Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The best little whore house… | What did he say? Next »
Tests show that 90% of Republicans actually can’t tell the difference between a pitbull and a bulldog
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: duh_cabbage
 | keshet the adequate on Funniest Case Scenarios |
 | imnotreallyhere on Funniest Case Scenarios |
| keshet the adequate on Collect Em’ All |
| keshet the adequate on Funniest Case Scenarios |
 | k.a.d. on Collect Em’ All |
| k.a.d. on Collect Em’ All |
| k.a.d. on Collect Em’ All |
 | DW on Happy Birthday Ronald Rea… |
| k.a.d. on Collect Em’ All |
| k.a.d. on Collect Em’ All |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? Home - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Just Capshunz - All of the Internet. 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!
… moving on
Tests also show that democraps would rather discuss things like misidentified dog breeds and their relevance to figures of speech than address meaningful issues like a candidate’s plans to redistribute wealth, socialism, takeover of the health care system, ties to radical groups charged with committing voter fraud, plans to put in a gift of $800million to the afforementioned radical group into the economic bailout plan, ties to unrepentant terrorists, ties to radical anti-american preachers and the idea that his own running mate says, mark his words, that if elected, the world will likely test him by attacking us.
I’m so embarrassed for that woman who thinks that’s a pit bull though… srsly…
tl;dr
Excuse the hijacking, but your comment is jibberish anyway.
-
Hey jack – you deserve an award of some kind for trolling on a first in which said first person didn’t even say first.
-
You are a worthless idiot and you FAIL.
I know right? When a group of people (say, republicans) doesn’t know the difference between a pit bull and a bulldog….. or doesn’t know how to spell socielest… or mavrick. Well, it just forces me to wonder if they can’t get the easy stuff right, how could they possibly grasp complex issues?
The answer? They can’t.
Don’t be so quick to judge someone based on their spelling.
I recently graduated from a university with a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering. It would be safe to say that the majority of my classmates would understand “complex issues” in an internal combustion engine better than an English major, but most of them cannot spell and they use horrible grammar. (Hey, if you can understand it, then the message was conveyed.)
Science geeks and engineers know how to use spell check though. Pretty sure that isn’t who we’re talking about here.
Chalkboards and scratch paper does not have spell checker.
Though that is a good point (the second one).
I don’t judge republicans because they suck at spelling, I suck at it too. I judge them because they’re retarded and will ultimately lead to the shame disgrace, and possibly
the annihilation of America.
It’s not JUST the spelling… it’s everything… the false assertions that Obama is a muslim… and pals around with terrorists… and was sworn in on a “Quran”… ad nauseum. The spelling thing is just one of the many reasons that I disregard their opinions. Sorry, just can’t take it seriously when people are THAT stupid.
Hey, don’t start thinking all Republicans are that way. I’m a registered Republican and I don’t believe any of that stuff. My spelling is almost perfect, and so is my grammar. And, I actually agree with a lot of the things both candidates are saying. My biggest problem with them is that they’re both attacking each other and competing for popularity that they’re not focusing solely on what they should be focusing on: doing what’s best for the country. Isn’t that why we elect people into office, so they can help the country? But both of them are wrong in a lot of the policies they want to put into effect.
Really, the political parties should be done away with. They’re in the way and keeping the country from reaching its full potential.
Jibberish? tl;dr is quite appropriate for jack’s post.
You must be new to the internets.
tl;dr = Too Long; Didn’t Read.
Nope, not new – just against the “new” bullshit acronyms that mean nothing… “Too Long; Didn’t Read” – we could have assumed that you didn’t read it ify ou just hadn’t posted at all.
.
Sorry, I’m from the Internet, not the ‘eentrwebz’
I can’t help but agree. Watching the language get so decimated is quite painful sometimes.
THEY’RE KILLING VALUABLE LETTERS!
Although, caps lock for a shouting effect is always fun.
Get with the times, its called the blagoblag now.
srsly? why keep breathing?
I was going to comment, but you’re obviously WAY to misinformed to correct in anything less than an entire page. But to put it simply, you’re wrong about everything and should kill yourself.
you should kill yourself first, NOBAMA! 2008
Sigh… I so want to move to Canada, it may be lame, but at least it’s not mentally challenged.
Sorry, stopped reading after “democraps”. If you have something worthwhile to say, try speaking like an adult.
DING DING DING
FTW
Hey, I actually enjoyed the “Democraps” tag. It was hilarious and made you all jump to try to debunk him.
Trolling win!
All? The only one debunking him is Seth. Everyone else dismissed him out of hand.
Somebody posted?!
Debunk, call him pre-adolescent, what’s the difference?
If you say so, chief…
Sometimes all the arguments I hear are just fancy attempts to call someone stupid.
If we showed you.. then you wouldnt have anything to post anymore.
Yeah, he already ran away from two separate conversations about global warming when I turned up with the actual science. (see my link) Evidence does tend to throw him off.
Whoa, you continued that conversation? Isn’t that picture on page four now? (I’m sorry, I don’t have the time to keep up with every discussion I have on PK).
I could put up an arguement about the ice cores now, if you so wish.
But for the reccord, I’m not one to run away from an discussion, unless it has turned into complete idiotocracy and loses all comprehension.
I would sooner admit a loss in the discussion and change my ideas than run away because I am wrong.
NO, I know the first time was a couple pages ago, but you brought it up again yesterday. You can’t really argue the ice cores because the science is sound. You seem ready to come up with anything in order to not have to change your viewpoint. My link is one that explains the ice evidence the simplest, which I picked because you were unfamiliar with it. There were a lot of other sources corroborating this, with more detailed info.
Last comment I made there was three days ago, and like I said, I don’t have the time to check every comment thread every day.
*
I will argue the ice cores though. I’m not questioning the science of collecting or finding information from them (which your article doesn’t explain), I’m questioning how this applies to global temperatures.
An ice core will show the local temperatures for that spot, and even if you collect cores from all over, you will only get Antarctica’s average temperatures. This will not take the rest of the earth’s temp into account, especially if something like El Nino or La Nina is happening, where the temperatures at the equator are significantly different than the average ocean temp.
*
I would be happy to continue discussing this with you, but the whole comment board thing is getting tricky when the discussion gets shoved back to the 6th page (where the last discussion was).
So you think that only Antartica has warming trends? If you compare the results the records since there have been temperature records kept (and yes, these are reliable, even with less sophisticated thermometers, seeing as even by feel you can go outside and feel if it’s closer to 70 or to 80) The records coincide nicely with ice core results. Do you think that the ice cores suddenly began corresponding to earth temperature trends just when we began keeping records? That’s silly. You can even track the 11 year sunspot cycle using ice cores, and that has been a universally accepted trend for a long, log time.
You are refusing to believe what is right in fromt of your nose, because you are being too stubborn to even accept the possibility that this is real.
On an aside note, Forgoing all science for a moment, what is the downside, even if it’s an over-reaction? Why not err on the side of caution? New technologies emerge, creating more jobs, we clean up our air and water, leaving the planet in better shape for our children and the generations to come. It’s a win-win to live more green. And if the scientists are right, it’s too important to ignore for the sake of our species and many other species of plants and animals, to do something now, while there’s still a chance.
I’m sure Antarctica has similar trends to the rest of the world, but it doesn’t mean that it has always been this way. The climate on earth is way too complex to say “It will always work this way.”
My point is that you can’t look at localized data and assume it is true for the entire system.
*
I refuse to believe what is incomplete. There is plenty of evidence on either side, but when someone can explain what is going on without making assumptions, then I’ll believe.
The only reason it’s in front of my face is because people keep shoving it there, expecting me to believe. I remain skeptic because it seems there are few who are. If I stated that I believed god was a multi-faced alien, I would have received less arguments.
*
The down side to me, is that there seems to be few thinking rationally on this subject. The people I used to have thoughtful discussions with turn into raving, insult throwing lunatics when this subject is brought up. It also seems to promote the biasing of data in scientific projects, “I’m sure this is what’s happening, how can I prove it?”
While your ending arguments are valid, it just feels unethical to convince people to do something because of exaggeration.
It feels like convincing your mother to sell her mansion by telling her there’s killer mold in the place, when all you wanted her to do was save some money.
Also, I was never against alternative energy or less pollution. I just get sick of everybody trying to push the “green” agenda without thinking of how exactly it will be done (ex: wind power is still not any better than coal, it needs a natural gas turbine to keep the power output constant, and it runs much less efficiently than one at a constant output).
More jobs is great, as is better technology, but we’re still along ways off from the final “energy fix”
*
Here’s an alternative way to look at it: what if global warming is real? What’s so bad about it? We’d be able to grow crops on land that was previously too cold, the colder places would become more livable, the artic would still be too big for polar bears to find food, and people in Maine could wear hot pants more often. Wait, maybe that is the reason we’re worried about it…
We’ll also have famine and flooding and previously habitable zones becoming unlivable because they’re now 150 degrees and climbing. Polar bears won’t live anywhere because there will be NO polar ice caps. Deserts form. all the time. If we don’t get the pattern to level off, the whole earth will become biologically extinct. You are in denial about the science. Just because it’s that way now doesn’t mean it always has been? Of course it has been. Physics laws can’t just change.
I also find this “just feels unethical to convince people to do something because of exaggeration.”, to be hypocritical and dualistic. You say yourself that people are overreacting, but the consequences are much higher here than moving to a new house. We don’t have anywhere else to go if it kills the planet. And using lack of proof as a reason to not bother, than that’s just silly. It’s thinking in black and white. Only positive can come from erring on the side of caution (though I don’t think it’s erring) Healthier planet for all and new industries being born leaving much economic growth.
Where did the 150 degrees come from? Sounds to me like that number was pulled out of thin air. Also, 150 degrees where? The highest recorded surface temp was 159 degrees, Lut desert, Iran in 2005. If polar bears need ice, how can they live in zoos?
Physics laws do not change, but there is no law that states a temperature on one part of the earth must correlate to another part.
*
Unless the earth is broken into a million little pieces from a gigantic meteor, there will be no way the earth will become biologically extinct. There has been life on this planet in one form or another even before it finished cooling, and there will be life on this planet long after we are gone.
*
It is exaggeration, let alone the others who will argue my side with the proof to do so (click my name for the link), there is no way to know if this “rise in temperature” will continue as plotted, or if it is even caused by man.
*
I am not in denial about science, I doubt the people like you who throw numbers out and claim it as science. Also, calling global warming a “science” isn’t exactly accurate either, it’s actually a religion. The names you have called me in your above comment make me believe that I am attacking your religion, instead of just having a scientific debate. (BTW, let me list the insults you have thrown my way: “You are in denial” “I find this … to be hypocritical and dualistic” “that’s just silly”–This isn’t even counting the times you were being condescending.)
*
You may claim victory, or that I have ran away because of your “superior evidence,” but I am finished trying to have this discussion with you. It is obvious that you would rather pull numbers out of the air and insult me rather than have a true discussion.
Good bye, and good luck feeling superior in your “knowledge”
What names did I call you? You are holding on to the 150 as if that’s the only consequence I said. I listed many more, better ones than simply temperature. You are evading. I also followed up with a reason I thought you were being hypocritical. I’m sorry, but finding technicality loopholes does not invalidate the scientific evidence. I don’t think there’s any particular records of gravity or magnetism existing millions of years in the past. That doesn’t mean thy didn’t. Apparently you would dismiss rock striations showing the change in earth’s magnetic field’s changes as invalid because you weren’t there to see them? You sound like you’re getting defensive more than anything, and pretending to take the high road like most right-wingers when backed into a corner. I did not insult you. I gave an opinion and the reason I hold the opinion. You turned my words around and insulted me.
Also your “source” isn’t a real news source, so it is invalid. All the indignance in the world doesn’t make it true.
Furthermore you have framed most of your arguments on what you do and do not BELIEVE, not provided any source material except a right-wing newsgroup, and then accuse me of having some sort of false religion when all I tried to do is present the actual science?!?! You have then said I would claim a false victory to cover your tracks. You have been demoted to troll, if a well spoken one.
Damn, now I do feel like a troll.
I entered this as an actual discussion. I was hoping to either learn something, or help explain the views I have. Neither has occurred.
I did not claim that link as a source, just as a person who believes that global warming is a hype, as do I.
As for the religion comment, it was not aimed at you having a false religion, just comparing the zeal of one trying to prove their religion.
I did not intend to end up attacking you, or anyone else with your views on the subject.
I am also sorry I broke my own rule as to not discuss this topic.The discussion got heated and went nowhere.
Apologies to all, though if incontrovertible evidence ever comes to light, then one of us will have the opportunity to feel like a fool for arguing our side–I’ll drink to that.
Well I appreciate the apology. Cheers.
Id rather be on minerva’s side and be wrong.. than on your side and dead wrong.
Im just sayin….
Hey, thanks Maxwell.
Max does have a decent point. Though, I’ve never said
that we don’t need alternative energy. I’m all for less pollution, I’m just not sold on the reason why everyone else is going crazy for it.
The main reason I’m rooting for alternatives is to break the
monopoly that oil has on our transportation. For about 100
years it has been the only thing worth using in our vehicles
(including airplanes and trains, excluding subway trains).
We need something that compete with gasoline (stable,
cheap, energy efficient, with enough storage capacity to go
a fair distance), and if we can make it clean at the same time,
it’ll make it perfect. After all, we do live in our own waste,
just ask LA…
this response is probably far too late, but does no one know what happened a little over ten years ago? Maybe something called the electric car? A car that could be charged in your own home, and could go about 100miles in a day, where as the average person only drove about 20 miles per day. The car companies stopped making them, saying no one wanted them, when there were wait lists of thousands of people who wanted them, yet they destroyed them anyway. Taking the technology of the battery that was being created to make the car run EVEN LONGER than it did. They were going to make it all over again, but the car companies AGAIN, argued no one would want them and that it was a mistake to waste the money again. They lie! I know I’d want an electric car, I’d take out a loan and but it full price. They used to refuse their customers the option to buy it, and tried to get them to NOT buy the car. We had the technology at our finger tips, but we did nothing. We let the oil barons take it from our grasp and break it, without so much as an apology nor a reason other than money. If you don’t believe me, go watch “Who Killed The Electric Car”. We had the technology, and if it weren’t stolen from us, maybe global warming wouldn’t be as big a deal and maybe we’d be using alternative energies by now, maybe even improving them too.
Lets take these points one by one. No candidate plans anything like redistributing wealth. That is ridiculous hyperbole, and you discredit yourself by repeating it. Everyone with half a brain now thinks less of you. Second, I am a socialist. I want more socialism in America, for the poor instead of the rich. Obama is not even close to being a socialist, that’s just a smear repeated by people with no real critique of his plans. Third, I wish the government would take over the healthcare system, but Obama isn’t going to do it. Fourth, ACORN. John McCain has been a supporter and a key note speaker for them. ACORN is not radical, and their problems are minor compared to real fraud by Republicans. The whole thing is a ploy to cast doubt on newly registered voters, most of whom plan to vote Democrat. As for the $800 million, cite a source or shut the hell up. Despite your side’s continual lies, nobody cares about Ayers. Obama began his campaign in a motel room, not Ayers’ house. They don’t have ‘ties.’ McCain has ties to the Keating five, though. Obama spoke out against his preacher. And Biden was right, you traitorous assholes will likely engineer some kind of attack or crises, just to discredit Obama.
Yeesh. This rebuttal seems horribly one sided. Granted, so was the original statement…
*
I don’t remember the actual wording, but I heard Obama say that he wanted the programs that would benefit the poor, and he wanted the rich to pay for it (I know, horrible paraphrasing). That’s not true
socialism, but it’s the closest we’ve had in a long time.
I’m not a fan of socialism myself, I like the fact that if I spend the time and effort to bake myself a delicious cake, I don’t have to share it with whoever was determined to “need it more.”
*
Obama does have ties with ACORN, and some members of that group have been guilty of voter fraud. From what I gathered, it’s the policies of said group that drove those persons to do what they did. (Besides how can you say that the Dems are not equally guilty in fraud, wasn’t Hillary supposed to win the Pres bid? I get really annoyed when someone thinks one party is competely perfect, while the other party worships satan, Neither is perfect and neither is completely good.)
*
Lastly, I am an Engineer and a Republican (by registration, I tend to think for myself), therefore I really dislike that “traitorous assholes” comment. It seems to me that you are just trying to stir things up.
Voter registration fraud and voter fraud are two completely different things. ACORN is required by federal law to turn in all voter registration forms, and if someone labeled one “Daffy Duck”, workers flagged it as suspect, and turned it in. What are they supposed to do?
Your comment regarding Hillary makes no sense: please explain further so that I may later debunk it.
And to be perfectly vague about McCain’s stances, he wants something to do with removing the tax burden from the large corporations and the wealthy so we can go to war in the Middle east for 100 years. It the closest thing we’ve have to corporate totalitarianism we’ve had. >> See where vague somethings get us? Nowhere near the truth.
Good point. Vote registration fraud is a different thing, but it is halfway to becoming voter fraud. Besides, who’s to say that a few of those people who registered extras didn’t mark down a vote and send it in via early balloting?
As for Hillary, from what I understand, she didn’t quite get a fair shake at the elections. I got the impression that she was being pressured to concede before the complete vote was taken. I know this isn’t fraud, but it kinda reeks of unfair play.
I think you’re a little off on the “McCain is totalitarianism” statement, by definition: totalitarians want the government to control everything, and giving tax breaks to corporations. This will encourage corporations to grow, unless there is some other plan for the government to get big business in their pockets. On the other hand, Obama is the one trying for more government controlled programs including healthcare.
I’m not trying to spread vagueness or all out lies, but I do like to try to point out the other side to people who seem to point out that one side will fix everything, and the other will turn into a new Nazi party. Neither is innocent in this game of politics.
What’s that, buddy? Did you mention NAZIS?
*waits for talk of DWN’s wang*
Regarding the voting bit: it is terribly improbable that a significant number of genuinely fraudulent cards were processed and checked to an address, and the defrauder had a valid (though fake) ID to make an early vote.
Not impossible, just improbable. About the same likelihood of Monica Bellucci knocking on the door butt-naked asking for someone to sponge bathe her.
Regarding Hillary: she fought tenaciously, but the numbers were against her. True she could have waited out the last two primaries, but unless she won by a 90% margin, she’d've lost. Florida and Michigan were penalized for moving their primaries — a raw deal, but what have you — and all the top tier candidates retracted their campaigns, except for Clinton, who doubled back on her word.
Obama is not pushing for a socialized government control of anything.
Slightly off topic, why is taxing the wealthy and giving breaks to the middle class “socialist redistribution of wealth”, but taxing the middle class and giving breaks to the rich “free-market economics”?
“why is taxing the wealthy and giving breaks to the middle class “socialist redistribution of wealth”, but taxing the middle class and giving breaks to the rich “free-market economics””
DING DING DING I think we’ve found a winner. You’ve managed to uncover teh question of the hour!! (And by hour, I mean the whole campaign season)
If it were only taxing the wealthy and giving breaks to the poor, that statement makes a good point.
BUT, it is more than that. His plan is to tax the wealthy to get revenue to create more programs that will only be accessible to poor people, effectively taking money from one end, and using it on the other.
ALSO, he has said himself:
“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Good for everybody other than the people you are taking the money from.
*
I’m not against the programs that help people out, but I believe there are better ways to pay for them. How many unnecessary government groups are out there? How much are they costing us in taxes?
That’s why he said he’s going to eliminate programs that aren’t working and streamlines the ones that could work better. Also why he wants to go through the federal budget with a scalpel to make the budget work better.
Also, your agrument does not invalidate :but taxing the middle class and giving breaks to the rich “free-market economics” fallacy.
McCain is not going to tax the middle class any more.
His plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Also, any tax cut on a business will be allocated to upgrading the company, and/or help out the investors.
Remember, even CEO’s have to answer to someone (the investors)
I know what his plan is about the Bush Tax cuts. That’s the whole point. People have argued on here ad nauseum about how those said cuts have not helped the middle class at all. Hence a net LOSS of jobs, and a widening rift between the wealthy and everybody else. We’ve been over this again and again. Trickle-down theory does not work because the 10% is too greedy for any trickle to happen.
Unemployment actually has been going down until the market started to crash (both parties at fault there).
As for the rich paying taxes, the top 1% pay 39.89% of the total income tax paid, and the top 10% pay 70.79%. Click my name for the source.
“Trickle-down theory does not work because the 10% is too greedy for any trickle to happen.” — No it doesn’t work because a lot of the poor are to lazy to get out and earn the trickle — makes as much sense as what you said.
@ Mukhtar –Thanks for showing your great insight on something you obviously know nothing about.
@cobrajoe I’ll have to go look up the unemployment info, but I do know that the overall figure doesn’t reflect individual regions. While it may be a certain way “on average” There may be many places where it is much worse than the national average. The thing that I think is very important, but rarely represented, is the number of people who have jobs, but are UNDER employed. By this I mean people who have been bought out on early retirement when their company downsized or shipped their job overseas, but have had to take a job they are overqualified in order to make ends meet. Also, there are many people, like me, who have earned a Bachelors degree or better, who can not find employment in their profession or in a profession that requires they be educated at all. Salaries for the middle class have been going down, not up. My own example is that although our income has increased VERY modestly, we have been taking home less and less every year largely because the cost of our benefits has gone up. Pile that with the increased cost of living because of fuel, and prices of consumer goods, and we wind up in bad shape. This sort of thing is not represented in those figures! This is why I think McCain doesn’t get it and why it demonstrates trickle down not working. Hardworking people like us ought to be able to get ahead under the trickle down conditions, but it just isn’t so.
I don’t think the rich should gove up being rich so that everybody can be equal, but I do think that those who can shoulder a little more without feeling the burden very heavily should do so. McCain himself used to proclaim this. I know people like me can’t handle any more or we will be broken. This is what democrats are trying to prevent. I don’t think republicans want to see this happen, but I think they’re out of touch with what’s really happening here on the ground.
I’ll agree, trickle down theory has some problems, but the trickle up theory that Obama subscribes to also has problems.
If you force the corporations and rich people to cover more of the total tax revenue, it will be that much more enticing to move their money/business/manufacturing outside of the country. Sure, they won’t get the same tax breaks as if they kept it all American, but they won’t be subject to the same environmental or labor regulations.
This move would seriously injure the US economy (sending more money overseas) as well as increase the unemployment rate (sending more job opportunities overseas).
Truthfully, the best overall plan would be to reduce taxes across the board, and the only real way to accomplish this would be to make the government significantly leaner and more efficient.
I doubt we’ll see this plan adopted by either major party. Reason? Power corrupts.
You’re missing the part where the CEO’s have stopped the “trickle down”
as too keep more of what brought in. Its been said time and time again, that
economic platform works… if people werent greedy.
The CEO’s also have to answer to somebody: the investors/stockholders.
Yes, but who are those major shareholders? Other rich people with their own greed.
I don’t understand the thinking that giving corporations more money/tax breaks/whatever will cause jobs to be created. I have been in the working world a while, and it seems to me that jobs are created not because there’s some extra cash burning a hole in shareholders’ pockets, but as a response to increased demands, i.e., more work to do and no one to do it. For the demand to be ther, potential customers have to have the means to pay for the goods or services you offer.
But if a company increases it’s revenue, it has the chance to grow, and that will provide more jobs and provide more revenue for the company.
There have actually only been 24 documented cases of voter fraud in the entire history of the United States. None of them are tied to ACORN.
Voter registration fraud is something different.
What do you mean, Hilary was ‘supposed to win the pres bid’? Votes took place over a wide range of states over a wide span of time.
Hilary was doing better at first, but Obama made a comeback. Not a difficult concept.
From what I understand, she was pressured to concede before the final votes were in. Granted, I don’t know exactly how the Dem’s primaries work.
It was a rather odd race.
It was close, but as the votes came in, her shot became longer and longer, until until her odds approached in professional parlance NIAFP (not in a prayer)
Yes she was… just as all the other candidates in both parties quit the race before the primaries were concluded. It’s called “Party Unity”, and Hillary should have been very familiar with it.
Still, I think it can now be said that Obama will win or lose this election on the merits of his campaign, not anything Hillary did, and I can now forgive her for her selfishness.
Just to stir the pot a little more…..
It was odd to me how Rush Limbaugh would say that Hillary would need to do ‘this or this’ in order to keep her campaign semi-viable, and then 1 to 3 days later she would do that very thing. Lo and behold her poll numbers would rise, she would go around with a big smile on her face, and then Obama was put on the defensive and forced to fight back to get his poll numbers back.
-
You may not like or agree with Rush, but he does have some influence
Operation Chaos?
http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/daily-show-flashback-mccain-socialis
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
All I heard was “Blah blah blah, punch me in the face please”
Amen.
And yet somehow they say we can’t afford MCCAIN??? Someone needs to read up on their candidates…
I sense several pairs of socks trolling around.
I think it’s just one sock, but it’s the one that always comes up missing in the wash and it’s back for revenge.
Probably. Got it stuck in the copier though.
Not trying to stir sh*t, but I read an article that showed that McCain’s tax plan would bring back the economy faster and stronger than Obama’s.
Side-by-side comparisons tend to disagree.
I read an article where Bigfoot and Bat-Boy were going to run as a third party, and they already have the endorsement of Elvis. Their economic plan kicks ass.
Yeah, but i heard that bat boy likes the bats a little too much…is he a GOP congressman?
At least bigfoot isnt a socialist terrorist.
oh noes!!11
scary scary scary!!
(‘scuse me while i go change my party affiliation.)
OMG! Batboy is running? Where is my Ballot?!
Oh, and btw, I did find the article, but since no one seems to care, I’m not going to tell you where I hid the link.
Because this is a srs bsns debate site.
That varies widely from one minute to the next.
Is this a cue for talk of the need of social reform or the one for kinky innuendo?
*readies Bible, ass-less chaps, Communist Manifesto, and a can of whipped cream, just in case*
I’m sure we can come up with a way to incorporate them all within two minutes. Maybe all at the same time.
I seriously LMAO at this, herb
Please tell me thats your Halloween outfit this year… please.
what about a can o’whup ass?
I bought all those and use them for random gift giving.
Aww!! That’s not right to hoard the whup ass like that.
a2m/gape/murder/suicide
/thread
“Tests also show that democraps would rather discuss things like misidentified dog breeds a”
When this becomes a newspaper story, please repost. Until then, please recognize that this is a JOKE SITE and this was therefore meant to inspire a chuckle (for some), not a meaningful political point.
Hurt feelings ftl, no?
True. Joke site.
Then why isn’t anyone laughing?
Maybe because we’ve had way too many of these Lols already.
Just like if I had lol that said “Obama has big ears”
It wouldn’t get on the site, because it’s been done before, and it’s no longer funny.
Aw, someone is upset that you can’t spell or use grammar properly. The word is spelled, ‘losing’ not ‘loosing.’
And it’s also spelled ‘you’re’, not ‘your’. MY dumb is a nice dumb. How about yours?
My dumb is maybe just happy.
You guys are funny!
All my comments are always already made!
Too bad this dummy is on my side, sorta….
The more they talk (type)…
*won’t f*** w/ crinkle about the comma.
Why the hell did you have to attach all that to MY comment which was totally non-political in nature?
-
Riding a comment’s coattails just so your trollish spewings at the top of the page – FAIL
Socialism, eh? What difference does it make to me if the government runs the health care system or private companies do? So long as I can see a damned doctor, I really don’t care.
Seems to me Capitalism ain’t exactly pulling its weight lately, either. I mean, if a 10 trillion dollar current account deficit, a failing health care system, and stagnant wages are all the trappings of that great American capitalism, well, you can keep ‘em. I was taught you had to work for what you had. It seems to me American capitalism has turned into a system that rewards cheats, fat cats, and lazy conniving suits holed up in their investment banks on Wall Street. They smoke cigars and drink martinis while the rest of us work for a living.
Republicans always mistake pragmatic change for revolution. If somethings broke, you fix it. You don’t pine over the virtues of running a broken system for the sake of some ideal of American capitalism. I miss when the party of personal responsibility took some responsibility for the problems in which they share blame.
To quote another great American branded as a radical Pinko, a man by the name of Arlo Guthrie, “Me, I’m hoppin’ on that farmer/worker train…”
lay off the republican crap will you
Tests show that “Jake Mehmoff” cannot take a joke.
you know, there is such a thing as GOOGLE…
Meh.
Tests also show that 99% of PunditKitchen.com doesn’t give a rip about this craptacular lol.*
*Not actually considered a “lol,” as it is not funny.
Further proof that the PK voting system needs to be addressed…
P.S. 99%… That’s more than half!
I think it pretty well ought to be “Do you like? Yes? No?” for voting. I’ve seen the lamest lolz on all of these sites that have 4 1/2 or 5 for a rating…
So the Bulldog is the one on the right?
Close, that’s a Bulldyke.
I don’t know… She does have her mouth open…
She can’t be a dyke, because as we all know, there are no gays in the Republican party because God hates them all.
Unless they’re pretending not to be gay, like Larry Craig and Mark Foley.
Don’t forget the Log Cabin Republicans. this is the “gay” wing for the party. I really can’t stand them. They blow all this hot air about “bringing gay rights issues to the forfront” when they don’t do sh*t. They are all there because they are hardcore free market anit-regulation capitalists. They are all rich, and afraid the Dems will take away thier money. they are selfish, and deluded into thinking they can make a difference when the Republican party won’t even let them into conventions and McCain hasn’t even spoken to them since he decided to run for President. He used to be thier best friend, and now he treats them the way the rest of thier party does, as a pariah. Now, if McCain had gone with a non-fundy for a VP nom I wouldn’t hold it against them, but the fact that they are still supporting him, in the face of Palin’s homophobia, really really disgusts me. I’m not one for voting purely based on one social issue, but when you’re a member of party that pretends you don’t exist, and your Pres candidate rejects your old friendship to garner votes, and chooses a running mate who before hitting the national spotlight openly disliked homos and only grudgingly allowed an inadvertantly queer-friendly legislation to pass in her state despite being a member of a church that thinks it can cure us gays, I view you as a TRAITOR. I live in Jacksonville, FL. We have a LOT of upper-crust white gays here. In the local chatroom, I’d say about 70% of them are voting for McCain, when I took a poll of incomes/jobs all of them were making over $150,000 annually and were in some kinda of banking/stocks/politics/law job. I’m disgusted. If McCain wins, my straight roomate says he’s going back to England, he said he’ll take me with him and we’ll get a civil union or he’ll get his family to sponsor me. I don’t wanna be here when McCain dies and the woman takes power.
Cheers, mate.
Best of luck, my friend.
srsly
May the buggery gods be with ye.
Hmph. I just made a better one than that. Relates to the Snape thread on Witchhunt.
Bet it’ll never make it.
I think the actual problem is that no pit bull in its right mind would sit still with construction paper lips taped to its mouth. Just sayin’.
judging by the way she’s holding it, I’d say biting’s not an issue, no matter the breed. It’s a picture.
If you did that to a Pit bull, he’d bite off your arm!
Or not. Licking it off is more likely.
lets stop spreading gross stereotypes about Pitties. These are great dogs,and I hate Palin for making them seem like anything but.
What’s the difference between a bulldog and an ottoman?
-
A pulse.
The smell.
yeah it’s the douches who breed them for fighting, then starve them and mistreat them who are responsible, not the dog or the breed.
They can be awesome puppies!
Idiots that don’t get that it’s all in how you treat them really bother me.
Aren’t Pitbulls illegal?
Only in certain municipalities. Others require permits, and almost everywhere you have to pay an extra premium on your homeowners insurance. there’s a whole list of breed that requires it.
Which is really sad….
It wasn’t funny the first time, so why would it be now? *facepalm*
A facepalm isn’t good enough. This deserves a headdesk.
*Headdesk*
Don’t beat yourselves up like that, make PK do the *Headdesk*
Though don’t do it too hard, your monitor surrounds the PK
APPLY directly TO THE FOREHEAD!!!
Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead. Headon, apply directly to forehead.
That lined up rather well…
Who’d have thought, considering the usual great formatting.
Apply directly to the F*king forehead!
NOW!
If you apply Headon directly to your desk – then *headdesk*…. will it prevent it from hurting?
Or prevent your desk from hurting…
I know what happened. Everybody secretly decided to change the breed of the dog from a pitbull to bulldog. That way everybody will see their mistakes on PunditKitchen, and everyone will think they are stupid!
I’m not sure what that’s supposed to accomplish though…
Wouldn’t it just be sloppy to try to lipstick a canine anyway? Bad plan. You might manage to get a few pics for the hotdog page though.
Public radio did a filler story a few weeks ago about “Lipstick on a pig”, and had a farmer take some lipstick and a microphone out to his hogs. It would have been more amusing with a video camera, I guess.
So. . . funny story. I saw the pic of the lady with the bulldog, I musta clicked on comments cause next thing I know I am reading this long argument that I believe is part of punditkitchen, (like a funny pic or something) to my disbelief I find this is an actual argument here. Dem, repub, Green, does not matter, we are all dumb and will not evolve past this retarded frame of mind untill we are one. Love your neighbor and hate god.
WTF…?
i just feel bad for the dog.
studies show that 90% of people are tired of both parties. Can we have a mulligan and try this election over again.?
Internet Political Websites: Serious business.
I’m republican and I have three pitbulls =)
i bet all democrats are feeling pretty good about obama now. haha. karma is wonderful.
Actually, the article was posted at heritage.org. Feel free to take a look, the link is up in my name.
Also, Reagan was a conservative, while W is a neoconservative.
Show me the legislation requiring NINJA loans. You can’t because there isn’t any. I’ve looked at the CRA, and it isn’t anything like what you liars claim. Regulation didn’t cause this mess, deregulation did.
–
And by the way, Democrats DO have the moral high ground, not that we’re perfect, but Republicans and especially neo-cons have proven yourselves to be immoral, hate-filled, divisive, dishonest, cheating, stealing, power hungry sacks of crap. Orders of magnitude difference.
Ooooh, the Heritage Foundation. THERE’S an unbiased source.
Yeah, definitely not an unbiased source, and often nor particularly truthful propaganda.
Hey, if you have something that says otherwise, I’d be happy to look at it.