Zane Starkewolfe = awesome

[zinfamous]

I already posted this int he GOP meltdown thread, but it's so hilarious that it deserves it's own thread

risque robocalls

In which a 27 year-old UC Davis grad, and republican running for congress sends out a "free" message to his potential constituents, admonishing his opponent in a rather unique way.

click on video for the audio.

audio only



perhaps you want to make your own robocall?
http://www.gopcalls.com/?gclid...5bmnyZYCFQ8Qagod4BJ2zQ

knock yourselves out

 

[AstroManLuca]

wow wtf

 

[BoomerD]

There was a bit on the 11:00 news tonight about the robocalls and this guy in particular...While political robocalls are legal in MOST places, in Kahleeforneeya, the law requires that they be introduced by a live person.
The state can levy some stiff fines against the campaign for violations.
Personally, I hope they hit them all hard for this crap. (fucking politicians...total bottom feeders...ALL of them.)

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
There was a bit on the 11:00 news tonight about the robocalls and this guy in particular...While political robocalls are legal in MOST places, in Kahleeforneeya, the law requires that they be introduced by a live person.
The state can levy some stiff fines against the campaign for violations.
Personally, I hope they hit them all hard for this crap. (fucking politicians...total bottom feeders...ALL of them.)

I agree...but for whatever reason, I see this guy's "what...C'MON?" defense as hilariously apt.

....I might even vote for him; too bad I'm not in his district :evil:

 

[ZaneStarkewolf]

BoomerD,

Bottom feeders??? HOW dare you! no no, you right, I am. I even eat at Taco Bell once in awhile. Cant get more to the bottom than that.

While California PUC does require restrictions on robocalls, they are rarely enforced. Almost every congressional candidant in this district has run them. Incumbents have corporate sponsers and can run their expensive campaigns without the need for robocalls. My opponent Mike Thompson has raised nearly 2 million dollars. Tax payers are paying for these expensive campaigns throughout California every two years. This means that congressman can no longer vote based upon their morals, and are forced support their corporate backers.

This was clearly illustrated with my opponent Congressman Mike Thompson when he changed his vote from NO to YES on the $700 billion bailout after receiving a $100 million tax credit for one of his largest corporate sponsers, International Motor Speedways (NASCAR, Grand Prix).

Anyways, I didnt meant to bore you with politics, but just to suggest that "creative" robocalls are one of the few ways for non-incumbent candidates to reach the voters of their districts. I hate robocalls, but unless we can place a spending cap on politcal campaigns, we will continue to see them.

Zinfamous, I wish you were in my district as well.

-Zane

 

[RichardE]

So they do scourge the internet...interesting...

I guess when we were all joking that SNL must read ATPN, we might have been right

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ZaneStarkewolf
BoomerD,

Bottom feeders??? HOW dare you! no no, you right, I am. I even eat at Taco Bell once in awhile. Cant get more to the bottom than that.

While California PUC does require restrictions on robocalls, they are rarely enforced. Almost every congressional candidant in this district has run them. Incumbents have corporate sponsers and can run their expensive campaigns without the need for robocalls. My opponent Mike Thompson has raised nearly 2 million dollars. Tax payers are paying for these expensive campaigns throughout California every two years. This means that congressman can no longer vote based upon their morals, and are forced support their corporate backers.

This was clearly illustrated with my opponent Congressman Mike Thompson when he changed his vote from NO to YES on the $700 billion bailout after receiving a $100 million tax credit for one of his largest corporate sponsers, International Motor Speedways (NASCAR, Grand Prix).

Anyways, I didnt meant to bore you with politics, but just to suggest that "creative" robocalls are one of the few ways for non-incumbent candidates to reach the voters of their districts. I hate robocalls, but unless we can place a spending cap on politcal campaigns, we will continue to see them.

Zinfamous, I wish you were in my district as well.

-Zane

OH come the fuck on......

 

[JSt0rm]

Talk about hitting the streets lol.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ZaneStarkewolf
BoomerD,

Bottom feeders??? HOW dare you! no no, you right, I am. I even eat at Taco Bell once in awhile. Cant get more to the bottom than that.

While California PUC does require restrictions on robocalls, they are rarely enforced. Almost every congressional candidant in this district has run them. Incumbents have corporate sponsers and can run their expensive campaigns without the need for robocalls. My opponent Mike Thompson has raised nearly 2 million dollars. Tax payers are paying for these expensive campaigns throughout California every two years. This means that congressman can no longer vote based upon their morals, and are forced support their corporate backers.

This was clearly illustrated with my opponent Congressman Mike Thompson when he changed his vote from NO to YES on the $700 billion bailout after receiving a $100 million tax credit for one of his largest corporate sponsers, International Motor Speedways (NASCAR, Grand Prix).

Anyways, I didnt meant to bore you with politics, but just to suggest that "creative" robocalls are one of the few ways for non-incumbent candidates to reach the voters of their districts. I hate robocalls, but unless we can place a spending cap on politcal campaigns, we will continue to see them.

Zinfamous, I wish you were in my district as well.

-Zane

OH come the fuck on......

Thanks alot Zin, now the Repubs have discovered us, and half of us won't be flying next week.

Thanks alot buddy!

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ZaneStarkewolf
BoomerD,

Bottom feeders??? HOW dare you! no no, you right, I am. I even eat at Taco Bell once in awhile. Cant get more to the bottom than that.

While California PUC does require restrictions on robocalls, they are rarely enforced. Almost every congressional candidant in this district has run them. Incumbents have corporate sponsers and can run their expensive campaigns without the need for robocalls. My opponent Mike Thompson has raised nearly 2 million dollars. Tax payers are paying for these expensive campaigns throughout California every two years. This means that congressman can no longer vote based upon their morals, and are forced support their corporate backers.

This was clearly illustrated with my opponent Congressman Mike Thompson when he changed his vote from NO to YES on the $700 billion bailout after receiving a $100 million tax credit for one of his largest corporate sponsers, International Motor Speedways (NASCAR, Grand Prix).

Anyways, I didnt meant to bore you with politics, but just to suggest that "creative" robocalls are one of the few ways for non-incumbent candidates to reach the voters of their districts. I hate robocalls, but unless we can place a spending cap on politcal campaigns, we will continue to see them.

Zinfamous, I wish you were in my district as well.

-Zane

OH come the fuck on......

Thanks alot Zin, now the Repubs have discovered us, and half of us won't be flying next week.

Thanks alot buddy!

If it weren't for the beer coursing through my veins...I'd be drunk off myself..

....holy shit.

 

[makken]

... ... :Q

If that really is Zane, then I'm speechless and kinda scared at the fact that ATPN actually made it that far up.

Oh, and I actually AM in his district, hah!

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: makken
... ... :Q

If that really is Zane, then I'm speechless and kinda scared at the fact that ATPN actually made it that far up.

Oh, and I actually AM in his district, hah!

So, you voting for or against him? I'm sure he would like to know. Maybe he can send roboPM's.

 

[makken]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: makken
... ... :Q

If that really is Zane, then I'm speechless and kinda scared at the fact that ATPN actually made it that far up.

Oh, and I actually AM in his district, hah!

So, you voting for or against him? I'm sure he would like to know. Maybe he can send roboPM's.

there was not enough moaning in the robocall. so aganist

 

[ayabe]

I got a robocall from Hillary telling me to vote early. I would rather hear from Slick.

Scratch that, I'd rather hear the infamous Guiliani one, I want to make ringtones out of his lisp.

 

[Perknose]

IP addy of "ZaneStarkewolf" is unique in our system -- so it's not a second account or a returning troll. Whois says it's from Sacramento, CA, fwiw.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL. I had assumed it was a staffer...if he even has a staffer. Probably was him, though. seems like the facebook/internet-saavy type of guy.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: ZaneStarkewolf
BoomerD,

Bottom feeders??? HOW dare you! no no, you right, I am. I even eat at Taco Bell once in awhile. Cant get more to the bottom than that.

While California PUC does require restrictions on robocalls, they are rarely enforced. Almost every congressional candidant in this district has run them. Incumbents have corporate sponsers and can run their expensive campaigns without the need for robocalls. My opponent Mike Thompson has raised nearly 2 million dollars. Tax payers are paying for these expensive campaigns throughout California every two years. This means that congressman can no longer vote based upon their morals, and are forced support their corporate backers.

This was clearly illustrated with my opponent Congressman Mike Thompson when he changed his vote from NO to YES on the $700 billion bailout after receiving a $100 million tax credit for one of his largest corporate sponsers, International Motor Speedways (NASCAR, Grand Prix).

Anyways, I didnt meant to bore you with politics, but just to suggest that "creative" robocalls are one of the few ways for non-incumbent candidates to reach the voters of their districts. I hate robocalls, but unless we can place a spending cap on politcal campaigns, we will continue to see them.

Zinfamous, I wish you were in my district as well.

-Zane

Zane, (IF that's who you really are) as a former business agent of OE3 here in northern Kahleeforneeya, I've had the opportunity to meet many politician, some local, some state, and YES, IMO, there's not an honest one in the bunch. It's been my observation that a politician never even makes it as far as city councilman without promising a few favors/giving special attention to whatever special interest currently has the biggest checkbook.

I'll freely admit that as a union representative, most of the time, the politicians I met were Democrats...but not all of them. Even Republicans often invite union people to functions in hopes of gaining some support from organized labor.
(why I don't know...the Republican's goal is to do away with organized labor completely)

So, yes, IMO, ALL politicans are bottom feeders...at best...some are even lower.

You openly acknowledge that Kahleeforneeya law restricts the use of robocalls, yet you also admit that you use them and continue to use them. Does that mean the laws don't apply to you? You must be a Republican.