Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Irony | Lord Vader Next »
And this new constitution shall only be followed by the first 42 presidents. After that they get to do whatever they want
(Founding Fathers of the United States)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: kelphis
 | Pail on I’m So Live |
 | Razgriz 1, also know… on Game of Thrones Characters as… |
 | Grimlock1972 on Gundam Obama |
 | Evelyn Smith on Vandals Cashing In |
 | itsybit on I’m So Live |
 | Gary Jackson on Vandals Cashing In |
 | Geary on Has This Certain Ring to … |
 | Paul on Gundam Obama |
| Geary on I’m So Live |
 | crazny on Has This Certain Ring to … |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Giggity!
*GOO!*
.
Bush Bashing: it’s just too easy anymore. (But still loads of fun!)
OMG BUSH IS SO DUMB!
Naw, Bush is getting boring…….
to CHENEY!
CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS CHENEY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!
FDR’s presidency makes me chuckle because he was a pretty popular president in terms of support by the people…but was always trying to find a way to bend the system to work better for him. I call it inventive, rather than blatantly trying to scam the system/country for self interest like Bush.
The caption is wrong the constitution has been ignored since the original “Savior” FDR got elected
Alright…
last time i checked, bush’s administration worked quite well for the country.
Indeed. He has been one of the best presidents.
I don’t know about best… but I think history in the long run will judge him as average. Historians view things a lot differently than a President’s contemporary opponents. History is full of Presidents that are now considered average, or good, but in their day were not very popular.
Amen to that!
Yea, but it doesn’t matter to us 50 years FROM NOW. What’s important is RIGHT NOW! Don’t you get it? Sheesh.
That is indeed the typical mentality in America these days.
Sadly, the short term view is given too much precedence.
I wish pundits on both the left and right sides of the fence would consider both history and the future somewhat more.
One day we will all be shocked to find out how many times during the Bush Administration that Terrorist Attacks on US soil were averted due to George W. Bush’s diligence. I know that it would have been quite horrific had the plans been carried out, had it not been for his administration’s national security policy.
While taking away as many American rights as possible. But hey, we’re secure, right? RIGHT GUYS? No? Damn.
hey at least he didn’t imprison thousands of japanese americans without due process.
Actually, it was the diligerence of the Armed Forces, FBI and other government professionals, including the “desk jocky” intelligence agencies, despite this administrations best efforts to screw things up.
Oh come on, you know it was Bush wearing a bandana doing it all…
No it wasn’t. It was Bush wearing a cowboy hat.
It was Laura with a strap-on.
Hey, you see this rock I found? It keeps lions away.
Bush will be rated as average if by average you mean the likes of Coolidge and Hoover.
If you google “Greatest Presidents List”, you’ll find among the first page, one which claims he is the worst (the only evidence it seems to have are some quotes that I would bet are taken well out of context), another that claims him the best (though this is probably propaganda), others that put him in the middle (certainly above the bottom, though), and several that don’t mention him entirely.
Not that bad a haul if you ask me.
Sure did! Wall Street is just a bunch of pansy-ass whiners.
The crisis on Wall Street was caused by the Democrats forcing lenders to extend risky credit. This was a policy instigated by the Democrats in the nineties.
yes, thats exactly it. what a douche.
really? I thought it was the fault of the republicans deregulating banks so that that risky debt kept getting sold over and over and over.
it’s a mixture of both, but the Reps are the immediate cause. The Dems plan might’ve worked out otherwise…
Sorry but the fact is that any time you make loans to people who can’t pay them back you’re going to take it in the shorts. Consider that nearly a quarter of all sub prime loans are in default you’re looking at a disaster for the lending institutions. There is no way, forcing businesses to give money away is going to keep those businesses afloat. Sorry, but the democrats basically nuked the banking system. Trying to pin it on Republicans who in fact tried to regulate the lending processes to prevent this from happening is just trying to blame who you don’t like. Republicans tried to regulate the process in the mid 90′s, late 90′s and every year since 2000 and were filibustered by the Democrats.
I don’t buy it EP. Even if that was PARTLY to blame, the financial goons largely made their own mess by taking risks they shouldn’t have. I suspect almost none of this is due to credit they were FORCED to grant. Most or all of it likely comes from loans they could very well have refused, but chose not to. Lending is just glorified gambling, and the odds weren’t quite as much in their favor as they thought.
Their buddies on Capitol Hill told them it would work, so why blame THEM? Man, your are harsh.
Their buddies on Capitol Hill? You mean these buddies?
All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000
What do you suppose they were paying Obama for?
You’re still taking that out of context. If you recall when you first mentioned this modified ‘fact’ it was pointed out why you are wrong.
The thing that worries conservatives about this list is not the seemingly small amounts of money, it’s that Obama has only been in congress for 3 years and is already at the top of the list. It’s a bit troubling.
Uh, no, it wasn’t.
Those payments to Democratic senators were bribes. And Obama got a lot more of the bribe money per unit time than any of the others.
Neck-deep in corruption.
Go back to the numbers, and copy them all down. Not just the numbers that make you look best.
Do I need to go back to the lol where you started with this and you were discredited?
I’m sure your McCain will maverick the shit out of it, too. LOL so dumb.
Wasn’t a large part of it due to the companies finding a way to not follow the regulations that the Federal Government had set up so this sort of thing would not happen? I.e. the requirement to keep capital liquid to cover risk rather than having another company take over the risk to free up the capital for huge salaries for their CEO’s.
You are referring to the Community Reinvestment Act, I presume? The one with the better than average repayment rate, and the lower than average debt reselling rate? The one that banks can choose to act under, or not, as they see fit? No one has ever forced anyone to extend risky credit. You need to get out of your echo chamber.
Looks like I struck a nerve with all these angry liberal replies.
Truth hurts, don’t it?
lies hurt more
meany!
If you are referring to the truth about the CRA, well, only you know how much it hurts you that your lies are debunked. The CRA is not to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis, it is just your attempt to deflect blame from yourself. If you think my reply is angry, you should read what you actually write. You are so full of venom and hatred you can’t think straight. Your record speaks for itself, EP.
Project much, Seth?
I think your reboot has not worked very well. You sound just like you did before.Are you running Vista?
The master of psychological projection is projecting his projection onto others. Anyone could, with two minutes of work, find at least a dozen instances where you have written hate filled, venomous posts. But I won’t fault you for it, you are young, impressionable, and obviously the product of a bad environment.
–
On a more serious note, your attempt to divert attention from the issue you raised will not work. The CRA helped make this crisis less severe, exactly the opposite of right wing talking points. Simple fact, the default rate on CRA loans is lower than the national average. CRA loans are safer, and less likely to be sold over and over again in debt packages.
That’s not what economist Jeffrey Miron thinks.
“The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
“Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
“This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
“Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets. “
OWNED.
Oh noes, a single quote that agrees with his point.
You fail to realise that economy is so far removed from actual science, they might as well be throwing chicken bones.
Where exactly did he mention science?
Truth Hurts… So is THAT why you avoid it at all costs?
I’ll see your CRA and raise you a Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The one Phil Gramm wrote, with the solid support of John McCain. The one that allowed banks to start getting involved in investment and insurance, so that any crisis affecting one sector of the finance industry would bleed over into the others. The one that reversed the Glass Act, passed in 1933 after so many holding companies and financiers overextended themselves to the ruination of world markets.
How about because a republican legislature backed republican administration in changing the rules so that banks were allowed to loan $40 for $1 in assets held, instead of $7 for $1? I don’t suppose that had anything to do with it?
last time I checked, half the world is pissed off at us, defecit’s piling up, soldiers are stuck in a desert for no good reason, few efforts to actually fight global warming….
Last time I checked, all that left-wing propaganda was crap.
nothing reasonable to say?
That’s just it though, EP. You never check. You’ve made up your mind about how the world is, and you won’t let mere facts change your world view. So you only see things that support your own biases. You call it left wing propaganda, but you’ve never even researched any of it to find out if there is any truth to it. You’ve already decided there isn’t, so why bother looking?
Projection again.
Srsly, dude. You never listen to anything reasonable. Nor do you attempt to be reasonable in return.
I get the feeling you’d say that Democrats make a daily sacrifice of virgins to the dragon on top of the Capitol if you thought it’d score you any points in an argument.
At least have the honor to treat your opponents with dignity, and I bet that most of them will start doing the same for you.
I treat my opponents as they treat me.
(Except for the fake identity stuff — I don’t do that.)
Obviously EP studied with Mr. Cleese at the Argument Clinic.
i ignore you because you are incredibly irrelevent.
so far it’s worked (at least up until now…)
Is that your word of the day? Did you just learn that in psych 101? Repeating a failed point does not turn it into a win. Your assertion is little more than the kindergarten comeback of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” with bigger words.
PwnT!
In bed…
AND in the kitchen!
Now I’m hungry.
i’m allergic
Actually there are a lot of people in Iraq who love the US for being there, it’s just that the media only interviews the ones who hate us, and global warming isn’t happening.
…because the bible says so! lolol.
Where does the Bible say that?
*slap*
This is America, goddammit!
half the world has all ways bin pissed off at us, and stopping a Evil Dictator that brutalized his people is “no good reason”… But hay I guess the freedom of Arabs doesn’t warrant concern…
When was the last time you checked, 2001?
When was that? Must have been Jan 19, 2001, that’s the last time any administration did anything right.
Anybody know what ‘push’ is in French?
LOL!
I’m sure that none of the other 42 deviated from the constitution at all. I’m not a fan of Bush, but I don’t think that he is the only president to break a few rules.
I’ve yet to see any evidence that Bush broke any rules.
*COUGH*torture*COUGH*
What rule was broken?
The administration sought advice on legally acceptable interrogation techniques, and followed it. People who overstepped the mark were punished.
In all cases, where a dispute arose as to whether some action was constritutional or not, it was decided in court — as provided bythe Constitution.
Nope, this ‘Bush violated the Constitution’ nonsense is just more lying Democrat propaganda.
You have a point there EP. Nothing is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such by a court of law, as per the rules in this country. People seem to feel that any time the discussion of constitutionality comes up, that the constitution has already been violated. Discussing these things is an inherent and vital part of the Constitution. How are we supposed to know what is constitutional and what isn’t unless the question is posed and ruled on by judges?
The mere act of questioning what the Constitution says (or more often, what it DOESN’T say.) is nothing to get riled up about. It’s how its supposed to work.
Wasn’t Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program ruled unconstitutional?
I believe the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Doesn’t quite answer whether or not it’s unconstitutional though, does it?
Doesn’t say it is though, does it?
Doesn’t say it’s constitutional either, does it?
actually, it does. by refusing to hear the case, the court said, in that particular instance, either there was no violation, or that it did not have jurisdiction.
That’s sort of my point though. If we had to run every decision by the Supreme Court for constitutionality, nothing would get done.
One would think that controversial programs like wiretapping, which has been labeled unconstitutional by numerous law experts, would be an ideal decision to run by the supreme court…
I’m sure the government has plenty of legal experts of their own who will say the opposite.
It’s not unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court says it is.
Duh, of course legal experts who work for the government are going to nod their heads at whatever the government wants to do.
Duh. And of course legal experts who don’t support the government are going to say the government’s actions are unconstitutional.
The arguments are compelling. You could look up the statements by those who believe that the wiretapping is unconstitutional and look up the corresponding laws to see their point. That’s what I did. But you won’t.
Of course not. Because I know, as well as you do, that I could look up the statements and the laws from the opposite point of view, and come to the opposite conclusion.
Neither of us is a Supreme Court Justice, so it would be a waste of time.
Besides, the US legal system is such a convoluted mess, you could find it to say almost anything you want.
Waterboarding was once considered torture, that changed only since Bush came into power. How does something stop being torture?
Magic!
Jesus is magic
Innocent until proven guilty I guess. I’m not going to argue if he did or not since I personally haven’t seen any evidence either, but my point was that even if he did he would hardly be the first (and most likely will not be the last) to bend the rules a bit.
He *bragged* that he broke the original FISA law, and said he planned on continuing to do so.
Proof?
Why? You never supply any for your wild claims.
Sure he does. Even if it almost always from right wing fundy blogs, he almost always provides a source.
EP is like Wikipedia: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth“
Evil Pundit continues to advocate for the ideology of ‘As long as I didn’t see it, it didn’t happen.’
So, you don’t have any proof, either.
Why am I not surprised?
Ooh– ZING.
Not exactly accurate, but funny! And by not exactly accurate, I mean that previous Presidents have bent the interpretation plenty of times. A few even added things to the precious Constitution!! (Perhaps you’ve heard of Amendments.)
Still, a good lol.
the founding fathers did want the constitution to change for every generation… so in a twisted way, we are doing what they’d want. besides, the Constitution is not Divine; it’s just something a group of white rich rebels put together to give us a starting point. Amendments, previous presidents, they’ve all changed it. and all the courts interpret it differently every time anyway. our issues today were not issues then. not at all.
Some people believe the Constitution was the word of God, written down by man. While I am not happy with some of the liberties people have taken with it on occasion, it certainly isn’t sacred or holy.
Debates about constitutionality wouldn’t be necessary if we were supposed to treat the thing as a set of literal and immutable rules. As with anything it needs to be discussed and debated, not taken at face value. It is no more holy or sacred than any other peice of legislation. In fact, it is designed to provoke MORE debate and argument than other documents, not less. Thats why amending it is so hard, not because it isn’t supposed to be changed, but because changes should be vigorously debated and worked out.
nope. they made it possible to amend. but the original bill of rights and the constitution are the “supreme law of the land”, as my college law professor used to say and cannot be changed. There will never be an amendment that gets rid of congress for example or one that says congress can pass a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Amendments can be repealed, including the first one. It just is very unlikely to happen.
The only person I can think of that can creditably be accused of attempting to bust the Constitution is the Secretary of Treasury – Norman Paulson I believe his name is. Large portions of the bailout, especially as he first submitted it, were unconstitutional.
Oh, and he’s a Democrat.
Henry Paulson was appointed by George W. Bush. He was CEO of Goldman Sachs before that. He is a registered Republican.
He didn’t even know his name, you expect him to know his party? He probably looked up Norman Paulson, a retiree from Iowa.
Blame this mess on Norman Paulson!! He can be our new scapegoat.
Burn the witch!
What’d I do?!!
Sorry – Henry Paulson.
I must have a different Google than you; the search I did (Wikipedia, yeah I know) says he is a Republican.
Which Google are you using?
Repuggle?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Henry_Paulson_Democrat_or_Republican
It appears that it’s wrong – although he does have a lot of Democratic ties.
Oh c’mon, what modern President has followed the constitution religiously. Bush’s failings are hardly related to constitutional breaches and more in mismanagement and lack of foreign policy experience *cough* when America needed it most, post-9/11.
its not a presidents neglect of the constitution that causes decline in American society. We could have had a tyrant like Bush that was really smart and the country prospered. We could be the most healthy, with the lowest crime rate and highest education and the best economy and military in the entire world but he would still be a tyrant that oppresses us.
Bush is not a tyrant.
I hate agreeing with EP. But he’s right, “tyrant” is quite the absurd exaggeration and anyone who uses that term just looks like a spoiled rotten American with no idea of what a tyrant actually is.
I feel the same way about the word “propaganda.”
This caption is too accurate to be funny. It’s just sad. :’(
I lol’d, then I cried.
I really hope we never have a black president.
0-o
Oh great, a stalker.
The above “Evil Pundit” is a fake.
This has happened before, with someone pretending to be ema posting racist comments.
As I’ve said many times, liberals seem unable to justify their positions without ultimately using dishonest tactics like these.
ok…but isn’t human nature to be cheating scum, which includes liberals and conservatives.
Fair enough. Dishonesty isn’t the exclusive province of one side, nor is honesty.
Though it is a tempting rhetorical point to turn back on such spoof attacks.
So… You guys do realize that EP works for Pet Holdings, Inc., the company behind ICHC and PK, right? His job is to generate discussion by being a devil’s advocate of cartoon proportions in order to keep people coming to the site.
Believe me, I should know.
Why should we believe you? You work for them too?
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Lies! I work for Darth Rov– er, I mean, just lies!
Lol. Nice Darth sprinkle.
Darth Rover? Dark labrador of the Sith?
I find your lack of dog treats disturbing…
Bring me the mailman, I want him ALIVE!!
This is a possible position.
I wonder if he likes being paid(or possibly volunteering) to be hated.
Well, it’s not like he’s listing his true name and contact info here. Hating a persona doesn’t equate to hating the person who undertakes it.
True. Some people even get a kick out of it.
No, it isn’t. According to recent research, it is human nature to be fair and equitable, and to punish those who are not, even if doing so hurts you. What you are describing is a condition known as sociopathy. There are a disproportionate number of sociopaths in positions of power, because they have no empathy and see other people as things, not people. So they use methods to achieve power that would literally make a normal person sick. And therefore, people have to be selfish to protect themselves from the selfishness of those in power.
–
As much as I dislike EP’s tactics, which I find dishonest myself, there is no call for attempting to discredit him like this. Just use facts, it’s much easier and simpler, with no chance of blow-back.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
maybe us dishonest liberals should fallow in step behind the republicans by using there tactics.
Yes, you should adopt Republican tactics of being honest and open-minded.
Seriously?
EP stalker!!
Ann Coulter? Is that you?
And apparently delusional
You know, I was sitting here for the last few days reading your posts and being completely confused by, at times, posting seemingly intelligent replies – and then at times reading this kind of stuff. I have come to take your posts with a grain of salt … and thus, they now just make me laugh. Thanks.
I know plenty of people, both republican and democrat who like making a fool out of you. So dont try to pin this abuse on anyone when you have no clue who it is.
On the bright side, you’ve gotten under someone’s skin enough for to pull lame little tricks.
Soo… congrats?
Why do you automatically assume the person making fun of you is a liberal? Could it not just be some jerk?
(1) It isn’t someone making fun of me. It’s someone trying to discredit me by falsely assuming my identity.
(2) This person has used the same tactics before, on ema. The fact that the false comments are both racist, and dishonestly attributed to conservatives, indicates a liberal actor.
How do you know it’s the same person?
Oh come on you chickensh*t, if you want to disagree with EP, do it with your usual name like the rest of us do. Otherwise, kindly go throw yourself in front of a train. Thanks.
Agree. right, wrong, indifferent, only someone without honor uses BS logins to attack, mock or otherwise disrupt a conversation. this is, after all a semi-anonomous format anyway. Show some semblence of courage and establish some level of identity.
I was going to post some random garbage right here under your name, Lolnathan … just for laughs … but I just couldn’t do it to ya
You go on and you hope for that. While you are at it ill just hope that we dont have another bad one.
Cut it out, liar. EP has never said a racist thing and your not funny.
It’s so easy to discredit EP without resorting to dishonesty, why would anyone bother?
EP discredits himself every time he posts.
Well, some people like to take the easy route to shut someone up, like they tried to do to me not so long ago.
Why would anyone want to shut you up? I may not agree with you, but you are personable, you are informed (and when you aren’t you admit it! Are you to the Internets? This is not how we act here!), and you are good at making your points. Oh, now I see…
Again, I doubt it’s a case of someone wanting to “shut EP up” as much as it’s a case of some loser kid who thinks he’s creating chaos on teh interwebz. Srsly, people don’t do that kind of sh*t unless they’re bored and want to f*ck with people, and that kind of person has no political agenda.
I don’t think so.
The same tactic — making racist posts under a false name — was used on ema a couple of weeks ago. I suspect it was the same person.
The method and the targeting of conservative commenters clearly indicates a political motive.
Or maybe they’re just high on audience and anonimity, like most trolls are.
Aw, trolls getting bent out of shape over getting trolled. Classic. Where’s my popcorn?
It also happened to Jellybeans as well I believe.
I think this fake poster’s agenda is to target the “characters” on these
boards that either inspire the most controversy, or say the more right-ist
or left-ist approach to things.
I agree with Jane, this clown is just that. A clown. He wears bright clothing
acts a fool and gets paid in the form of attention.
As sad a fact as it is, this guy’s not even good enough to follow closely
to what his target usually says, so its not taken too heavily.
I take that back, He did turn everyone on the board into McCarthy
for about 5 or 10 posts.
I read over that whole saga of comments and thought to myself, “Its
like watching The Thing all over again, just with less blood and more politics….
I think I have a new movie idea…
Clowns eat people. *shudder*
That they do. At least I am not important enough to mock.
I can dish it out but I can’t take it. Please don’t exploit my pansy thin skin, I’ve been so nice to everyone here!
That’s entertaining. And you make it obvious by linking to McCain on ED
Wow, that is utterly disgusting, so where are all the web pages like that disgracing Obama?
Oops, I just found it, man that site is truly disgusting. Why do people waste time with that crap.
Yeah I clicked the wrong thing while on that page and got treated to an animated cartoon of some girl getting dismembered rather gorily. Blehhhh. Disgusting site for 4chan degenerates imho.
Wow, that’s not right… I feel sorry for people with kids these days.
LOL holy crap. I find pretty much everything funny – even the most crude of humor – but damn, that site is crazy. I did chuckle a lot, though.
Pathetic, cowardly liar.
Pathetic and cowardly, but obviously not a liar…
A liar because he is missrepresenting himself as someone we already know, at the very least.
How do you know it’s not just EP having a breakdown and exposing his multiple personalities? Or EP trolling himself?
Actually according to my fundamentals-of-American-government, the constitution’s been ignored by most presidents since Teddy Roosevelt. Then again, I’ve also been told that the reason the constitution has lasted as long as it has (it’s the The oldest written national framework of government in the world, apparently. Blame my history textbook if I’m wrong here) is because it’s creators made it possible to evolve and change over time.
So, my question is: Where are all the Teddy Roosevelt haters? C’mon, guys! Don’t be hypocritical!
Grrrrrrrrrrr, stupid Roosevelt with his canal-building and his elephant-hunting and his charge-leading and his Pony Express and, and, and GRRRRRR
¡VIVA ESPAÑA!
I think that the Mayans, Aztecs, Incans, and Egyptians, who all had written frameworks for their governments lasted longer than 232 years.
Yes but they aren’t still around. The constitution is the oldest one that’s still in use.
That’s not what he said. He said the oldest written framework of government in the world. The world consists of much more than what is happening here and now.
Actually, virtually every president, except Washington, has tried to pull power away from Congress and into the administration, it is the nature of the position. One of the reasons that the anti-federalists opposed the constitution of 1787. And why we need the system of checks and balances. Also one of the reasons that Washington was such an amazing man, never in any historical context has someone seized power, voluntarilly given it up, been given power again and given it up a second time…a truely amazing man.
Well, it’s erosion started under Lincoln… Roosevelt overstepped his bounds, especially Franklin. Woodrow Wilson gave us our modern problems by giving us the Federal Reserve, but FDR gave us welfare. Both were schmucks.
Yeah…you don’t really see people screaming about FDR, do you…
lol
you mean people screaming about when (as Biden put it) FDR got on TV and talked about the stock market crash?
IDK what’s funnier.
The picture, or the resulting flame war.
Don’t come here often do you? This is tame compared to most debates here.
Hahaha no…..
But go to GamePro.com. Just wanted to say, but there, it’s the exact same thing but about gaming.
Yeah but PK is special because whereas gaming sites are filled with 14 year olds acting like 14 year olds. We have 30 and 40 year olds acting like 14 year olds!
Hey! I haven’t gotten to 30 yet!!!! (maybe I shouldn’t say that, now I’ll be accused of being a product of the system
)
Me either, I am just a jerk.
Me either, don’t make me older than I am!!!
At least I’M acting my age.
Except EP, he’s a a 20 something going on 80.
Oh man! Why do you have to rat us old folks out like that? Now everyone will know we aren’t running around doing grown up stuff all day.
ema, you’re not old, you can’t be over 30.
Actually, I was just saying that everything seems to have some kind of flamer.
(And there are guys that old there, too…….lolz!)
caption fail, this bush is 42 so it should be the constituion is only for the first 41 presidents not 42.
No he isn’t, he’s the 43rd, Clinton was 42nd, and pappa bush was 41st
Bush 2 is the 42nd. Grover Cleveland was 22 and then re-elected after #23, but there have been only 42 different presidents of the United States.
Your intelligence qualifies you as Commander-in-Chief, congrats.
1 George Washington
2 John Adams
3 Thomas Jefferson
4 James Madison
5 James Monroe
6 John Quincy Adams
7 Andrew Jackson
8 Martin Van Buren
9 William Henry Harrison
10 John Tyler
11 James K. Polk
12 Zachary Taylor
13 Millard Fillmore
14 Franklen Pierce
15 James Buchanan
16 Abraham Lincoln
17 Andrew Johnson
18 Gen. Ulysses S. Grant
19 Rutherford B. Hayes
20 James A. Garfield
21 Chester A. Arthur
22 Grover Cleveland
23 Benjamin Harrison
24 William McKinley
25 Theodore Roosevelt
26 William Howard Taft
27 Woodrow Wilson
28 Warren G. Harding
29 Calvin Coolidge
30 Herbert Hoover
31 Franklin D. Roosevelt
32 Harry S. Truman
33 Dwight D. Eisenhower
34 John F. Kennedy
35 Lyndon B. Johnson
36 Richard M. Nixon
37 Gerald R. Ford
38 Jimmy Carter
39 Ronald Reagan
40 George Bush
41 Bill Clinton
42 George W. Bush
How many presidents were therem Not how many terms. the have only been 42 different presidents.
Grover Cleveland was elected twice, but not back to back, so he is president #22 and president #24
you might have noticed I already said that, but that does not change the fact there have been only 42 presidents. If you want to count that was washing was president twice? bush 2, regean, ect? Roosevelt was 4 presidents? no, he was one president.
I captioned this. You can get as technical as you want i dont care.
However,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html first sentence.
now. what your saying just may be correct. I have not verified it.
George Bush Jr is considered to be officially the 43rd prez by the us government
yes, but our govt is run by morons.
Flame wars make me happy.
*pulls out marshmallows, chocolate, and graham crackers*
First cheezburgers, now s’mores, damnit I’m getting hungry.
What a joke, the second President didn’t even follow the Constitution. The Constitution should be on failblog.
Holy crap, I just read through all the comments here (not sure why) and some of you people seriously need to lay off the crack.
Why?
Technically, Bush is the 42nd man to hold the title: President of the United States.
I love the comment that thanks to Bush, there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States”. No duh! Your average terrorist can go kill Americans in his own backyard. (Let’s see…go the market, and get some fresh goat…kill some american pigs…check magazine stand for Jihad Monthly…) Four thousand plus soldiers is no less of a sacrifice than four thousand regular citizens.
I really wish the men and women in the armed forces can be protected from the greatest threat to them all…
…stupid politicians!
Wonderful, but the truth is that the founding fathers never expected the Constitution to last. Coming straight from the failed Articles of Confederation, they expected the Constitution to last for a few generations and then have to be re-worked. Never once did they think it would last for 221 years.
george washington definetly