New York Times reports Gov. Eliot Spitzer admits involvement in a prostitution ring.

[Allereli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html?hp

You know this is huge if you know anything about Spitzer's history of prosecuting the same operations

[Sean]

Does he still get to be a Clinton superdelegate?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A dirty lawyer? Say it isn't so.

[Parkbandit]

People who read the NYTimes need to have their head examined. The National Enquirer does a better job of source checking than this rag. Why is it, all of their investigative stories have the same quotes? "A person", "An Administration Official", "an unnamed source", "A person who wished to not be identified"...

[TheEschaton]

"Admits involvement" in that he was a client, not that he was involved in running the ring.

That's like saying I'm a drug lord from Colombia from buying weed from a low level dealer in a high stakes drug ring.

Obviously, he broke the law by visiting a prostitute, but it's nowhere near what the title of the thread implies.

-TheE-

[Gan]

I think its a pretty big deal for someone to be prosecuting the very behavior that he partakes in.

The only thing worse would be if he were a judge.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I love the justification already.

[Stanley Burrell]

People who read the NYTimes need to have their head examined.

[after telling Jay that they're going to check the "hot sheets," Kay pulls up to a newsstand and buys a pile of supermarket tabloids]
Jay: *These* are the hot sheets?
Kay: Best investigative reporting on the planet. But go ahead, read the New York Times if you want. They get lucky sometimes.



Of course. You could just read The Sun. Or Boca Weekly.

Fug' it; the CT Hamden Chronicle is more accurate than that shit. Police log for twelfth-degree window tinting != Readable/reputable newspaper content.

[ClydeR]

Why is it always Democrats who do stuff like this?

[Gan]

Why is it always Democrats who do stuff like this?

:puzzled:

You think any ethic violations that occur are only relegated to the Democrats?

[NocturnalRob]

:puzzled:

You think any ethic violations that occur are only relegated to the Democrats?

I think we're missing the real issue here--he paid $5500/hour for sex.

If that's not an indication of inflation, I don't know what is.

[Gan]

HOLY SHIT!

5500 an hour for a piece of ass?

There better not have been even a dribble for that much.

[NocturnalRob]

HOLY SHIT!

5500 an hour for a piece of ass?

There better not have been even a dribble for that much.

Seriously. No drip drip at all. I need to close my office door before I start thinking about what someone would have to do to be worth $5500/hour.

[TheEschaton]

It sounds pretty bad now that the details have come out. He arranged for her to come from NY to DC, and what he's being charged with is the federal crime of transporting women across state lines for purpose of prostitution. That's pretty serious.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What is sad, is this just reinforces my opinion. I thought he was one of the better prosecutors back in the day -- he did a lot of good things (which probably shouldn't be dismissed). If you read up on his background he was really an advocate for the people, making laws against predatory practices by lending companies was the big one I was aware of because of my job here at H&R Block.

The poonani makes you crazy man.

[NocturnalRob]

It sounds pretty bad now that the details have come out. He arranged for her to come from NY to DC, and what he's being charged with is the federal crime of transporting women across state lines for purpose of prostitution. That's pretty serious.

-TheE-

No, he's completely screwed. And while we all know he's a massive douche, he is (was) a rising star in the Democratic party. Now his political career is shot.

He almost got caught in 2004 for the same thing, but instead of getting smart, he decided to keep on doing what he wanted.

From a recent Washington Post article:
"In 2004, [Spitzer] was part of an investigation of an escort service in New York City that resulted in the arrest of 18 people on charges of promoting prostitution and related charges."

I mean, at that point, I get back to having sex with my mediocre, sourpuss wife for free, and just count myself lucky.

[Warriorbird]

While I don't mind seeing Spitzer take a fall it isn't always Democrats doing this kind of thing.

Forget about Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, Clyde?

[ClydeR]

It sounds pretty bad now that the details have come out. He arranged for her to come from NY to DC, and what he's being charged with is the federal crime of transporting women across state lines for purpose of prostitution. That's pretty serious.

I will be surprised if he is charged with anything. Normally they just charge the women. I do not agree with that sort of sexism in law enforcement, and I think they should charge both the prostitutes and the customers.

[TheEschaton]

The whole article was how they normally don't charge clients, but that he (and three others) will be charged with this federal crime cause that's pretty serious.

[Gan]

Solicitation of prostitution.

Its a crime, ergo they should be charged and prosecuted.

Nobody is above the law, not even a gov.

[ClydeR]

The whole article was how they normally don't charge clients, but that he (and three others) will be charged with this federal crime cause that's pretty serious.

That's not how I read the article. But I hope you're right!

[NocturnalRob]

Solicitation of prostitution.

Nobody is above the law, not even a gov.

Except Judge Dredd, because he is the law.

[Kefka]

Why is it always Democrats who do stuff like this?

You mean with the opposite sex?

David Vitter - D.C. Madam
Larry Craig - Bathroom stall bandit

[Daniel]

Now now.

Since when has the R team ever used reality to back up their bullshit claims?

[NocturnalRob]

Now now.

Since when has the R team ever used reality to back up their bullshit claims?

We don't have to. We're smarter than everyone else.

[Warriorbird]

http://uglyrepublicans.com/republicans/United-States/George-Bush/George-Bush-Neuman.gif

[NocturnalRob]

eh, i'll keep my photo more in line with the thread subject. btw, OMG IT'S A PICTURE SHOWING HOW YOU CAN MAKE BUSH LOOK LIKE ALFRED E. NEUMAN!! AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!11!!!!1! Mad is awesome. I take that as a compliment.

http://photos23.flickr.com/29370264_613d8a8056_o.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Believe it or not, us Democrats don't vote for people based on how they look, or if we'd want to have a beer with them or not. We vote for them based on whether they're actually competent enough for the job.

[Gan]

Believe it or not, us Democrats don't vote for people based on how they look, or if we'd want to have a beer with them or not. We vote for them based on whether they're actually competent enough for the job.

So you're voting for Hillary why again?

:lol:

[NocturnalRob]

Believe it or not, us Democrats don't vote for people based on how they look, or if we'd want to have a beer with them or not. We vote for them based on whether they're actually competent enough for the job.

I'm aware. I was simply responding to WB's absurd graphic. I am a strong believer in the power of a democracy. That being said, I will likely not vote in this year's election given the candidates both parties are presenting.

[Warriorbird]

You said you're smarter... I tossed out a silly graphic.

I think the whole prostitution thing is a powerful politician getting stupid issue not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue myself.

[NocturnalRob]

You said you're smarter... I tossed out a silly graphic.

I think the whole prostitution thing is a powerful politician getting stupid issue not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue myself.

I was obviously being sarcastic. Silly graphic WIIIIIII...

And if you'll note, all my responses were light-hearted prior to Dennis bringing up the partisan issue. I don't think his political affiliation should be an issue here. He wanted to get his D wet. He paid WAY too much. He got caught. That's it. He is going to resign. He will go to jail.

If it DOESN'T happen that way, then feel free to bring up the partisan issue.

[Parkbandit]

Now now.

Since when has the R team ever used reality to back up their bullshit claims?


Please don't misconstrue Clyde's comments, which are clearly sarcastic, as a determination of what team he is on. He's a dipshit.. and therefore by default, belongs on your team.

[Warriorbird]

Hmm. For $5500 an hour we'd take him.

[NocturnalRob]

Hmm. For $5500 an hour we'd take him.

For $5500 an hour, I'd take just about anyone. Clinton included.

[Gan]

Please don't misconstrue Clyde's comments, which are clearly sarcastic, as a determination of what team he is on. He's a dipshit.. and therefore by default, belongs on your team.

:lol:

I think he's a plant. He's D-Team deep undercover.

[Sean]

This seems like waaay too much effort. Per http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/10/spitzer.complaint.pdf


Originally Posted by Complaint
b. February 13, 2008, Interstate Transportation
From New York To Washinqton, D.C.

73. On February 11, 2008, at approximately 10:53 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, sent a text message to CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. In the text message, LEWIS wrote: 'Pls let me know if [Client-9's] 'package' (believed to be a reference to a deposit of money sent by mail) arrives 2mrw. Appt wd b on Wed." (Call 3728C). SUWAL sent a text message back to LEWIS, stating: 'K." (Call 3731C).

74. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 2:37 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called a prostitute who the Emperors Club marketed using the name "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS left a message for "Kristen" that the "deposit" had not arrived today, but that they should be able to do the trip if the deposit arrived tomorrow. (Call 9324R) . At approximately 4 : 03 p.m. , LEWIS received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" said
that she had heard the message, and that was fine. LEWIS and "Kristen" then discussed the time that "Kristen" would take the train from New York to Washington, D.C. LEWIS told "Kristen" that there was a 5:39 p.m. train that arrived at 9:00 p.m., and that "Kristen" would be taking the train out of Penn Station. LEWIS confirmed that Client-9 would be paying for everything - train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini bar or room service, travel time, and hotel. LEWIS said that they would \
probably not know until 3 p.m. if the deposit arrived because Client-9 would not do traditional wire transferring. (Call 9362) .

75. At approximately 8:12 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the "package" did not arrive today. LEWIS asked Client-9 if there was a return address on the envelope, and Client-9 said no. LEWIS asked: "You had QAT . . .," and Client-9 said: "Yup, same as in the past, no question about it." LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was interested in having the appointment tomorrow. Client-9 told her 9:00 p.m. or 10:OO p.m. LEWIS told Client-9 to call her back in five minutes. (Call 9460R) .

76. At approximately 8:14 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, at the 0937 Number. During the call, LEWIS told BRENER that Client-9 had just called about an appointment for tomorrow, and that he had around $400 or $500 credit. SUWAL said that she did not feel comfortable saying that Client-9 had a $400 credit when she did not know that for a fact. SUWAL and BRENER talked in the background about whether Client-9 could proceed with the appointment without his deposit having arrived. (Call 9462R). At approximately 8:23 p.m., LEWIS called Client-9, and told him that the 'office" said he could not
proceed with the appointment with his available credit. After discussing ways to resolve the situation, LEWIS and Client-9 I agreed to speak the following day. (Call 9467R) .

77. On February 12, 2008, at approximately 9:22 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, sent a text message to ''Kristen." In the text message, LEWIS wrote: 'If D.C. appt. happens u will need 2 leave NYC @ 4:45pm. Is that possible?" (Call 9515R). "Kristen" wrote back: "Yes." (Call 9516R) .

78. At approximately 3 : 2 0 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that they were still trying to determine if his deposit had arrived. Client-9 told LEWIS that he had made a re'servation at the hotel, and had paid for it in his name. Client-9 said that there would be a key waiting for her, and told LEWIS that what he had on account with her covered the "transportation" (believed to be a reference to the cost of the trainfare for "Kristen" from New York to Washington, D.C.). LEWIS said that she would try to make it work. (Call 9636R). At approximately 3:24 p.m., LEWIS, using the 6587 Number, called CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendant, at the 3390 Number. LEWIS explained to SUWAL what Client-9 had proposed. SUWAL told LEWIS she would call her back. (Call 9642R) . At approximately 3 : 53 p.m., MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," the defendant, using the 0937 Number, called LEWIS at the 6587 Number. BRENER and LEWIS discussed the problem about Client-9's deposit. (Call 9654R). At approximately 4:18 p.m., SUWAL, using the 3390 Number, sent a text message to LEWIS at the
6587 Number, stating: "[Plackage arrived. Pls be sure he rsvp hotel." (Call 9659R) .

79. At approximately 4:21 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle, " the defendant, using the 6587 Number, called "Kri~ten.~Du ring the call, LEWIS told "Kristen" that the package had arrived, and that "theyu (believed to be a reference to MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," and CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," the defendants) just got the mail. LEWIS told "Kristen" to get to Penn Station and call her when she picked up her tickets. (Call 9661R) . At approximately 4 :48 p.m., LEWIS
sent a text message to "Kristen," stating: "TRAIN INFO Departing from Penn St. Arriving 8 Union St. Washington, DC NYC to DC Train # 129 Dep. 5:39pm Arr. 9pm." (Call 9G79R). At approximately
4:54 p.m., LEWIS sent another text message to "KristenItts tating: "TRAIN INFO Return trip DC to NYC Train #84 Dep. 2/14 8:35pm Arr. ll:57am." (Call 9683R).

80. At approximately 4:58 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received an incoming call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that his package arrived today, and Client-9 said good. LEWIS asked Client-9 what time he was expecting to have the appointment. Client-9 told LEWIS maybe 10:OO p.m. or so, and asked who it was. LEWIS said it was "Kristen," and Client-9 said "great, okay, wonderful ." LEWIS told Client-9 that she would
give him a final price later, and asked Client-9 whether he could give "Kristen" "extra funds" at this appointment in order to avoid payment issues in the future. Client-9 said maybe, and that he would see if he could do that. LEWIS explained that the agency did not want a model accepting funds for a future
appointment, but that she was going to make an exception that way a deposit could be made so that he would have a credit, and they would not have to "go through this" next time. Client-9 said perfect, and that he would call her regarding the room number. (Call 9686R) .

81. At approximately 7:51 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, LEWIS told Client-9 that the balance was around ,"2611 (believed to be a reference to $2,600), but she would give him an exact number later. LEWIS asked if when "Kristen" went to pick up the key she would have to give a name or would she be able to say that she was one of Client-9's guests for whom he left an envelope. ~EW1~'and Client-9 discussed how to arrange for "Kristen" to get the key to her hotel room. LEWIS said that she would prefer if "Kristen" did not have to give a name. Client-9 said that he was trying to 'think this through." Client-9 repeated that his balance was '2600," and stated that maybe he would give "her," a reference to
"Kristen," '3600" and have a thousand on balance. LEWIS suggested making it "1500fl more. Client-9 said that would make it "4100," and said that he would look for a bank and see about it. Client-9 told LEWIS to let him go down and take care of this, and suggested that maybe he could put it [the hotel key] in
an envelope with the concierge. (Call 9725R).

82. At approximately 8:47 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from Client-9. During the call, Client-9 told LEWIS to tell "Kristen" to go to the hotel and go to room 871. Client-9 told LEWIS that the door would be open. Client-9 told LEWIS that
there would be a key in the room, but the door would be ajar. LEWIS asked if the hotel staff might pass by the door and close it, and Client-9 said no it was okay. Client-9 explained that the door would not be visibly open, but if someone pushed it, the 4 door would open. LEWIS told Client-9 that his balance was
$2,721.41, and that if he wanted to do an additional "150OU or even "2000" it would be better. Client-9 said that he did not know if he could get to a machine to do that, but he would see. LEWIS said that 'Kristen" would go directly to room ,871. Client- 9 asked LEWIS to remind- him what 'Kristen" looked like, and LEWIS said that she was an American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds. Client-9 said that she should go straight to 871, and if for any reason it did not work out, she
should call LEWIS. (Call 9731) .

83. At approximately 9 : 3 2 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, '"Kristen" said that she was in the room. LEWIS told "Kristen" that she would call her back when she knew when Client-9 would be there. (Call 9734R).

84. At approximately 9:36 p.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a 'Rachelle," the defendant, using the 6587 Number, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, LEWIS told "Kristen" that "he," a reference to Client-9, was at the hotel. "Kristen" told LEWIS that she just talked to him. 'Kristen" said that
Client-9 was coming'to her. LEWIS told "Kristen" that Client-9 should be giving her "extra," and that the extra should be deposited into- LEWIS told "Kristen" to text her when he arrived and LEWIS would start the four hours then, and also to let her know if he left early. (Call 9741R).

85. On February 14, 2008, at approximately 12:02 a.m., TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant, received a call from "Kristen." During the call, "Kristen" told LEWIS , that "he," a reference to Client-9, had left. LEWIS asked "Kristen" what time he got there, and "Kristen" said "15 after .
. . maybe 10." LEWIS asked "Kristen" how she thought the appointment went, and "Kristen" said that she thought it went very well. LEWIS asked "Kristen" how much she collected, and 'Kristen" said $4,300. "Kristen" said that she liked him, and that she did not think he was difficult. "Kristen" stated: 'I
don't think he's difficult. I mean it's just kind of like . . . whatever. . . I'm here for a purpose. I know what my purpose is. I am not a . . . moron, you know what I mean. So maybe that's why girls maybe think they're difficult . . . . " "Kristen" continued: "That's what it is, because you're here for a
[purpose]. Let's not get it twisted - I know what I do, you know." LEWIS responded: "You look at it very uniquely, because . . . no one .ever says it that way." LEWIS continued that from what she had been told "he" (believed to be a reference to Client-9) "would ask you to do things that, like, you might not
think were safe - you know - I mean that . . . very basic things. . . . "Kristen" responded: "I have a way of dealing with that . . . I'd be like listen dude, you really want the sex? . . . You know what I mean." Near the end of the call, LEWIS and "Kristen" discussed "Kristen's" departure via Amtrak, the room that Client9 had provided for "Kristen," and "Kristen's" share of the cash that Client-9 had provided to her. (Call 9750R).

[NocturnalRob]

TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the defendant

I stopped reading right there.

[Warriorbird]

Damn. Somebody needs to post this woman's pictures.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Wow, I read some of that and prostitution is freaking huge money. 25k for an "extended prostitution in Europe". That is some voodoo poonani.

[Sean]

Or 55k for a 3 day romp with 1 girl and 35k for another

[NocturnalRob]

Whoever is running this outfit clearly owns one of these:
http://www.pimpcostumes.com/images/products/EightBallCaneLg.jpg

[Xaerve]

pics of some of the girls:

http://gawker.com/366075/did-one-of-these-ladies-take-down-the-governor

[NocturnalRob]

pics of some of the girls:

http://gawker.com/366075/did-one-of-these-ladies-take-down-the-governor

Nice find. And not to be "that guy," but some of those girls are pretty beat or, at best, average--Vanessa, Gemma, Alicia, Anna?

On the other hand...Winslow...Shelby...$5500? Sure, why not.

[Xaerve]

Nice find. And not to be "that guy," but some of those girls are pretty beat or, at best, average--Vanessa, Gemma, Alicia, Anna?

On the other hand...Winslow...Shelby...$5500? Sure, why not.


I live to troll! :)

[Keller]

Wow, I read some of that and prostitution is freaking huge money. 25k for an "extended prostitution in Europe". That is some voodoo poonani.

Remember. Lawyers are filthy.

Filthy rich.

[ClydeR]

ABC News reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1) that Spitzer will be charged with the crime of "structuring (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00005324----000-.html)," which is a financial crime involving an attempt to skirt the reporting requirements for cash transactions of $10,000 or more. They just can't bring themselves to charge him with the sex crime.

[Warriorbird]

They might not have the evidence to convict. This would MAKE a DA's career... no matter the party.

[TheEschaton]

It's a federal crime, the U.S. Attorney's office would handle it.

[Warriorbird]

Whoops. Even more true then. They want stuff perfect.

[Stanley Burrell]

Why can't he pay this (these) bitch's (bitches') plane tickets to a place where legal prostitution exists?

For that much money, he should have arranged to mutually meet one of these covergirls as a legal equal.

Something tells me that if he got busted for this; that it's something that he's fucked with (literally) so many times, he probably was able to relate to the criminal prostitution ringleader mindframe and close cases with extra knack before the illegalities skyrocketed.

This is not lying about a blowjob. That's actual movement of a person as an object made for sexual slavery and not even giving enough of a damn to cover for yourself.

Again, not speaking from personal experience, unfortunately, you'd probably have to indulge, heavily, to the point where it seemed routine enough to be methodical enough to go from point A to B, without throwing in a legal safety net, containing the rest of the alphabet with it. Weird, amusing and peeeimp as hell.

[Xaerve]

I'd argue that 5,500$ a night/hour whatever, is not sexual slavery. I think these girls are just as guilty as the guys involved.

(I think thats what your post said, I have a hard time reading them).

[Clove]

It sounds pretty bad now that the details have come out. He arranged for her to come from NY to DC, and what he's being charged with is the federal crime of transporting women across state lines for purpose of prostitution. That's pretty serious.

-TheE-

I've said it before and I'll say it again; always buy local.

[Allereli]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; always buy local.

In DC we call our prostitutes "Interns"

[Sean]

In DC we call our prostitutes "Interns"

Page works too

[875000]

In DC we call our prostitutes "Clintons."

Fixed it for you.

[Drew]

Couldn't happen to a worse guy. This guy was/is a criminal through and through. He bullied a lot of big NY companies into having their CEOs resign and then bullied them into hiring his friends and even former prosecutors.

[NocturnalRob]

Couldn't happen to a worse guy. This guy was/is a criminal through and through. He bullied a lot of big NY companies into having their CEOs resign and then bullied them into hiring his friends and even former prosecutors.

Completely agree, Drew. The guy is a complete douche. No love lost here.

[Warriorbird]

He was an ass. Some of those companies did some shady things.

[TheEschaton]

Ah, the GOP thinks he was a douche because he held white collar criminals actually accountable for their crimes, and made it a focus of his administration as AG.

If that makes him the worst guy this could possibly happen to, you've got some fucked up priorities. The worst guy this could happen to is Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Ah, the GOP thinks he was a douche because he held white collar criminals actually accountable for their crimes, and made it a focus of his administration as AG.

If that makes him the worst guy this could possibly happen to, you've got some fucked up priorities. The worst guy this could happen to is Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

-TheE-

:rofl:

How did I KNOW Karl Rove was going to be mentioned. I also had $5 on Scooter Libby, George W Bush and Rush Limbaugh.

It's like reading a cheap comic book.. you know the ending before you even open the cover.

[Daniel]

Yea. It's like pinpointing Darth Vader as a bad guy. sooo hard.

[CrystalTears]

Yea. It's like pinpointing Darth Vader as a bad guy. sooo hard.
Why? Because he's black?! I see what you did there. ;)

[TheEschaton]

Man, everyone knows Darth Vader is the tool of the white man! Look at him...Vader's beautiful black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty, old white man! They tryin' to tell us that deep inside we all wants to be white!

[Parkbandit]

Yea. It's like pinpointing Darth Vader as a bad guy. sooo hard.


No, it's because you guys are so predictable. A Democrat gets caught... well, don't forget how evil Karl Rove and George W Bush is!

It's page one out of the liberal media handbook.

[CrystalTears]

Man, everyone knows Darth Vader is the tool of the white man! Look at him...Vader's beautiful black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty, old white man! They tryin' to tell us that deep inside we all wants to be white!
Well isn't that true!

[TheEschaton]

Nice.