| 5th January 2007 05:37 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Balancing the budget, cutting government spending, and stuff.
 |
| 5th January 2007 05:40 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Laughing at spastic, athsmatic, Bush Geekian bench dweebs as they stumble out of the room. The man has it all. Why? Why America?
 |
| 5th January 2007 05:42 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
Its an Obama thread, we haven't had one in awhile.
You're getting very peanut-galleryish these days, Some Smack.
|
| 5th January 2007 06:45 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Don't mind me.......
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| 5th January 2007 06:56 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
Don't worry, be happy. |
| 5th January 2007 06:59 PM |
|
|
| TampabayStone |
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
Don't worry, be happy.
He does not masturbate, it's true. |
| 5th January 2007 07:01 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
know what this here thread needs.... gadonkadonk! |
| 5th January 2007 07:59 PM |
|
|
| TampabayStone |
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
know what this here thread needs.... gadonkadonk!
I knew that was a coming me friend. I just asked my girl if she knew that word and she said it's old school; now don't I feel like the ass. She should have told me that one along time ago.
For TTM, do what needs doing.
 |
| 5th January 2007 08:34 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
Real American cab drivers pick up drunks with dogs, or even drunk dogs!
Let the religous idiots not make money! |
| 5th January 2007 10:44 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
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.
Laura Ingraham's radio show this evening was all about howe she doesn't want the GOP just going along with the Dems. Why this sudden rush to civility? When the GOP won in 1994 & every election after that, all we heard about was obstructionism from the Dems. They did nothing to move things forward. Why should the GOP help them now? |
| 6th January 2007 12:57 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Laura Ingraham's radio show this evening was all about howe she doesn't want the GOP just going along with the Dems. Why this sudden rush to civility? When the GOP won in 1994 & every election after that, all we heard about was obstructionism from the Dems. They did nothing to move things forward. Why should the GOP help them now?
doesn't really matter who has the majority. We all bow down to The Federal reserve, which is really just a bunch of private bankers. So we're all slaves to them, and they're accountable to no one, no one at all. And we have the great IRS, another part of our government that's accountable to no one! Does Dem or Pub even matter? Really? |
| 6th January 2007 05:58 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Thats why organised crime was always the way to go. They looked after themselves. No taxes. No ineffective law and order. No "legal technicalities".
Same with the pornography industry.
Either, you are "The Man" - or you fuck "The Man". |
| 6th January 2007 09:26 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Laura Ingraham's radio show this evening was all about howe she doesn't want the GOP just going along with the Dems. Why this sudden rush to civility? When the GOP won in 1994 & every election after that, all we heard about was obstructionism from the Dems. They did nothing to move things forward. Why should the GOP help them now?
Actually, they don't have much choice. Let's face it, most of the Republicans there just aren't that bright. Most of the obstructionism arose because the Republicans relied on draconian tactics of excluding Dems from the legislative process nearly entirely. The only weapons left in the Dems aresenal was little known parliamentary tactics that frankly left Frist and Hastert looking like moron 9 times out of 10. The only thing they could come up with was throwing hissy fits and chanting retarded slogans for their followers like "upordownvotes" and such. The only hope the Republicans have now to remain even remotely relevant is take whatever scraps Nancy and Harry throw them. Enjoy the ride. |
| 6th January 2007 10:25 AM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Actually, they don't have much choice. Let's face it, most of the Republicans there just aren't that bright. Most of the obstructionism arose because the Republicans relied on draconian tactics of excluding Dems from the legislative process nearly entirely. The only weapons left in the Dems aresenal was little known parliamentary tactics that frankly left Frist and Hastert looking like moron 9 times out of 10. The only thing they could come up with was throwing hissy fits and chanting retarded slogans for their followers like "upordownvotes" and such. The only hope the Republicans have now to remain even remotely relevant is take whatever scraps Nancy and Harry throw them. Enjoy the ride.
Is this really the way you libs see this thing Raspy? Because from my perspective you are about as wrong as you can possibly be. The only reason that Dems won is because the Republicans abondoned their conservative roots. Remember this,the Dems did not win any kind of mandate here so much as the Republicans lost theirs. Conservatives,myself included,were genuinly pissed off at the Republicans. Mostly in the Senate,but even some House Republicans lost their way. It killed the voter turnout,and the results are exactly what these asshats deserve.
And yes,Bush has to deal with some of the blame as well,but not for the reason you might think. Iraq has become his major achillies heel,but only because the war is not being fought in a way that assures a real victory. Many conservatives,again myself included here,think that Bush has allowed the media,and the far left,to dictate the direction,and the ferocity with which the war has been fought. As I have mentioned in previous posts the war must be fought like Patton would fight it. Ferocious as hell with absolutly zero concern for stupid little liberal catch phrases like "collateral damage","hearts and minds",and various other feel good platitudes. War is a very ugly bussiness. Our very real enemy knows this better than most Americans do these days it seems. From beheading to stringing up the corpses of dead Americans on bridges they have done everything in their power to scare the US right out of Iraq. Meanwhile back in America the New York Times is printing 47 above the fold articles in less than a month about some Iraqi prisoners being made to pose nude in a human pyramid!!! We are so evil!! Fuck that shit! Kill them all,and when we have killed them all,kill them all again! That is the only way these animals are ever going to get the message.
This is why conservatives were so pissed off this past November. The ineffective policy in Iraq,the out of control spending by Republicans,and also the border control issue. The Republican party caved in,and the consevative voter turnout shows the results when that happens. Now let's take a look at what the Dems are gonna do shall we? They are going to insist that we pull out of Iraq completely. Which,of course,will lead to mass genocide. They know that we will never be able to leave Iraq in such a state. So they are going to continue to use Bush as a punching bag for the next two years on this issue. They are going spend like drunken sailors. They always have,and they always will. Plus,they will do absolutly nothing about the border issue.
So I'd say to the Democrats have fun. It won't last that's for sure. Let's see how long it takes for Reid and Pelosi to start drawing the long swords against each other. Let's not even mention the Clinton factor! LOL! The Clintonistas are going to do everything in their power to reel old Nacy Pelosi in. This is gonna be fun to watch.
Riffy |
| 6th January 2007 11:05 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Riffy is a damn genius! |
| 6th January 2007 11:18 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Actually, conventional wisdom is that the Democrats were perceived by independents and center leaners as the more moderate party and was more in tune with mainstream America. The Republican Party for the most part was perceived as corrupt and having shifted too far right by those swing voters and had become beholden to the lunatic far right fringe of the party. Much of the same reasons people voted Republican in 1994. But if it makes the Right feel better, go with it.
Take a look at the Dems agenda for the so-called 100 hours. Ethics reform, minimum wage and stem cell research are all overwhelmingly supported by the American public. The Republicans wouldn't touch those issues while in power. Out of touch.
I won't even comment on Iraq but thankfully those who hold your views on "winning" in Iraq are in the extreme minority and will only aid the Republican party's march to irrelevancy. Patton? Good one. |
| 6th January 2007 11:55 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Many of the Dems who won ran as conservative types of Dems, whether that conservative strain was in the nat'l security area, ethics, social issues or fiscal policy. Depending on the district, they took up that posture. As this Congress actually starts writing law, these people will have to betray some of the ideals that got them elected. 2008 will be an interesting election & not just because we'll have a new President. |
| 6th January 2007 02:31 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Actually, conventional wisdom is that the Democrats were perceived by independents and center leaners as the more moderate party and was more in tune with mainstream America. The Republican Party for the most part was perceived as corrupt and having shifted too far right by those swing voters and had become beholden to the lunatic far right fringe of the party. Much of the same reasons people voted Republican in 1994. But if it makes the Right feel better, go with it.
So says your conventional wisdom Raspy. That's just not true at all. As Blue/glencar rightly points out the only Republican seats lost were lost to moderate to conservative Dems. I know for a fact that many conservative Republicans just stayed home on November 2nd. It was a slap down by the base of the Republican party that did the Republican incumbants in. Yes,the Independants did tend to vote for change,but they always do! That's why they are Independant.
[qoute]Take a look at the Dems agenda for the so-called 100 hours. Ethics reform, minimum wage and stem cell research are all overwhelmingly supported by the American public. The Republicans wouldn't touch those issues while in power. Out of touch.[/qoute]
You really want to go down the ethics road here Raspy!! Really?!?! While I agree that the Dems did a great job of bullshiting the poulation about Republican corruption they are hardly any better,and I would argue that they are immensley worse. Hello Cynthia McKinney! What about ol' Pelosi herself?!?! She had to completely refile her Senate finaces becuase she was caught lying about them! Bet ya didn't see that on the news though did ya?! Or did you hear about Harry Reids's very shadey land deals in Nevada? I thought not. Let's talk about William "cold cash" Jefferson shall we?! Or how about Jack "Abscam" Murtha? That moron is,and has been,on an all pork diet for decades now! Or we could discuss Alcee Hastings if you like? You know him right? Well,Raspy,he is the only federal judge ever to be impeached! He was impeached by his own party! Yet good ol' Nancy has picked him for a leadership position in the "most corrupt free" congress in US history! ROTFLMAO!!!!! Damn I almost forgot about Sandy "the burgler" Berger! Going back a few years we could discuss how Hillary "Cankles" Clinton found those long lost Rose Law Firm records the very week that the federal supeana expired! Strange huh? I mean she had been looking for those files for more than two years with no luck,and she all of the suddenly finds them a week after she's safe to do so!
Yeah Raspy,your side are just paragons of virtue! Pilliars of honesty! Spare me! You believe the bullshit spin that your crooks are trying top spoon feed the nation,but I read! I know about their corruption. And it's deep. Very deep!
quote:
I won't even comment on Iraq but thankfully those who hold your views on "winning" in Iraq are in the extreme minority and will only aid the Republican party's march to irrelevancy. Patton? Good one.
You laugh at Patton? Why? He was the most sucessful general in all of history. He killed or captured more enemy troops than any general ever. Not just Amerian history here either. I'm talking about in the history of man.
Yes. We need a general like Patton who knows that timidity has no place on the battlefield. You sound like one of those who has forgotten history therefore you are doomed to repeat it. We bombed Germany relentlessly! We turned Belin into a goddamned parking lot! As for Japan will literally wiped two cities off the map. At the end of the day we won WWII because we were ruthless in our attempt. We then rebuilt both Japan and Germany and today they are both thriving democracies,and allies of ours.
Riffy |
| 6th January 2007 02:41 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
Riffy are you really saying the media is to blame for Bush being an inept leader?
the man and his administration has defied common sense and the will of the majority of Americans consistantly. He is to blame, and this new tactic of trying to blame others is laughable. He is responsible, and the recent WH stance to demand a plan from Democrats concerning Iraq is as retarded as the bank robber demanding the police are responsible for his crime and expecting them to help him escape, or something moronic like that.And...
Did I read your post correctly, what you're saying sounds like we should have our military fight like Stalin, Hiltler Ghengis Khan and others throughout history... The only thing I don't get is, if you think we can be like that, and they say Iran can't hare nukes, kinda puts The USA in the position of being a violent, athouratarian international dictatorship... what I wish you would see, is the reason we're fucked in Iraq is b/c not only are we nowhere near being as you wish, Bush didn't even have the abilty to plan past the toppling of the regime, or should I say, our miltary only had plans to go that far, then when they looked for leadership, they got bombarded by american corporations and contractors, nothing happened to stabiliuze the country outside the green zone. Experts had warned and were ignored about an insurgency and sectarian violence. Which is ironic b/c the sectarian violence was a backlash of Saddmas attracities, which is one of the reasons later pushed post-invasion after the WMD lie was exposed. Yes, ex[osed, b/c bad intel, was presented along with good intel that was ignored. Please, let's not forget the war on terror, since we created the hotbed in Iraq, while abandoning Afghanistan. During that idiotic manuveur, Al Quida struck two major attacks in Europe, proving the network is alive and well. Iraq and Saddam, no matter how evil and corrupt, still served as a stabilty in the region. The buffer between Sunni and Shia, Arab and Persian. Now we sit in the middle of an eroding, destzabilized region, and Bush wants dems to give him plan, when for 4 years he's ignored everyone, including our military leaders and the will of the American people...
In the end, foregn policy is dictated by the white house, not the media or Congress. Our foreign policy has only been arrgance and miltary action. A bunch of loud talking, chest beating uninformed idiots does not make a great country. Military action and history is not what makes a country great. It's what you do when it's over. The greatest generation wasn't great b/c of D-day and Guadalcanal ect.. They were great b/c they came home from war and didn't glorify it. |
| 6th January 2007 09:33 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
LOL! Riffy, my boy, you are one in a million (thankfully)!
So much for your so called "Democratic Party taken over by the Sheehans and Soros" thing, eh? Yes, in some, not all, cases the winning Democrat was more to center which meant the Republican was viewed as so far to right that they were our of touch with mainstream America. Santorum? Allen? Thanks for making the point that the Republicans have lost touch (unless they find a page they like or male hookers or something) and the Democrats are more in tune with the pulse of the country. The "hold" the Republicans have had has been tenuous at best and once they revealed their true colors they were drubbed out of power.
Please let me know in the previous post where I said there were some Democrats that didn't have issues with ethics. You can't but that wouldn't have allowed you to use your Limbaugh poster kids in your ran. Good job, but your guys outnumber our guys with jail sentences this round. The point was that the Republicans wouldn't address the issue of ethics because if they did, we'd have to build more Club Feds for them. (As an aside, can anyone figure out how Jefferson, with his freezer, hasn't been indicted for anything yet? Didn't they find this stuff almost two years ago?)
Patton was a great general. Who disputed that? Of course, he fought a war where two armies opposed each other on a field of battle and fought until there was only one remaining. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't quite that kind of war. Of course, we could just bomb the hell out of every country in the world where the Islamofashionistas are hiding out including the USA to try and get them all but that might take a little time.
[Edited by rasputin56] |
|
