is used, in this thread as an example of the kinds of things the Repugs do as a matter of course. Such things, for them, are imperatives.
Somehow, you have the mistaken idea that their morals are ok and it is our morals that are horrible. How did you ever come up with that.
If you don't want to look at the pic, in such a context, then you ain't much of an adult.
Go immediately to the right-wing sites and tell them to stop doing that. Don't tell us, tell them. Afraid that your sensibilities are unfit to be a dem in today's world.
Sheesh. Talk about pomposity!
I had a little bit of time
I wish I had more or I could have come up with something better...anyway, here it is:
(I'm not competing. It's just a hobby.)
I like I like.
I like I like.
Looks like he's in a snit
and Bush is calming him down, doesn't it?
Ya know how you get to look
Ya know how you get to look like your spouse?
Ya know how dogs and their owners look alike?
Well, if those two don’t look like the personification of underhandedness I don’t know what does!
I like it!!!
And I found a couple more...
ROFL!
Those are neat. ;-)
Here's another
look down...
Hehehehe
I love those pictures of Abramoff in what looks like mafioso garb. Quite fitting, isn't it, that Bush would be peeking out of his pocket?!?
American Beauty
Here's another