Well all I know for sure is that WHOEVER succeds W will have to pick up the pieces. Provided there's any pieces left to pick up.
4th January 2007 10:19 AM
glencar
quote:rasputin56 wrote:
Funny. People still buy that "choked on a pretzel" bit?
What would you liked answered? The typical right-wing whiney "double-standard" thing and the upcoming blame the librul media (don't worry, it's just a matter of time before the media that built Obama up, tears him down)? Sure. Obama (who as I stated before, I'm not a fan of) admitted to using illegal drugs. Dubya hasn't. Dubya to this day has the reputation of being the fun-time frat boy, nearest I can tell Obama doesn't. But I'm sure Dubya's well earned rep has nothing to do with it.
I'm curious though, what would be the cutoff age for "youthful"? I'd say at the very latest 30 but maybe not.
[Edited by rasputin56]
First off, the "youtthful indiscretions" line was spoken by Henry Hyde. Secondly, I'm not sure what the cut-off is. The point is that you can go to any nutty Dem board & STILL see references to W's purported drug use. No proof but they throw around accusations like it's nobody's business(LOL!). And yet, here is Obamamamama admitting to snorting coke & they won't say a word. As I said above, his early broadcasting of this story is a smart move. I'm sure Hillary(sic) has done the coke at least once & probably the soon to be steamrolling Biden has too.
4th January 2007 10:20 AM
glencar
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Well all I know for sure is that WHOEVER succeds W will have to pick up the pieces. Provided there's any pieces left to pick up.
Soemtimes I think you're just trying to run up your post total. You often have nothing to add & you throw out these loserish bromides that say nothing really.
4th January 2007 10:28 AM
glencar
Interesting news: November Surprise
George McGovern, the liberal 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, dropped a little bombshell to Larry King the other night: He voted Republican in 1976, for Gerald Ford.
McGovern said he finally told his wife, Eleanor, that Thanksgiving. Her reply: "So did I."
4th January 2007 10:32 AM
rasputin56
Left-wing?
4th January 2007 10:32 AM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:glencar wrote:
You often have nothing to add & you throw out these loserish bromides that say nothing really.
Well I wouldn't want to engage in any political discussion that would force the Bushies to think things through to their logical conclusion.
4th January 2007 10:34 AM
rasputin56
quote:glencar wrote:
Interesting news: November Surprise
George McGovern, the liberal 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, dropped a little bombshell to Larry King the other night: He voted Republican in 1976, for Gerald Ford.
McGovern said he finally told his wife, Eleanor, that Thanksgiving. Her reply: "So did I."
Interesting? How so? A loser voted for another loser? Wait a minute, I thought Jimmy Carter was this big librul guy? Does this mean Ford was the real librul? Oh, what a whacky world.
4th January 2007 10:39 AM
glencar
Quite interesting, actually. The candidate one elction before actually voted for the other party 4 years later? This would be like Bob Dole voting for Gore in 2000. It doesn't happen often. And McGovern might have lost but he's someone who I respect to some degree that has nothing to do with politics.
4th January 2007 10:40 AM
glencar
quote:rasputin56 wrote:
Left-wing?
I would say that that female anchoress has been exposed to left wing lie & the liars who spout them. Somewhere in her memory is the "fact" that "someone" wrote a book detailing W's cocaine use. LOL That guy was exposed as a fraud before the book was published & thoroughly discredited.
4th January 2007 10:44 AM
TampabayStone
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Well I wouldn't want to engage in any political discussion that would force the Bushies to think things through to their logical conclusion.
TTM is pure logic!
4th January 2007 10:53 AM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:glencar wrote:
Soemtimes I think you're just trying to run up your post total. You often have nothing to add & you throw out these loserish bromides that say nothing really.
Well this should help. +1
4th January 2007 10:54 AM
glencar
Here's her latest:
Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn't seem strange that Nancy Pelosi's flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam's death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford's funeral.
The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.
More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.
Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.
They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.
During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.
Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers.
After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.
Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia all actions hysterically denounced by American liberals, eager for the communists to defeat America.
Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the Worst Generation, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnamese property, Nixon's Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against "peace" candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.
In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a ceasefire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam's throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.
It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate," the corpus delicti of which wouldn't have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office. (How's Sandy Berger weathering that tough wrist-slap?)
Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.
Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.
Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America's word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, "American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally." He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam no troops, just money.
But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. Within a month of Ford's last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.
The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.
Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these "Jeffersonian Democrats" come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a "clear case of genocide" in Cambodia.
Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaida boosts the flagging morale of its jihadists by reminding them of America's humiliating retreat from Vietnam.
In addition to being wrong about Ford's pardon of Nixon, liberals were wrong about a few other things from that era. Democrats haven't admitted error in rejecting Ford's pleas on behalf of South Vietnam because there are still dangerous foreigners trying to kill Americans. Nixon is safely interred in the ground, but the enemies of America continue to need the Democrats' help.
COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
4th January 2007 10:55 AM
glencar
Democrats really do suck, no?
4th January 2007 10:59 AM
rasputin56
She's a man, baby!
4th January 2007 11:00 AM
nanatod
quote:glencar wrote:
..., Nixon became president and the world was safe again.
Didn't he want to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but was talked out of it by his advisers?
4th January 2007 11:01 AM
Ten Thousand Motels
I tried to read that this morning. Incoherent piece of crap. Someone should teach Annie how to properly cite her references once in awhile.
4th January 2007 11:02 AM
glencar
quote:nanatod wrote:
Didn't he want to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but was talked out of it by his advisers?
nanatod, I didn't actually write that line. Be clear about usage please.
4th January 2007 11:09 AM
rasputin56
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
I tried to read that this morning. Incoherent piece of crap. Someone should teach Annie how to properly cite her references once in awhile.
References? She don't need no stinkin' references!
4th January 2007 11:10 AM
nanatod
I know you didn't, glencar.
4th January 2007 12:28 PM
sirmoonie
quote:stonedinaustralia wrote:
reading this thread i was genuinely surprised by the general tone of the posts that suggested the idea that a black man could be elected president was one to be taken seriously
not to say a black man couldn't do the job but from my perspective - condoleeza rice and colin powell aside - the notion hasn't made a lot of ground since jesse jackson had his day in the sun
Not a chance. Not even Colin Powell would stand a chance.
A black guy on the ticket in either slot would be the biggest sub rosa "get out the vote" cause any recent election has ever seen. You would truly have an energized base, plus whether many people would admit it or not, it would be a deciding factor in a close race.
Won't happen until percentage of blacks in population at least triples - i.e., not in anyone here's lifetime.
4th January 2007 01:35 PM
Some Guy
Moonism hates black people?
4th January 2007 01:45 PM
sirmoonie
quote:Some Guy wrote:
Moonism hates black people?
No way man. I hate white people.
4th January 2007 02:20 PM
Some Guy
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
No way man. I hate white people.
You are very attractive...if you stay away from white trash drugs, your future is very bright...I like the haircut
5th January 2007 05:46 AM
corgi37
"W" used to party with Aussie tennis legend John Newcombe. So, i guess he cant be all bad. In fact, when he got done for DUI he was with "Newk".
And i bet Newk drank him under the table. Pissy Yank beer no doubt.
5th January 2007 08:05 AM
glencar
Newk was a good one!
5th January 2007 12:32 PM
Jumping Jack
Here is some funny stuff:
Vineyard vs. ranch
Oh, why can't the moneyed elite of the left and right get along? asks DAVID BROOKS
12:00 AM CST on Friday, January 5, 2007
Ihave a dream, my friends. I have a dream that we are approaching the day when a ranch-owning millionaire Republican like George Bush will make peace with a vineyard-owning millionaire Democrat like Nancy Pelosi. I have a dream that Ms. Pelosi, who was chauffeured to school as a child and who, with her investor husband, owns minority shares in the Auberge du Soleil resort hotel and the CordeValle Golf Club, will look over her famous strand of South Sea Tahitian pearls and forge bonds of understanding with the zillionaire corporate barons in the opposing party.
Furthermore, I dream of a great harmonic convergence among the obscenely rich between Randian hedge fund managers on the right and helipad environmentalists on the left. I dream that the big-money people who seem to dominate our politics will put aside their partisan fury and discover the class solidarity that Karl Marx always said they shared, and their newfound civility will trickle down to the rest of us. I dream that Berkeley will make peace with Buckhead, Streisand with DeVos, Huffington with O'Reilly.
I have my dreams, but of course, I am realistic too, for I am aware that at present there is no peace among the secluded island villas. I look out across the second homes of America and its surrounding tropical regions and I see polarization among the Kate Spade devotees and bitterness among the Rolexes. And I know that both Mr. Bush and Ms. Pelosi are part of an upper-income whirlwind of strife.
Some people believe that Ms. Pelosi is an airhead, but that is wrong. Some people believe she is a radical San Francisco liberal, but that, too, is wrong. The main fact to know about Ms. Pelosi is that she is a creature of the modern fundraising system. Some politicians rise because they run political machines.
Some rise because they are great communicators. Ms. Pelosi has risen because she is a master of the thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising circuit.
Living amid a web of investors, venture capitalists and West Coast technology tycoons, she raised heroic amounts of money for the Democratic Party before she ever thought of running for anything herself. In 1984, she was the state party chairwoman. In 1986, she was the national fundraising chairwoman for the Senate Democrats.
Since coming to the House, she has discovered what many a savvy pol has discovered that the fastest way to ascend in Congress is to raise a lot of money and give it to your peers.
She paid her dues selecting party favors, arranging seating charts (after that, legislation is easy), and laying thick dollops of obsequiousness on cranky old moguls and their helmet hair spa-spouses. She has done what all political fundraisers do: tell rich people things they already believe, demonize the other side, motivate the giving with Manichaean tales of good versus evil.
She is part of the clash of the rival elites, with the dollars from Brookline battling dollars from Dallas, causing upper-class strife that even diminutive dogs, vibrant velvets and petite salades can't fully soothe.
It pains me to see plutocrats fight, because it sets such a poor example for those of us in the lower orders who fly commercial. It pains me even more because politicians from the rival blueblood clans go to embarrassing lengths to try to prove they are most authentically connected with working Americans.
Think of John Kerry visiting a Wendy's or Bill Frist impersonating a Bible thumper. This week, witness Ms. Pelosi going on her all-about-me inauguration tour, which is designed to rebrand her as a regular Catholic grandma from Baltimore. Members of the middle classes never have to mount campaign swings to prove how regular they are, but these upper-bracket types can't help themselves, and they always lay it on too thick.
So I harbor my dreams of reconciliation.
Why oh why do we have to have this endless canape war the people of the vineyard against the people of the ranch?
David Brooks is a columnist for The New York Times.
5th January 2007 01:06 PM
rasputin56
Personally, I found George Will's column yesterday reminiscing about the good ol' days of slavery much more amusing. And he wasn't even trying to be funny. Who says Republicans can't be comedians?
5th January 2007 05:33 PM
sirmoonie
Not even this black man could get elected president in today's America, and he's more qualified than any whitey.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
