Panty-minimalists love our casual thong that covers sweet spots without covering your assets ? putting an end to panty-lines. This under-goodie is ?outta sight? in low-rise pants. Toss these message panties onstage at your favorite rock star or share a surprise message with someone special ?later.

People Political Website belongs to God first. We are proud Americans who see the need for Godly prayer.

Geesh you’re fast! I was just going to paste that in the comments.

wha?…

Now, the thong thing is satire, yes? Or something real that someone created in a humorous vein and is actually selling? Or is it really created by/for peoplepolitical? I’m just too damn slow and lazy to figure it out.

Does or does not their logo suggest marching radioactive zombies zeroing in on life force to devour? If so, at least Cheney is safe.

Looking at it again, are those Tron-people?

My little man is a pedant, and you have to listen to the little man, so hear and obey: flare is something bright that you fire into the sky. One should use “flair” when referring to style and panache, or as in Office Space’s “37 pieces of flair”.

Now go, and do evil no more.

Then again, while we can’t speak for the rest of the team here, we’ll say that even if this isn’t the 80s, Sadly, No! is down the ladies.

Down the ladies’ *what*? Do I even want to know?

I did some clicking around and url messing-with over at your sister site (PeoplePolitical) and I found some of the older pages, including this one, which tells us why Marie started her site:
“God has called Marie to create, organize and manage a Christian website that allows Christians across the United States to openly voice their opinions and participate in a forum. This website has been prayerfully created that each of us as believers could join our spirits together in harmony. To join souls across America.”
However, it does not mention what Christian joining has to do with right-wing politics, plagerism, misplaced adjectives and setnace fragments. It also doesn’t say if Marie was called by Jesus to create S,Y! or not.

…Also, in terms of people ‘openly voicing’ things and ‘participating,’ they don’t have comments.

Jeez, this ‘God has called me’ trick seems totally great.

“God has called me to borrow your lawn mower and drink your beer.”

“But…”

“GOD has called me.”

And as we’ve seen in their “disclaimer” (which God called them to lift from TheRant.us), they accept only conservative commentary, so presumably, all Christians are conservatives.

But, but, what did God call her? If He needs any suggestions, I’ve got a list….

Distinguished commenters, Members of Sadly, No, Staff the fundamental problem of our time is the critical situation which has been created by the steady erosion of Sadly, No?s power relative to that of the wingnut’s in recent months. That is the fundamental problem which we face as Sadly,No-istas in 2005.

We have heard many general claims and boasts, we have heard how we are first in every area of bogosphere competition. We have heard about what must be done to stand firm and to stand up to Marie Jon? and all the rest. But no amount of oratory, no amount of oratory, no amount of claims, no unjustified charges, can hide the harsh facts behind the rhetoric, behind the soothing words that our prestige has never been higher and that of Wingnut?s never lower. They cannot hide the basic facts that Sadly, No?s strength in relation to that of the wingnut bloc relatively has been slipping, and wingnuttery has been steadily advancing. The implacable wingnut drive for power takes many forms and works in many ways, but behind it all, behind every weapon that they have in their arsenal is one basic fact, and that is the power of the wingnut bloc, for it is here that the wingnut advance and our relative decline can be most sharply seen, and it is here that the danger to our survival is the greatest. I am of course speaking of the great Thong Gap.

I want to make it clear that Sadly, No is a great revolutionary bog, that believes in the most extraordinary doctrine that man has ever put forward, that the wingnut system is as old as Egypt, and if we give our cause dedication and vitality and energy and foresight, if we make thongs for Sadly, No, if we get our economy moving again, if we educate our children, if we say that being second is not good enough, that being first, if first, but first when, and first maybe is not good enough.

Properly thonged I have the greatest possible confidence that we can meet any challenges!

I wrote this myself! You like?

REAL gods don’t require human assistance. Whoever “called” Marie Jon’ is just another smooth-talking, sub-lunary astral djinn. The Lower Spheres are lousy with them, believe me. I have one I keep in a Ball jar, just to impress the Wicca chicks.

Is it just me, or does anybody else think that the People Political thong would look awesome on the People Political teddy bear?

Hi, my wonderfully creative creations!
I just wanted to clear up any confusion so your discussion doesn’t get too far off track: I never called, emailed, or spoke to Marie Jon’. I’m not going to reveal what’s going on in her mind, but for future reference you can read about my policy of talking to humans here.

Anyway, keep up the good work! You guys are a hoot!
Love,
God

“Down the ladies’ *what*? Do I even want to know?”

Actually, D. Sihde, I believe there’s a “with” MIA in there somewhere. And while that statement may well apply to Seb, Jeff, Brad, and Gavin, it certainly doesn’t apply to a fair percentage of us lurking out here in the comments.

Oh, and for the love of attack kitties, fellas, please no S.,N! thong! I’m beggin’ you!

Eek, there are homosexuals here — and they’re telling us not to wear thongs!

Hey, wait.

Hmph.

Marq- I was noticin’ we (and, by extension World o’Crap) had quite a few gay commentors. Are we the new Barbara Streisand or something? 😉

No, Grogan is. We’re just the middlemen.

Marq- I was noticin’ we (and, by extension World o’Crap) had quite a few gay commentors. Are we the new Barbara Streisand or something? 😉

A winky emoticon?!? Man, you are so lucky that I’m not Jim! Anyway, I’d say the queerness factor here and at W’OC is only a bit higher than average for lefty blogs. The number will vary by the subject matter/writing style of a particular b(l)og. There’s just more of us out here than most straight people realize. Particularly if you take “heteroflexibles” into account. There’s a lot of grey area out there.
We just tend to stand out more on blogs where there are 30-50 regular commenters. We’re represented at the “big” blogs, but it’s easier to get lost in the mix when there are several hundred comments posted. I don’t often wade all the way to the bottom of comment threads that have 150+ comments-who has time? So I’m sure I’m missing out on some decent writing. Plus, once the comment count goes waaaay up there, the ratio of dreck to keepers skyrockets, too.
But look how many self-loathing queens have cropped up on the other side over the last year or so–JeffyLube, Santorum’s Chief of Staff, the MD Governor’s Chief of Staff, that Republican House member… and many, many more! And our side has the lion’s share of queer boiz and grrlz. So it’s not too surprising when a handful of us crop up here.

Well, I gotta say, if there’s one group of people that routinely provide unintentional comedy, it’s the homophobes. Them and the Rapture folks (basically, the same people).

Actually, D. Sihde, I believe there’s a “with” MIA in there somewhere. And while that statement may well apply to Seb, Jeff, Brad, and Gavin, it certainly doesn’t apply to a fair percentage of us lurking out here in the comments.

No, no it doesn’t. That’s kind of why the missing “with” was so alarming. Though, uh, it’s not much better amended.
Would you boys consider being “down with the ladies who are down with the men, on whatever occasions all this downing-along-with coincides, and obviously when all of the above consent, which clearly leaves out any of those rumors about the dogs”?

I think Seb meant a certain ‘lady’ — if that’s the proper term for an ol’ Bible-whumpin’ no-class skeezer, about whom we shall name no names.

The gay/straight ratio here actually seems close to 30:70 a lot of the time, which is pretty amazing. But since you asked, I tend to see things in terms of the Kinsey Scale, instead of as two halves of a binary: ‘Gayness’ doesn’t really register as a category of ‘being,’ but only as a descriptive term for someone’s personal style.

Dunno if that’s super-Foucauldian, but I honestly don’t think about people’s orientation in any sexually-connected way until it’s time to wonder whether some random pun or deployed slang term would genuinely offend anyone. It’s like (but not identical to) not knowing or caring about race or ethnicity on the internet, where people are names and minds and wits, but seldom faces. Few people here, for instance, know or would care that I’m culturally Anglo-American, but ethnically related to a bunch of nomadic tribespeople in the Arctic. And I don’t really think about it either — UNTIL (and this is the point I’m trying to abstract) it comes time for some ha-ha reindeer-fucking jokes that I might have reason to think are directed at me personally, and not other people (or reindeer).

Which is to ask: What’s your opinion of jokily calling things gay or queer, when the meaning is clearly not actual-gay but Barney-the dinosaur gay?

Jexter, I like your God site.

Which is to ask: What’s your opinion of jokily calling things gay or queer, when the meaning is clearly not actual-gay but Barney-the dinosaur gay?

That kinda stuff doesn’t really phase me much-mind you, I’m not a stereotypical gay man. Streisand? Madonna? Celene Dion? Cher? Hate ’em! The only term that bothers me, really, is “queen.” I fucking hate that term–I think it’s the intimations of “swishiness” and feminine demeanor that irk me. And, sure, there’s a lot of situations where calling me a “fag” will really tick me off, whereas, on rare occasion, friends have used the term jokingly in a purposefully politically incorrect way, and even then it can lead to an angry place. Particularly if alcohol is involved.
Now, of course, these things apply only in my own case. I’m sure others have lower offense thresholds than I. And nobody who isn’t gay better use the “f”-word directed at me unless they know me well personally. And that isn’t any of you, as far as I know.

“Particularly if you take “heteroflexibles” into account.”
I was heteroflexible until my chiropractor retired.

Speaking of homophobes, I’ve run into a lot of them in 4-H. Just the other day, one of my fellow members was lamenting homosexuals, and being the gay-supporting America-hating liberal that I am, I joked about him being a homophobe. To which he said, (And as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up) “I’m not afraid of gays, I hate them.”

If these people think God is commanding them to hate a certain people, they’ve got a pretty messed up interpretation of the bible. Just thought I’d share.

‘F-word?’ Like ‘fucking?’ Like ‘fucking reindeer…!?’

Seriously: Nah, no one ever uses any terms like that to each other here. Never happens. I was wondering about usage in the posts, because we tend to be free with calling things ‘gay’ in the school-playground sense.

Like I said, doesn’t bother me, but you should sound out some of the other regulars like Bill S and D. Sidhe. She seems to be around 2nite….

Need to pack it in tonight, alas, but there are actually two D. Sidhes, and it’s not always clear which one is posting….

BTW, I think ‘Sidhe’ is pronounced ‘she,’ as in Gaelic, but that’s a mystery so far as well.

“Seriously: Nah, no one ever uses any terms like that to each other here. Never happens.”

Sure it does, but I think it’s not usually directed at anyone in particular, and if it does become offensive, I think everyone is quick to stop using the offending terms. I try to use terms like that as little as possible because I don’t want to offend anyone here.

“down with the ladies who are down with the men, on whatever occasions all this downing-along-with coincides, and obviously when all of the above consent, which clearly leaves out any of those rumors about the dogs”

Remember that song that went something like “girls who like boys who like boys who like girls who like girls…”

As far as I know, the other D. Sidhe only posted here the once. Any further inconsistencies in my posts may be chalked up to interference from the voices in my head. And yes, it’s pronounced “She”. It’s a nice little alias, mostly because a lot of people don’t realize it is one. I’m, maybe you’ve noticed, paranoid, and somewhat cagey with details about myself.

That said, let me share some. I prefer the word queer, just because it lets me out of having to explain the horribly complicated details of my life to people. (Just for fun, I’m a lesbian-ambisexual in a long-term non-monogamous occasionally-polyamorous relationship, with enough refinements to scare the neighbors.)
I’m probably overly sensitive about getting told by gays that my relationships with men are an attempt to appease the heterosexual power structure. I’m also overly sensitive about getting told by straights that my relationships with women are “a phase”, “experimentation”, (Really? After fifteen years?) or an attempt to stick it to The Man.
Which is a major reason I use “queer” instead of “bisexual” (that and, really, naked men make me giggle, so poor Ben hasn’t got a *chance*).
I know a lot of people *don’t* like queer, though.
I rarely use “dyke” or “fag”, just because I’m not one, and they’re not my words. I’m trying not to use “gay” in the South Park sense, because it really does bother some gay people, and I accept their reasoning and even partly agree, though others have to make their own decisions on that. So I’m not a lot of help there.

I guess I draw the line at intent. It’s not the word, it’s who’s using it and how. I’m certain there’s no word or phrase on earth for “gay” that wouldn’t piss me off if Swank said it.
The S,N! staff, however, strikes me as being almost as irritated with homophobes as I am, and using humor to skewer them.
To which I have to say, Have at it, boys.

Should I have left it at “I’m cool with you”? Thought so.

Sadly, Yes is Sadly, No More. Link is off Marie’s site too.