For the Record
Not that it matters much, since WuzzaDem has stopped blogging, but...
The tool on Twitter calling himself "WuzzaDem" is some tool on Twitter who is NOT WuzzaDem.


Not that it matters much, since WuzzaDem has stopped blogging, but...
The tool on Twitter calling himself "WuzzaDem" is some tool on Twitter who is NOT WuzzaDem.
***Exclusive: Must credit WuzzaDem***
Questionnaire
...and I do mean everyone.



Seriously. He looks like he might break something.





























































WuzzaBlog, ain't no more.


































UPDATE: Werd.
UPDATE II: He wanted tea?












Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from the WuzzaDems!




Indeed.
Um.....yeah, OK. Here's a video clip of an interview with Cooper after the CNN/YouTube Democrat debate back in July of this year:
Yeah, that's the problem - the campaigns manipulating the process.





UPDATE: They really should spruce up the stage with some plants.
Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.
...
“However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.”








Yes, that's a blogad for Lions for Lambs in the sidebar.
Here's the deal: John Hawkins from Right Wing News was running something called a "Hive Blogad" a few months back, which featured links to various posts from conservative blogs, but there were some technical difficulties, so it was "deferred", which means the order for the ad sits in my little Blogads inbox, waiting to be reactivated. Whenever I log on to Blogads, I see "Conservative Hive Livelink".
This morning I got an e-mail from Blogads telling me a new ad had been submitted, I logged in, and approved the new version of the Hive ad - I thought. When I looked at the blog, these three bozos were staring at me from the sidebar:

AAAAAH!
I logged onto Blogads again, and sure enough, I had mistakenly approved an ad named "Conservative/Lions for Lambs". Apparently Redford and his buddies are looking to convert a few lizard-brained right-wingers with their "powerful anti-war message." Way to budget those advertising dollars, jagoffs.
Well, at least the movie's getting good reviews:
Anyway, thanks for the $36.00, dickheads. I'll use it to pay my TypePad bill. Then we can publish more posts like these.
UPDATE: WTF? They took the ad down. Something I said?
UPDATE II: Hey, do I get to keep the $36.00?
UPDATE III: Looks like I don't get to keep the $36.00

I've just been informed by a high-level official at "Yahoo Lottery Incorperation UK and Ireland" (I guess that's the Irish spelling) that I've been selected from thousands of Yahoo! e-mail users to receive "a prize money of (Four Hunderd Thousands British Pounds Starling £400,000 GBP) of the year, 2007 Lottery-win promotion."
Seems this is a promotion that was started by the Yahoo! e-mail team to reward Yahoo! e-mail users.
Well, they got my attention, and now I'm a Yahoo! e-mail user for life. All I need to do to collect my "Four Hunderd Thousands British Pounds Starling" is reply to this e-mail address:
barr.cynthiamorfield@gmail.com
Try and stop me.
Seriously, it's just ridiculous.
UPDATE: Never mind - now that I look at it in the proper context, it makes sense.
UPDATE II: Turns out that wasn't the proper context, after all. Now I'm even more pissed off.
UPDATE III: I might have been a little hasty about that context. I guess I should look at it again.
UPDATE IV: Maybe I didn't put the context in the proper context. Is that even possible?
UPDATE V: Now I've lost track - would that mean I'm still pissed off, even more pissed off, or that it doesn't bother me any more?
UPDATE VI: Should I just forget about the context and put it into something else?










