meeting with an unpopular aggressive world leader without preconditions
(Barack Obama, George Bush)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption:
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Don’t make me come back there | If you’re President and you know it… Next »
meeting with an unpopular aggressive world leader…
» 405 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… Tommycat on Famous Alumni MrsQ Of Philly on Famous Alumni viking gal on Famous Alumni Tommycat on Today on Maury Geary on What About the Underdog? Geary on The Final Word Bob the eternally un… on What About the Underdog? Bob the eternally un… on What About the Underdog? Geary on What About the Underdog? 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Happy Birthday, Maru!
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Hooman thought I shed too much...
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
ROFLrazzi: Golden Retrievers That Look Like Chris Evans
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Gotta Fight for Shotgun in This Family
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Rhino Meets Triceratops
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Illusions, Shadows on the Wall
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Turtle Neck Ferrets
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Oh Bobby, You Cad!
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Ketchup Magic
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
And by That Do You Just Mean the KGB?
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Chris Evans: Then And Now
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Al Harrington of the Denver Nuggets Totally Looks Like Donatello from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Pinata Cupcake
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Warning to All Suitors
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Oh So THAT'S How it Works!
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Oh god, THIS will bring out the whiners…
Heh…I voted for the other guy and I thought this was hilarious. I think life is much more interesting when you can laugh at yourself and whatever viewpoints/beliefs you may have!
Anyone else notice that is says “George Bsuh” under the picture?
It says*
*sigh*
*headdesk*
Sorry, it’s Monday.
I see it as well.
No you don’t….. idiot…
my sitser! my mohter!
Oh it is just a typo… typing Dyslexia. It happens!
You know who else is dyslexic?
.
.
.
.
.
Cher
Who is John Galt?
John Galt is a fictional uber-mensch from a really, really crappy book of totalitarian, elitist pseudo-philosophy.
gone now
-_o
Reality hurts !
I thought it was “Reality Bites”…
Cause yeah, We all have been horribly suppressed and beaten by this horrible dictator. So many liberties have been taken away. You can see how people don’t have free speech or religion. This dictator on the right has killed many civilians because they’ve disagreed with him, raped women, blown up children and made many torture houses within US border.
It’s so obvious by my rhetoric that what I’m saying is true. In fact just because I say it, it is true.
First one…
What happened to disagreement was patriotic?
Okay, so unlike most Democrats here on PK, I will agree with the sarcasm in your first statement. Bush was not some harsh dictator, and I don’t think we should go down in the history books with a big sign above his head that says “Worst President Ever” like many want. Although I don’t agree with many of his policies and I’m not too impressed by the way he handled things, he was dealt several cards that many presidents will never get (several natural disasters, international terrorism, war, economic downturn, etc.).
Failure to step up to the plate & lead his nation during tough times.
Bush is quite certainly the worst president ever.
Bush couldn’t lead his own way out of a wet paper sack.
Not without declaring war unjustly based on manufactured intelligence about WMDs.
Bush = Worst. President. Ever.
The lie I’ll grant. But there is no injustice in declaring war on Saddam Hussein
Now declaring war on capitalism, which he did explicitly more recently….
that’s a different story
He didn’t declare war on Saddam Hussein. He declared war on Iraq. If all he wanted to do was get rid of Saddam he could have sent in assassins. He was there illegally *anyway*, so what’s the diff?
(For those who don’t know, it’s against international conventions to assassinate a dictator. Probably because if we went around killing all the anti-liberty world leaders, over two-thirds of them would have to be replaced.)
you are a douche or really this stupid? wow! bravo!
I saw the sarcasm, so I left it alone. Plus I figured we’d been over the patriot act, abu ghraib, etc ad nauseum a few times already…
Please tell me Minerva where during Bush’s two terms where your freedoms were restricted. I have yet to hear examples of US citizens losing there liberties and either them being compensated or there being logical proof of why they came to that conclusion.
Abu Ghraib, yes I’ll agree I’m sure there were some cases where it wasn’t fair for them to be in there (please tell me what prison system in the world hasn’t unfairly sent someone to jail), but most of those prisoners did not belong to any nation, they had no uniforms, and I guarantee you the US follows the Geneva convention closer them others nations from the pure fact we are a number 1 world power and everyone is watching.
The patriot act limits what kind of containers I can carry my shampoo in to the airport, plus thorough searches of my belongings? Also even if that’s considered minor there is the listening in to private conversations and emails of private citizens. Knowing this can happen, might I not restrict my communications? I shouldn’t have to worry about being spied on by my own government.
This one isn’t Bush’s fault, but since were talking about the time period of his terms of office, I resent that my freedom of religion (or lack thereof) is attempting to be infringed by fundamentalist Christians trying to rewrite history into America being a christian nation crap, and them trying to insert religious teachings of intelligent design into my public schools.
There’s a few starters if anyone wants to bite. I really was just playing devil’s advocate per your sarcastic request. But, have at it!!
Sorry about the horrible run on in the second paragraph/sentence.
Don’t worry I’m the last person allowed to chew you on that.
Okay maybe I need to look closer but you are telling me there are article sin the Patriot act that limit the liquid container size on planes.
Also…….can’t you put those in luggage and not worry about it?
I do disagree that this was a full Christian nation. I think there were Christians there but not many. But Christianity is part of the history of the US, and in many cases it requires more faith to believe in the lottery statistics of evolution then the idea that something was in control in the creation of the world.
Oh, TC. You are steadily transforming into EP. Please stop.
No I’m not. No where near EP, just cause I believe in creation over evolution doesn’t mean everything I say is crazy.
In the end, even if Evolution was true I would still believe God had control over it. It can be interpreted through the 7 days of creation.
I can’t understand why other Christians cannot see Evolution as God’s method of creating the universe. I mean, why not? We have evidence of evolution, and people want to ignore that and solely use the bible. Not that I have anything against the bible, but as a Catholic I was taught to respect the word but understand the situations and history behind it. The Catholic Church recognizes Evolution because there is compelling evidence to prove it.
AMEN!!! (I live in Cobb County GA, where they added, then removed labels from the science books that stated that Evolution was only a theory.)
Sockpuppet fail? I’m not quite sure…
I am as confused as you, markmier.
I’m confused, too. Multiple personality disorder meds fail?
“In the end, even if Evolution was true I would still believe God had control over it. It can be interpreted through the 7 days of creation.”
That’s the most sensible thing I’ve heard you say.
The reason I tend to discount the intelligence and judgment of Creationists, is that they seem to be afraid to accept that science is ever correct.
If they would just get over being afraid that simple observation and thought could somehow damage God, I’d be a lot more relaxed about living peacefully with my evangelical neighbors.
“Convictions create convicts.” -Robert Anton Wilson
“and in many cases it requires more faith to believe in the lottery statistics of evolution ”
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a well tested explanation of the processes involved in the act. So, not so much faith as mountains of evidence gathered, tested, and confirmed in the past century and a half.
Because 150 years is enough to extrapolate 150 billion years of evolution. Right. Gotcha.
-
A CERTAIN TYPE of evolution is a fact, that I’ll give you. I’m not willing to abandon my belief in a Higher Power just because you say science tells me I have to. There is nothing in either study that says the two are mutually exclusive in any way.
The earth has existed for on the order of 4.5 billion years. Not 150 billion.
150 years of unearthing fossils that are billions of years old, demonstrating a clear progression of increasing complexity and/or adaptation in response to changes in the environment, yes, that demonstrates evidence for the fact that evolution has occurred. I don’t see where “extrapolation” enters into that — the fossils tell their own story. Also, organisms with short generational times (bacteria, fruit flies, etc) can clearly show in the laboratory the fact of evolution in response to stress in the environment.
Which “certain type” of evolution would you say is a fact? Just curious.
Nobody said that science tells you you have to abandon your belief in a higher power. You are correct, the two are not mutually exclusive.
However, certain religious beliefs DO clash with science — bats are birds, the earth is 6000 years old, rabbits chew their cud, etc. Not that any of these are relevant to most people, mind you, but science has clearly shown each of those to be WRONG.
I was exaggerating the age of the earth to make a point. Extrapolation occurs when you take a few relatively short years and say that you know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that THIS is what happened and there can be no other way. I have no problem with progression of species.
-
The certain type I’m referring to is that organisms grow and evolve based on environmental factors around them, causing mutations that could help or hurt later generations, and that cause species to change fundamentally. Not that one celled parameciums one day decided (as I’ve heard it portrayed on Discovery, that bastion of science) to turn into another species.
-
‘Bats are birds’ and the ‘earth is 6000 years old’ are narrowly held beliefs that do not illustrate the mainstream. And Jackrabbits do chew a form of cud, in that they injest partially digested fecal matter and redigest it in order to get all of the nutrients. It’s a long form of cud-chewing, but serves the same purpose as a cow regurgitating in order to rechew.
Any scientist who ever said “there can be no other way” should clearly be re-educated. Science is a process of attempting to disprove an idea. After 150 years of attempting to disprove evolution, humans have piled up more and more evidence (lack of disproof) supporting the theory of evolution, and have cast away certain incorrect thoughts about evolution (Lamarckism, etc). That’s how science works. The fact that it’s “only” been 150 years is not relevant, the evidence is all out there for everyone to see. Read a peer-reviewed science journal, if you don’t agree with it, try to prove it wrong. THere might be a Nobel Prize in it for you.
I agree with your comment about the Discovery Channel. Any reputable scientist would agree, too. Evolution is not a process of monkeys getting together and voting to get rid of their tails. It doesn’t work like that. And for DC to portray is like that is WRONG. It’s an easy (and WRONG) way to portray evolution to the layman.
I agree, BAB and 6000 are narrowly held beliefs, my point (which I admit was not in your original comment) is that belief in a higher power is not against science, but certain aspects of some religions are clearly against science and can be disproved (which is the only thing that science can do — science cannot prove, it can only disprove).
I agree; I don’t think evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. In fact, I highly doubt that there WASN’T a higher power in there somewhere. The order and symmetry in nature is way too perfect to be perfectly random.
The way I rationalize it, He/She/It/They put some stuff in the universe and then let it play and develop as it would. We’re not puppets…we’re more like some kind of cosmic science experiment. Speaking as a biogeek whose fondest dream is to become a genetic researcher, the perfection of science has proved to me the existence of a god.
Symmetry? Have you ever looked at your face and hands? Not exactly the same on both sides, are they?
Not literal symmetry, of course. In fact, that’s one thing that annoys me about my own face–my eyes are off-center. It makes my new glasses look weird. >_<
No, what I meant was the repetition of patterns in nature, like the Golden Ratio. I probably should have used a different word. My bad.
Science is a vast, interconnected web of mutually supporting theories and evidence. You can’t just pick and choose. The evidence supporting evolution does not come solely from watching things evolve. It comes from physics, and chemistry, archeology, and every other branch of science as well. For evolution to be incorrect, nearly everything in science would have to be incorrect, and we wouldn’t have computers and TVs and cars.
–
Nobody says you have to give up your belief in a higher power. Many scientists believe in God and evolution. I’m pretty sure the Bible says that God wqants us to explore and understand the universe. Not pretend and make up stories, understand and explore. Not a fantasy world, but the actual universe God supposedly created. In order for the Bible to be literally true, God would have to be totally evil, making things look different from what they really are, which contradicts the idea of God wanting us to know the universe.
–
While one can reconcile God and science, one can not do it and maintain a belief that the Bible is literally true.
‘I’m not willing to abandon my belief in a Higher Power just because you say science tells me I have to.’
.
Why would you have to? And where does any science say that? If Science (as an embodiment of knowledge) says anything at all it isn’t about God. It doesn’t deny god – it just doesn’t acknowledge god. All that gets applied by the bias of those applying the knowledge.
“Because 150 years is enough to extrapolate 150 billion years of evolution. Right. Gotcha.”
Life has existed on Earth for roughly 3.8 billion years. And, yes, in 150 years, enough evidence has been collected to make the evolutionary theory a practical certainty.
“A CERTAIN TYPE of evolution is a fact, that I’ll give you.”
There are no types. There is no such thing as Micro and Macro evolution. It’s a false distinction. It’s equivalent to saying lining up twelve inches won’t make a foot.
“I’m not willing to abandon my belief in a Higher Power just because you say science tells me I have to.”
I didn’t say that, nor did science. Evolutionary theory does not comment on Higher Powers.
“There is nothing in either study that says the two are mutually exclusive in any way.”
I won’t argue with you.
lqtm
of course in the time it takes me to post, 5 others say it better than I do
“Because 150 years is enough to extrapolate 150 billion years of evolution. Right. Gotcha.”
I like to believe that research counts, much like you are able to squeeze thousands of years of animal husbandry and food preparation into the time it took for your job training where you work. Or the thousands of years of human relation and psychology you are squeezing into your stint of learning to be HR person.
I think after 150 years of study, we would have some damn good answers by now. As for your beliefs, nobody is asking you to give them up.
As for a previous argument about Pascal’s Wager, I say to add Murphy’s Law and Occam’s Razor to equation. If you are going to rely on Pascal’s Wager, then you must apply Murphy’s Law since you are gambling anyway, thus it is logical to assume that if you bust your hump it will be for nothing but if you do nothing, God will be pissed. Also the wager states that you will live a good life regardless of the outcome. So how about using Occam’s Razor for that and simply matters.
So live a good life because it is good, not because of possible punishment, as your goal might be flawed anyway.
Now back to lurking with me as I eat some more Nerds.
*hugs* I thought about you this weekend, but not in a dirty way
Tis the thought that counts…. I think.
*hugs* Missed you too hun.
Froofrou, I think you’ll find a *lot* of scientists are believers in one major faith or another. Just as you say, they believe that evolution was guided by a divine Whatever (Trying to fit all major religions into my statement here
), and science is just the way we’ve been allowed to explore that Creation.
There’s no need for the religious to be threatened by Science; now take your “Intelligent Design Theory” and start teaching it in the churches so your children can grow up educated. Maybe when more evangelicals become scientists they’ll be less threatening to, umm, a certain segment of society.
The Catholic Church (under Pope Paul II) recognized evolution as the method God used to create the earth. Say what you want about Catholicism, but this was an intelligent move.
It was about the same time they admitted Galileo was right.
Everybody’s entitled to a blaze of intelligence once every 1000 years or so…
Like a lot of Protestant cults have started to party like it’s 999
Don’t forget to remind them that the sky is falling.
Do any of you know what cud chewing has to do with anything?
It’s why rabbits are unclean in the same book that says
being gay is an abomination before the lord…
Oh and so are tattoos, based on the same book…
You’re taking an extremely narrow view, Fester. You are extremely educated based on your postings here, and it puzzles me when you act as though you have no clue what you’re talking about. You know as well as I do that the unclean animals were deemed clean in the New Testament through a vision to Peter. The old stuff was washed away because it was simply a way to keep these unclean heathen animal herders from killing themselves through diseases (i.e. eating improperly cooked pork, rabbit, and other meats) and to keep themselves separate from other races of people (who looked the same skin-wise but tattooed themselves in homage to their gods). The Bible moves and evolves with the changing times, and only the main parts stay the same. The details move along with the rest of the world.
-
Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself are concepts we can all get behind, why are you fighting it so? (if nothing else, the love your neighbor part should be alright with you)
Wow froofrou, well said.
Peter didn’t mention Tatts now did he? Hmm? Seems you’re running the apologistsRUs thing to expand it. Basically there’s a raft of stuff thatthe vision of Peter does not ‘wash away’ – Tassels, indoor toilets… there’s quite a list.
Also the only place where being Gay is unequivocally damned is in Leviticus (rabbits, shellfish, tatts) and then a couple of obscure bits of greek which scholars are still arguing about…
Now, if you’re going to apply the obscure Greek to bolster up your prejudices, I’d suggest you read 1Tim2 1:9-15… you seem to ignore that one, since you’re presuming to teach a man… why is that? It’s still there in your ‘evolving bible’…
I have no problems with the Beatitudes, nor do as you would be done by.But there’s nothing there that’s not simply a halfway decent way of getting along with folks. I confess I’ve yet to see the bit where Jesus suggests ‘kill them all, god shall know his own’, although it was something of a watch word for the Roman Church when dealing with heretics. You applied it to death row, and then asked where you’d not been ‘Christian’… Well, from my knowledge of the history of the Church you’ve been only TOO Christian
(well Abrahamic, since the OT is mostly the Jews wiping out everyone they meet, and Christianity’s unwanted cousin Islam, whose genocides rival both of the other branches)
I do have a problem with the bit with the two naked people in the garder…. through to the end of Revelation, saving the 1 sheet of legal I have suggested as mostly ok. The stuff about Rabbits eating cud, Pi being 3, bats being bird etc is more about overall accuracy of the book… as in ‘not terribly’
Similar doesn’t cut it when folks are trying to get the ideas in the bible taught as science.
WEll… for that matter, so is the lottery. The lottery is a fact, they draw numbers on tv and someone wins every now and then. No disputing that, there’s no myth in the lottery.
Put it this way SOMEONE wins the lottery-it’s just not likely to be you.
Now, multiply those numbers out over centuries, and that’s the concept of evolution. Someone wins the lottery once in a while, and they reproduce these new found super traits. Given long enough time, and if something is probable it eventually will occur.
I see what you are getting at, but still even a century isn’t enough for me at least to believe the number would be hit. I still have too many questions for me to believe that it is the truth just yet. In the end though I’ll still learn about it and still discuss with people. I don’t think being a christian means you have to believe in the creation theory.
Lack of imagination is always a great excuse
Don’t be an ass, Fester.
Hey, Trainwreck out donkeys me 99 times out of 100… so how about a big steaming enema of STFU from you? There’s a good thing.
So your excuse is, “He started it?” Like I said. Don’t be an ass.
I’m not even arguing the validity or not of intelligent design. I a only saying that people shouldn’t insist on it being taught in public schools. it’s not science, it’s religion. Go ahead and teach it to your kids, just do it at home or in sunday school.
You do have a point.
I can agree with you there, surely.
So perfectly true.
The searches and the airline regulations about bottles, etc are a child of the Patriot Act, if not directly resulting.
Yes, many, if not most, of the founding fathers were in fact Christian. So it is especially indicative of their conviction regarding the separation of church and state, then, that the only two mentions of anything to do with religion in the Constitution are:
“… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” –Article VI
and of course
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” –1st Amendment
Many of our founding fathers were free masons, and because of this insisted that we have the separation of church and state in this country. Our country is the great Free Mason experiment. By the way, the Catholic Church bans the Free Masons.
I was under the impression that many of the founding fathers believed that there was a deity that created the world, but then left to go do something else. Which is religous yes, but christian, no.
actually that was a god awful sum up and I’m going to go look it up. (another case of posting before thinking it through entirely)
It’s called Deist. Here’s one link. I’ll get another one.
Yay learning *leaps away to go read* thanks for knowing things
“By the way, the Catholic Church bans the Free Masons.”
Never slowed the Kennedy memberships
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist as were many others. One or two was Unitarian. The wall of separation was not part of the constitution worded in such a way, true, but it was implied. It’s in a couple of jefferson documents. The founding fathers assumed people would be smart enough to keep them separate on their own, not needing it spelled out.
Here is a link from a group that has a quick and to the point Q&A about it. I’ve done other research about the founding fathers themselves if you want info on that.
“The founding fathers assumed people would be smart enough to keep them separate on their own, not needing it spelled out.”
Those poor deluded and optimistic fools….
The whole “American Experiment” was an optimistic and somewhat delusional venture. We love them anyway.
It’s sad how short the collective human memory is “remember when you lived in a country where being protestant or catholic could be your death depending on who lead the country? Yeah let’s not do that”
When people say Thomas Jefferson was a Christian I laugh. The guy cut out every miracle in the Bible. This man was not a Christian.
The guy didn’t believe you had to believe in magic to follow Jesus.
Jefferson also re-wrote the bible removing all aspects of christs divinity (neaning the ressurecation and all miracles). he didn’t think jesus was divine, but just a really smart teacher who understood god’s intent better then anyone else.
Ya gotta love Jefferson.
After all he only helped found a nation, so his opinions can be easily overlooked since he didn’t believe in magic, nor in the God of Abraham…
Many of the founding fathers were secular humanists.
With wayyyy too much faith in the intelligence of the ‘common man’
*clears throat* …Amen?
Click name for source.
Deists, actually. Not the same thing at all, at all.
Why should I have to pay $35 just because I want to take enough shampoo to last me a week? Because that is what it is costing to check luggage these days.
I think a bunch of people attempting to get a binary liquid explosive onto a plane is the root cause of the problem…
Are you talking about TATP? If so, then it is impossible as a practical matter to produce that explosive in an airplane bathroom (or anywhere else on the plane, for that matter) without being noticed.
The whole “explosive liquids” thing is waaay overblown. Security theatre, that is all.
As is the shoe bombs. (Overblown pun not intended)
Practical or not for major destruction, it still spreads terror…
Yeah, I get mad if the guy next to me on the plane snores. If he, instead, were to explode…or, worse, explode *while* snoring…well, that would be *really* rude!
and hard on the soft furnishings
You often masturbate on planes?
Don’t the cabin crew object?
I know what it’s in reference to. I was responding to TC saying that I could just put the liquids in my checked luggage. I stopped checking my bags after having them get lost three times in a row and now it’s only reinforced with the fees that airlines are levying. The specification of 3.4 ounces is also a little absurd. If I really wanted to make a binary liquid explosive on a plane, I could get a group of people to all take the maximum amounts each person was allowed until I had enough to make said explosive. The rule is arbitrary and used only as a fear mongering tool.
Aren’t you allowed to have less then a certain amount? When I was flying through the States back in September I had liquids in my carry-on, but because it was small amount, I was allowed to keep it (and this was international, not domestic.) Surely a weeks worth could be carried in a small bottle.
Right. The 3.4 ounces or 100 ml is a completely arbitrary number. I have long hair.
They refused to let me carry my detergent for washing breast pump parts on a cross country flight when I would have to pump several times because my premie baby couldn’t keep up my milk production by himself and also couldn’t handle any extra bacteria from unwashed parts. Admittedly that was airport policy–but I felt extremely oppressed! Not everything can go in luggage that regularly goes astray anyway.
that may be covered under ADA as an accommodation…. if a disabled passenger needs equipment to be kept on the plane they have to allow it.
If you aren’t a terrorist you shouldn’t worry about your “communications”
So, you don’t mind some Spook show drone reading your mail, and probably handing round the juicier bits for their own entertainment? How terribly patriotic.
Hey what about the wonderful and so eloquently named Patriot Act? I believe that grants the gov’t the right to infringe upon our privacy which is considered a natural and inalienable right. What about the formation of the O.S.I. at the turn of the millennium? The Office of Strategic Influence; it’s main mission was to do what the Patriot Act grants the CIA the right to do. Also depending on how you look at it, No Child Left Behind could be considered a form of oppression, but its intentions were good so it won’t be. Bush has been an oppressive governing force. Granted not to the extent of Saddam, but nonetheless, oppressive. More importantly however, is the idea that everything aforementioned is up to interpretation; unfortunately it is all a matter of perspective.
Also trying to screw the FISA courts.
It’s Orwellian. A la ‘Nineteen-Eightyfour’ wherein the Ministry of Love handles torture and suppression, or the Ministry of Peace is responsible for the eternal wars
In a semi-related note…in class today, my English teacher used “double-plus-no” in passing. I was the only one who got the reference and felt like a nerd. -_-
Don’t get me started on the general culture in the west of ‘be not too wise’.
You got the reference. BE PROUD that you’re not just another dumb arsed prole who can do more than think the hightlight of the week is Big Brother.
Hear hear!
Jose Padilla.
Wasn’t he a cousin of Silly Padilla (it’s a pun, y’know – as in Silly Putty)?
I thought Silly Padilla was a 1960s Hannah-Barbera cartoon series about a blue reptile in a hat and collar and tie…
I’m not Minerva, but there have been US citizens held incommunicado without trial and without counsel. That young man from Chicago, for example. The Bush administration has tried to prevent Habeas Corpus petitions from being filed on these persons’ behalf.
Here in Charleston, WV, a Pakistani-born doctor, a naturalized US citizen was dragged of an Amtrack train from DC and held for several days; he was never charged with anything, or told why he was detained.
Gitmo. Don’t forget Gitmo. Granted, not a torture house within the US, bnut still a torture house.
Oh, and as far as blowing up children and killing civilians go, look at the war in Iraq. Just sayin…
I don’t think you completely understood what I meant. Bush didn’t order anyone to blow up there children.
You order rocket attacks on a city full of civilians then that’s exactly what you’ve done to somebody’s children.
Imagine shelling Chicago…
Oooh, don’t tease me…can I imagine shelling Oakland instead? They are just right across the Bay…
There would be a lot of people dead if I start imagining where I would bomb…
You example is extremely vague, can I get a link?
Xavier got it… pretty much everyone else got it… Try praying.
Everyone is *somebody’s* child. That’s why no matter who gets killed, there is always someone there wailing about it afterward.
.
I’m full-grown, but if you did something to me, you’d better know how to hide from my father.
no, just allow their children to be recruited from their high schools to go gwt blown up in his fake war
being a number one world power does not mean that there is absolute transparency in our out of country ‘terrorist’ prison. i dont know sh*t about the inner workings of it and neither do any citizens. ‘everyone’ is watching the news. im not trying to be caustic but thats a pretty invalid statement
Abu Ghraib is an Iraqi prison. I believe you were referring to Guantanamo Bay. If you can’t even remember which prison is which then I’d like to know what qualifies you to criticize someone who obviously has done their homework on exactly how George W. Bush has restricted civil liberties in this country. Also, don’t ever vote again. Stay home and watch reality TV. Good boy.
Did you ever consider that he in fact did mean Abu Ghraib? There was abuse going on there as well, or did you miss the 6 months worth of new stories about it?
Abu Ghraib is a prison in Iraq that was operated by American soldiers. That means that America is responsible for what went on there. More directly, George Bush is the Commander in Chief, so he is responsible for what his soldiers do in the places where he deploys them.
.
Therefore, George Bush is responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib.
.
Did he help the soldiers there do bad things? No. Does anyone have any confidence that there was an appropriate response? No. That’s the real crux of the matter.
Geneva convention – People have been hung for waterboarding and other methods of torture. To invoke the Geneva convention to justify on set of acts then ignore it when it suits is just a pretty nasty hypocrisy.
Then disagree intelligently. My comment was every bit as sarcastic.
1. I don’t know which side you choose to fall on.
2. Basing it off your first comment.
Logical Step
3. You were counting me as a whiner rather then someone who was trying to contribution to discussion. Everyone comes here with the notion that sarcasm will abounds.
Conclusion
My comment makes sense.
So please clarify yourself.
I’m glad YOU understand you.
Should I feel owned now or ask you quote “disagree intelligently?”
pdq’s just getting pissy. Best to leave him alone lest he turn troll. We need all the sane-minded debaters we can muster. On that note, pdq needs to actually do some of that rather than picking fights.
I’ll take your advice and ignore them since it’s obvious that have added nothing to this set of debates in anything I’ve posted. I really feel that should speak something and I’m going to give pdq the benefit of the doubt and hope that it did.
*sigh* TC, you take yourself way too seriously. Sarcasm: your typos & grammar.
No, I’m not going to argue with you because frankly I have no patience for it today. When you grow up, perhaps.
You won’t live that long. One word: Neoteny
Consider that you may be assuming adulthood, where it is not there.
I think they’re past puberty, and into their late teens/early 20s
So is this not a meeting? Is the President popular AND non-aggressive?…He is a world leader, right?….No way were there no preconditions!
And who attacked your patriotism?….You did make me laugh with that one though.
No one ‘attacked’ I was just using a common excuse that I’ve seen.
I do see what it means literally, but the joke wasn’t to take what this sad by just the words, it was alluding to something, but that something isn’t the same as this current leader. If it wasn’t alluding to anything, it wouldn’t be funny to anyone because no one would quite get it.
I’ll give you one if it will make you feel better. Here goes: The torture camps weren’t in the US Border, as Gitmo and AbuGhraib were on foreign soil. (unless you count military bases on foreign nations as US soil, then it gets even messier…. what a quagmire)
See war in iraq. more civilians have been killed then millitants
See gitmo, US citizens are being held without trial
See his closet, all those women he raped.
Guess which one is a lie. because only one is.
Civillians in Iraq tend to be used by the other side as human bombs.
Enemies in Gitmo violated the Geneva Convention when they don’t wear uniforms or identify themselves as enemy combantants allied with a particular nation and therefore don’t fall under the US Constitution or trial laws.
You are an uninformed ass.
See? I can do it too.
Re #1:
Year Civilians Killed
2003 10,077 – 12,010
2004 9,741 – 10,573
2005 13,071 – 14,324
2006 25,699 – 27,519
2007 22,586 – 24,159
That’s a lot of bombs . . .
Source: 1raqibodycount
I wanna see how the count adds up, and what they consider a ‘civilian’
A “civilian?” Really? Nice “way” to talk about other “human beings.” Some might say you’re acting like an “ass.”
Attack someone else dude, this is a discussion not a cry fest.
TBH, since they lied to get into Iraq in the first place (if genocide and crimes against humanity weren’t enough in the 90s, they weren’t in the first decade of the 21st Century) one Iraqi civilian dead is too many. All I see is bellicose posturing from people who know they’re in the wrong. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of a good war. Nothing says ‘Patriot’ like supporting an illegal war
Meanwhile, our people are being killed in what is Bush’s Unternehmen Barbarossa
When someone points out that your arguments are unconscionable, you call it “a cryfest”?
Your President has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and set up a huge concentration camp in Cuba. Let’s hope that your next President is a bit better.
I’m saying that asking for a definition of civilian that the census is using is a fair argument to bring up. I have no doubt innocents were killed, but the number could be relative. I need to see what they defined as a civilian. I don’t see what is wrong about asking that. They just suddenly attacked me for wanting to investigate more then just drink the koolade that they are given.
Actually, you only want it investigating when it upsets your rather nasty world view.
lol fail reference win !
I guess if Fox news reported these numbers you would not question it…
I maybe less inclined to do so but I would still ask the question anyways.
in bed
Yeah, there’s an authoritative source…they are so authoritative they use leetspeek in their URL…
oops sorry, 2 typos on my part.
It’s “iraqibodycount.org”
Xavier, where do you go for your stats? I also want the
most authoritative info, and it’s hard to trust any one
particular source.
For something I am not sure about, I usually start with Wikipedia and crawl the citation links. Those typically are objective sources, since if they are not, they are quickly edited out of the page by people who know better (for instance, you typically aren’t going to find links to conspiracy-theory sites in Wikipedia citations).
For matters of U.S. public policy and legislation, I go to the horse’s mouth — Thomas at the LoC site for legislation, Edgar for SEC filings, the Census, Labor, Commerce and IRS sites for economic data, and so on.
And the CIA world factbook is a good place to start for data on non-U.S. issues.
yikes, i’m sorry, but isn’t a “cia factbook”
basically an oxymoron?
No, it’s actually boring dry raw data, for the most part. It doesn’t purport to draw conclusions (those are reserved for the President’s daily briefings), but simply to present the data.
BTW, the Wikipedia article on the Iraq war body count (click my name for link) does include the IBC site as a citation, but also as one of many wildly conflicting reports on the actual total.
Does it make me a nerd that I love the CIA Factbook Web site? I was introduced to it in 8th grade and have loved it ever since. You can find ANYTHING in there!
Wow, it *is* cool! Seriously, so much
great info. But I couldn’t find squat on
civilian deaths in Iraq.
The data I see are *all* pretty horrific. . .
I usually look through the data about countries–their population, literacy, industry, etc. Much less depressing.
I know – it’s great stuff. Glad to know about it.
What happened to “(Comments wont nest below this level)”
The fact book is great.
We do not know if ‘enemies’ in Gitmo did anything. No trials, remember? You can’t just say, “Oh, he’s a bad guy, lock him up.” There are several proven cases of mistaken identity in Gitmo, where they simply locked up and tortured the wrong guy. Oops. Without a real trial, how do we know we got the right guys? In most cases, all we have is someone else’s word that the prisoners are guilty. Someone with a score to settle, maybe? We don’t know. Somebody tells us, “hey Omar is a terrorist. Now where’s my reward?” And we lock Omar up without a trial. See, the thing is, most people in Gitmo weren’t caught in the act of doing something bad, so we do not know they are ‘enemy combatants’ at all, yet we use that as an excuse to deny them a trial, you know, so we could find out whether they are or not, and, you know, let them go if they are innocent.
–
It really sounds as if the guilty or innocence of these men is immaterial to you. You don’t really care that no one has ever proven that these guys actually did anything wrong. That is absolutely unchristian of you.
Now hang on a second, Seth. When have I ever shown myself to be unChristian? My responses tend to go along the vein of ‘if you ask a stupid question you’re getting a stupid answer,’ and I would hope you know that by now! I never pop off things unless I have sources, and I do my best to try to show sarcasm. Most of what I said in that post was sarcasm overexaggerated to make a point. Someone is going to throw out baseless claims with no citation, I’m going to call them on it!
-
And as far as not knowing that they are terrorists, if you associate with terrorists and are caught WITH them, then it stands to common sense that you are yourself, probably, a terrorist.
-
The guilt and innocence of these people is absolutely at issue here, and I want them all to stand trial to make sure we aren’t holding the wrong people. I think that Gitmo has been handled (for the most part) improperly, however, you can’t hold terrorist combatants to either the Geneva Convention or to the US Constitution. They aren’t citizens, so the Constitution shouldn’t apply, and they aren’t identifiable enemy combatants easily identified as allied with a particular nation, so the GC doesn’t apply. We should turn them over to the UN to deal with, but the UN is notorious for letting the bad guys go.
Many folks in Gitmo were not caught with anyone, or doing anything. We set up tip lines, people call and tell us so and so is a terrorist, we lock them up.
You said, “Enemies in Gitmo violated the Geneva Convention when they don’t wear uniforms or identify themselves as enemy combantants.” Now, we have not proven they were anything more than regular old civilians, which as fa aas I know is a valid excuse for wearing civilian clothing. Without proving they were actual enemies, the civilian clothing thing becomes meaningless. Are you wearing civilian clothing? Aha! No Uniform! Lock her up.
–
Parts of the constitution apply only to citizens, but other parts, especially those regarding justice, apply to everyone. Do you really suppose that our founding fathers thought justice should only apply to Americans?
–
I’m glad to see you admitting that Gitmo was handled poorly, and that the innocent should go free, because you sure sounded as if you were
defending it. I still maintain that defending our actions in Gitmo is unchristian in the extreme.
*Scratches head* What are you considering ‘unchristian’?
I appologize, Seth, for seeming as though I defend a lot of undefensible positions. I prefer to play devil’s advocate far too much, especially when I see that one side is being treated unfairly by being flamed to death. You have to know my basic belief system by now through our own talks. I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong or when my side is wrong as long as you can give me good reasons as to why I’m wrong
A lot of what I say on here (the trolling parts, anyway) is simply to make sure that people who are throwing out baseless accusations and factoids actually know what the hell they’re talking about 
The Geneva convention should always apply whether “they did it first” applies or not. We are supposed to be above that as a nation. Why would we want to sink to that level?
“When have I ever shown myself to be unChristian?”
Erm… you really don’t want an answer to that question…
Civilians in Iraq: Oh I see, so if your friends all jump off a bridge are you gonna do it too? Are we the good guys or not?
Enemies in Gitmo: I see no evidence that ANY of the people imprisoned at Gitmo are actual enemies of this nation. See, that’s the problem with not applying Geneva conventions or Constitutional protections to them. Then the state can’t make a real case. You like that? You like not knowing for sure whether any of the guys in there actually did anything at all?
Given the choice between uninformed ass and obtuse ass, which would you pick?
Jump off a bridge argument never works.
Dilbert as a child:
“Well, that would depend on many factors, including height, training, and equipment. But if 100% of the people enjoyed it, …, then I would conclude it was safe. A better question might have been ‘If everyone else wore clothes, would you do that?
Which is an excellent analogy.
.
We got where we are in Iraq (and Afghanistan, and Gitmo, and the domestic spying program, and with the financial markets…) by jumping off bridges without first stopping to consider equipment, height, training, availability of trained meical professionals, etc. The long-term consequences weren’t considered. Decisions were made in haste with all kinds of disregard for why the highest law of our land says, “DO NOT DO THAT.”
.
We leapt before we looked, against much advice to the contrary, and now we have problems.
.
SURPRISE!
I’ll look up the other two but
According to your logic death rates Chicago means you should probably pull out of Chicago.
I saw an email comparing Chicago with the war. It was rather a stretch of logic.
Well I see how it can be a stretch as there isn’t military involvement there but the emphasis seems to be on the numbers and not on the conditions being dealt with. Under that assumption then the Chicago comparison holds more water, at least that is how I look at it.
I think it’s really apples and oranges though. A whole different ballgame.
I respectfully disagree!
Either way, it’s a fail on our part that Chicago is more dangerous than a war zone. I’ll remember to stay away from there.
I’ll have to check — is Chicago actually more dangerous (per capita) than Oakland or LA?
I avoid all on principle.
So far this year, Chicago has had more deaths than LA and NYC.
However, just like any city anywhere in the world it’s where you are located, who you ar associating with and your own self awareness.
Which completely explains when someone’s murdered by someone they don’t even know. Blame the victim often?
Deaths or murders? Also, state your source. Also, were these deaths the results of civil unrest and/or police action, or were they the result of negligence. (Don’t care much about a guy who ends up dead after plowing his own drunk ass into a concrete embankment.)
.
AND… let’s not forget to adjust for population. There are a lot more people per square mile in Chicago than in most of the rest of the planet. So “people died in Chicago” compared to “people died in the Sahara desert” (or even “all of Iraq” has to be adjusted for population density.
.
I’m betting that Chicago comes out on top, ESPECIALLY if you do the Usual Thing and throw out the highest and lowest samples to prevent statistical skew.
Or the UN should be there trying to keep peace…
The UN is a joke and a bunch of hypocrites. I hate the UN, anybody that has actually tried to deal with the UN has run into a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. Most CIA agents retired will find the letter UN something laugh at. It’s a joke and there are COUNTLESS points to prove it. Why shoudl we cater to these people that sell the food on the black market that we give them for free for there citizens.
If you were trying to oversee various activities around the world you’d be a bureaucratic nightmare too. I don’t get why it’s so hard to understand that the larger a population that needs to be governed, the larger the government will be and the more bureaucratic it is. The only alternative is to have one guy in charge of it all and then you’d be screaming about the Antichrist. We’ve already tried the tribal thing and that wasn’t good enough for the Christians. Got any better ideas?
Don’t ask him for ideas… you’ll just get an Ann Coulter speech in Lolcat.
Ah, yet more bad ranting in bad English… how impressive.
Noted and agreed to. Add to this thread the fact that the UN is NOT a government, but rather a loose affiliation of sovereign nations. We won’t have a true world gov’t until the concept of sovereignty is done away with.
.
Personally, I don’t know if this would be incredibly good or incredibly bad – probably both, and would depend upon what part of the globe you occupy – but it would certainly be an incredibly significant change in world politics if individual governments actually answered to the UN (or any other entity).
Upon closer inspection, the caption appears to be describing bush as an “unpopular aggressive world leader”. Do you disagree that he is/was unpopular, or aggressive, or both?
I’m commenting on it’s correlation and where it’s false.
I’m not sure on the word aggressive, but yes unpopular.
I can see this being true… and I do accept the perception that the world has on him as being a part of this picture being true. We do not really know everything that went on during his presidency (though it will come out soon), and we should be conscience of how we are perceived in the world. How can we be a world leader and apply policy if we are not respected?
It is not just us and a large body of water on this planet, and now more than ever are we affected by the actions and opinions of other nations.
I’m honestly asking this.
How are we affected now by other nations?
Do you really think we can close our gates and lock ourselves out? Do you think we can make policy with world leaders if we are not respected?
Here… look at how many countries pulled out of Iraq, and how people from those countries protested us being there. Seeing anti-American protests in nations that have been our allies is disturbing.
Our economy is failing in part to lack of investments here in the US by International firms.
This is a stretch, but… if W was respected, then why would so many people have celebrated around the work when Obama was elected and made statements to the effect that US citizens made the right choice (I saw this
mentioned on the BBC, CCTV, and a few other international news services).
I am a Desert Storm USAF vet, and my opinions about the importance of how we are viewed in the world is from first-hand experiences representing this great nation.
I feel people hate the administration and not the country. Thank you for informing me and not attacking me, I was looking for how people see this since I was in Spain for two months and everyone wanted to talk to me.
Unfortunately people tend to lump all Americans in with what is going on in America. Not to mention, a lot of Americans fall into the “ugly american” stereotype when abroad. i.e. discourteous, unwilling to speak the language, ignorant of the cultures, sense of entitlement to goods/services etc. Sad really, but there are enough of them walking around ignorant of the way their behavior affects others (even here at home) that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the rest of the world. This administration capped it for them because this president seemed like the ignorant yokel with more money than they can handle Americans are perceived to be. His bad policies just reinforced the idea. He managed to erase the unity/solidarity created just after 9/11. Hopefully, going forward, we’ll be able to mend the reputation somewhat. (no I’m not giving credit all to obama in this either)
I believe Obama’s landslide victory can be attributed largely to one thing: his overwhelming aura of statesmanship, and how far that will go towards mending our relationship with the rest of the world. That’s the reason I voted for him, anyway — his social policies (which I doubt ever will be enacted) swing way too far to the left for my taste. But the guy is the first true statesman we’ve had since Reagan (and no, Clinton doesn’t count — he was Used-Car-Salesman-In-Chief IMO — likable, but not a statesman).
I agree he does have a good presence. I made the comment only because there are some around here who will add something about Obamessiah, etc. I was getting it out of the way that I don’t believe he’s a savior, and that The changes in congress (part of the election cycle I’m referring to) are also part of this desire on American’s part to get rid of the politics of greed, hate, and ignorance that have been so present in this administration.
I hope some of his social policies are implemented, particularly related to education, and job creation with green energy etc. (although I understand that’s an economic policy as well)
True, I believe he will get some of his stuff through, in fact, but the whole agenda (which many people seem to have bet the farm on, so to speak) is so ludicrously unlikely it’s not worth discussing.
I would say that he’s going to end up spending more time on convincing this new crop of Democratic reps, than the Republican caucus, because these new Dems are not the good-soldier liberals everyone seems to think they are — many of them are fiscally-conservative Blue-Dog Democrats, and they are not just going to rubber-stamp a spending spree for anything that Obama can think of. That said, I agree with what the man reiterated on 60 Minutes last night — his top priority is the economy (as it has to be), and unfortunately that puts social issues on the back burner for now.
So we’ll just have to elect him for a second term to get the time to deal with the other stuff.
Assuming he doesn’t do anything impeachable or particularly devastating on other fronts either in the meantime.
Agreed — I think they are going to have to have pictures of him in bed with Michael Jackson’s kiddie friends to prevent a second term (and yes, I know he hasn’t started his first one yet
)
It’s so unlikely, just based on his character — he thinks before acting, what a great concept!
I agree with the part about electing Obama because he’s a statesman. He is courteous and thoughtful and intelligent in a way that we haven’t seen truly exemplified in a national leader in a long time. As such, I think he could clear the way for a lot of good.
.
That said…
.
My liberalism pretty much stops there. I think that the government that governs best, governs least. Social issues are important, but they should really be the hobbies of the gov’t and not its main focus. The gov’t's main focus is to provide, central, necessary services (like highways), protect us from hostile nations (the military), and protect us – within certain strict limits – from each other (the FBI).
.
That’s. About. It. Everything else is (should be) the responsibility of the states and of the people. I’m sure someone will bring up some exceptions, but my point is that they are *exceptions*. The federal gov’t should be doing as little as possible.
No, I don’t mind discussions with people who want to have one. You said were honestly asking, so I answered (and swallowed my frustration since you were not really egging me on).
Here’s an interesting link I just found. It is from CNN, describing the headlines from other nations after Obama’s election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/international.press.reaction/index.html#cnnSTCText?iref=werecommend
Yes, when I was overseas people did want to talk to me and be friends with me. However, while I was in the Philippines in 1991, there were people who wanted to kill any Americans, especially Military members. I remember running a couple of checkpoints while driving between Clark AB and Subic Bay.
You are appreciated for respecting me as I respect you. Thanks.
But the people elected the administration. Or, at least, that’s what is claimed–there’s still a LOT of debate about what happened in 2000 and 2004.
Only among those who can’t stand the fact they lost. The thinking population has moved on with their lives.
The debate goes on even among Republicans, given the sad state of security surrounding computerized voting at one end of the spectrum, and the sad state of
“use a stick to punch your card” voting at the other end.
.
I count myself very lucky to live in a county where we use scantron forms. Combines the efficiency of computerized tallies with the accountability of paper, anonymous ballots.
.
Regardless of your opinion of WHO won, the issue of HOW elections take place is of national interest.
I know you wanted to be coddled and shown the answer nicely but I will say this…
Who is paying our bills, dumbass? I think China paying our bills is another country affecting us. When/if they decide to call on our debt, I hope you picked up some Chinese while you were away.
Sorry, I wanted to be nice but that level of ignorance can only be willful.
It’s not, I’m not that well informed on world economies. Ask me about local issues here in the midwest and I’m on my game, but when it comes to international economics I usually sit and listen.
I’m not going to get angry at you for insulting me cause I know we normally get a long but I really don’t know the US’s affect economically. On this you can call me ignorant/stupid and you’d be right.
I have enough confidence to admit that I know where I am mistaken.
God’s Death! It’s not like it’s actually hard to understand….
You should see the grade I got in economics……
I really am smart, just not in this area, again please have some patiences as I do have some with you.
You’re forgiven, just that really galled me. I am not the math person in the relationship, Lynn is. Just remember that globally, like locally, money has to come from somewhere and America is in debt. We have to be in debt to somebody so that somebody is other countries. Now you know and knowing is half the battle.
And all that jazz. In bed. With hookers that weren’t paid for.
Shoplifting or rape, your choice.
It’s not complex maths just adding up and taking away…
Shhhh, just answer the Shoplifting or Rape question.
It doesn’t follow that we *have* to be in debt to other countries. We go into debt (not trade deficit but actual debt) by selling Treasury securities. We can sell them to anybody, including U.S. citizens. So it didn’t have to be China, that just happens to be the way it turned out. So the U.S. is not only in debt to China but also to citizens of other countries, as well as our own citizens.
Not to say that we’re not in a LOT of debt to China, though.
I would have to agree with aggressive — if not fully aggressive (and you’d have to admit that invading two other sovereign nations is a bit aggressive), then arrogant.
I LOL’ed — it was a clever application of the phrase in the context of the picture. The Bush-hating is getting a bit long in the tooth, though — the guy’s out of office in 65 days. Can we move on now?
I wish… even if I was a democrat I’d be getting sick of this.
Are you sick of dissing Bill Clinton yet? How long did that go on for? Are you tired of blowjob jokes? Ready to fondly reminisce about Carter? Yeah, you guys certainly don’t hold on to grudges for very long, so why should we?
At the risk of sounding like a dirty liberal, I concur. Slick Willy is mentioned quite frequently…
I may not be best placed to comment on this one, because I have to assume you all hear this on some form of talk format, which I avoid. I personally haven’t heard anyone mention Bill Clinton since he left office, except to point out that he was killing Hillary’s campaign with his presence…and good Lord, Carter? When was the last time someone talked about him (outside of HFH)?
People brought him up a lot on here when looking for scapegoats for the economic /housing crisis.
When he won the Nobel Peace Prize and promptly turned around and dissed Bush. When he wrote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and people ripped him a new one.
I guess we’re talking about Carter with the Nobel Prize — I certainly think I would have remembered if they gave Clinton one. Shows you how much attention I pay to Carter. Not familiar with the Palestine piece to which you refer — is this recent or ancient history (nm I’ll go look it up).
Re: Glass-Stegall repeal, sure, Bubba signed it but there were an *awful* lot of “yea” votes on that puppy from both sides of the aisle…
From what I’ve seen now of “Peace, Not Apartheid” the ripping was not without merit.
I don’t, can you list the last Bill Clinton joke I’ve made?
Starting a pre-emptive war based on false evidence could fairly be considered an act of aggression.
Ah, only if you’re a pinko-commie America hater… at least that was what TPTB wanted us to believe…
Dang, I’ve been found out.
[folds commie flag neatly]
[slinks away]
And I haven’t even GOT a garage! You can call home and ask my wife!
You’re not sure on the word aggressive?
How many unprovoked, multi-year wars would a man have to start before you’d admit that he’s aggressive?
Oh, you’re so right. He’s such a good leader because he made his torture houses OUTSIDE the US border. I can’t imagine why he’s so unpopular…
“made many torture houses within US border”
All of the rest of your message looked like it might actually have been written by someone who believed it, but that line gave the true game away and suggests that you must be a troll.
No one could really think that building torture houses is only wrong when they’re within a leader’s own border, right?
I’d not call TC a troll… a zealot, but not a troll… that seems to be my mantle (which I enjoy)
Am I really a zealot? I just consider myself opinionated! I like most of you people and I say that continually. And it is not because I want to see you squirm, sometimes I get really great information and debates from you people and I enjoy it.
No, not a troll
I’m guessing people didn’t quite understand the comparison. I’m not claiming Gitmo was some wonderful invention that made rainbows and butterflys. I am claiming that there is little correlation between him and current dictators. There were torture houses made for there own citizens in some of these countries. I do consider that a huge difference between them (dictators, North Korea, Cuba, Iran)
and Bush.
I can agree with you that he is not the kind of man that is a dictator we love to hate. However I do see him on the spectrum of aggressive and unpopular. Something like saying, your bike breaking sucks, and crashing your car sucks, one is far worse, but both do indeed suck
Actually, we don’t know what the hell the U.S. government is up to other than they’ve imprisoned and deported a hell of a lot of people who were in this coutry LEGALLY. I just found out today, in fact, that the U.S. military is keeping a DNA database of “suspected terrorists”–not even tried and convicted, they just *suspect.* You know, “citizen” is not synonymous with “human being.” And if they get away with this crap with people who are not citizens how long will it be before they turn on us? Have you forgotten your Niemoller already?
Actually, he did that abroad (although possibly not the rapes… but some of us remember the stories that trickled out of Vietnam over the years)
“Aggressive”. You know. Invades countries and stuff. Pushes potentially volatile military alliances without concern for local status quo. You can hardly deny that much.
Domestic abuses weren’t mentioned in the caption. Neither was him being a “dictator”. l2readingcomprehension.
Thanks, I’m glad all the contribution you could possibly give to PK is stuck in this small box. Is that depressing to you or no?
L2knowattemptedcorrelation
You’ve padded out less than you’re implying into several hundred posts of incredibly bad English
Two words: Patriot Act.
No one is purporting that Bush is Sadam Hussein or Hitler. He did however screw up a lot and part of that opened the door for certain people to strip individuals of their liberties under the guise of the War on Terror.
This picture is true. He’s unpopular and he’s aggressive. It makes no mention of anything larger than that. It’s simply a well done jab at those mocking the “without precondition” issue. My initial reaction was “Oooooo burn!” and that stands.
The right to the expectation of privacy, the right of habeus corpse… but if you are one that still doesn’t know this, you are one of those citizens. *sigh*
“Just because you are a US citizen doesn’t make you an American”
Habeas Corpus… one of the pillars of western civilisation…
It’s eroded badly by both the US and the UK
I think “Habeus Corpse” might be a cut-rate funeral home chain, though.
For distress dead people… that was over on Engrish
Unpopular =/= terrorist dictator.
-
There, fixed that for you.
I’m gonna comment here to make you feel like someone is reading.
I cause a lot of controversy don’t I? I didn’t think I’d get this much continued reaction. I am feeling quite informed though, funny if I asked nicely there isn’t much answers, but if I bring a lot of sarcasm the information just starts flying.
Yeah- it’s kind of unusual Bush meeting with an Islamic terrorist like this!
( Wait for the Liberal whiners)
Well, since Barack hasn’t taken office yet, I wouldn’t yet consider him a “world leader”, so that only leaves one person.
True, but I could also argue that Obama’s the world leader, he spoke to a large crowd in Germany, I’m fairly certain that Bush never did that.
Besides, in the picture, it looks like Obama is the scary, scheming, evil world leader. Bush just looks scared.
Here’s a cigar… have a seat Rimfire
*Pulls out whine glasses and a big box of corks for when we’ve had enough*
Have enough cigars to pass around?
This’ll be entertaining
*rimshot*
Actually, I have been waiting for the right-wing nut jobs to make this complaint!
This caption isn’t funny or clever.
And I hate Bush. I am a “liberal” if you so choose to brand me.
I come here for laughs, not your political opinion Pundit Kitchen.
THANKS.
once more, with feeling!
You’re a DOUCHENOZZLE!!!!
You Liberal Bush hater!
Well…you weren’t coerced into opening the “Comments” section…if you just want the laughs, stay out of the Comments on PK, is my vote.
(Wasn’t the comments he was referring to.) Assuming you’re not being witty on this one.
After careful review, the call goes Phaelin’s way!
That’s good advice usually but then you run the risk of missing the occasional jewel amongst all the cr*p. For example, just this morning I learned “actortitude”. It made my day!
Jerry,
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM SO MUCH?!?!!!!!!!!111!11!1oneoneoneeleventy-one
Thank you,
PK
This caption isn’t funny or clever.
And I hate Bush. I am a “liberal” if you so choose to brand me.
I come here for laughs, not your political opinion Pundit Kitchen.
THANKS.
So don’t read the comments??
Apparently he doesn’t read his own…
heheehee. nope.
Dear Jerry,
Go back to lolcats. You’ve apparently clicked on the wrong site…
I like lolcats. The comments make my eyes bleed, however…
I try to read them occasionally, but I run away screaming. i think it’s entirely populated by five-year-olds.
My friend has a three year old daughter that’s more coherent than those comments.
Why? Why are there so many comments there? Why must they reproduce?
A fellow eugenicist! Hail and well met!
We lurk in unexpected places, UF.
I just sink a bottle of Jamesons in a dimly lit room…
And boy, do they get pissy if you interrupt their rhyme-fests…
It’s supposed to look like that. It’s LOLspeak. I don’t read it either but at least I get the point.
I’m trying not to sound sarcastic (usually an effort for me), but: if you don’t like political opinions, why would you visit a website whose humor is based primarily on political commentary?
What’s the reference?
Totally out of the loop, what with the new WoW expansion.
Umm… you seriously don’t get the reference? [is bad at detecting subtle sarcasm over the internet]
During the Democratic debates, when asked if they would meet to talk with aggressive world leaders without preconditions, Barack said that he would. This picture is characterizing Bush as one of those leaders.
Thank you.
And no sarcasm here, I didn’t bother with the debates.
I’m sure you were also happier.
I think I was getting drunk….so, yes.
I lol’d… even though I played this game.
i thought this one was hilarious. great flip of bush’s own words. WIN.
Those weren’t Bush’s words? Unless they were spoken by him some other time, of course…
These comments must reflect the Unity that Obama was spouting.
I think I love you.
you would.
Please stop? I ask you nicely.
“These comments must reflect the Unity that Obama was spouting.”
Translation: After eight years of dishing it out, we can’t take it; so now that the shoe is on the other foot, we’ve suddenly discovered bipartisanship and unity.
Obama might honestly prefer unity, but the left can’t wait to take it to the right, is the actual translation…
Liberal lameness at it’s best. Wait til Obama takes your money and gives it to undeserving welfare recepients.
Oh, but he’ll still meet with worldly leaders…
Really? Have you been on welfare? Do you know you have to have some sort of income to collect welfare? The only way you get money and not work is money to support your children. Now SURELY you support children receiving food and medical care since you probably are pro-life.
Considering how much of my tax money has gone to support a highly privatized war that has benefited big businesses like oil companies, Blackwater, and Halbutron, I would much rather write our a check to help my fellow citizens than to support the rest of the world and big business who do not need my money. Just look at the salaries many CEO’s have received for running a company into the ground while hard working people loose their jobs!
It is not about *you* and what *you* want – it is about what is best for our country as a whole. And last *I* checked, supporting our country is not socialism, so stop being so self-centered.
Wouldn’t it be best to let everyone write a check to whom they wanted, instead of having the government take the money and write checks?
Yeah, like that will happen. At least be realistic with your responses. From yoru response one might presume that you would choose to write a check directly to Blackwater for providing a private force in Iraq. Is that so?
I’m all for fair tax and abolishing the IRS (meaning be taxed on what you spend, not what you earn), but it would be a hell of a fight to get rid of bureaucracy.
It would be a hell of a fight. But it would be a fight worth fighting.
I voted for less government.
You voted against Bush?
I don’t have to presume that you’re a troll.
Anyone who chooses a moniker for John Jesus Angelton is to be treated with some caution as to inherent ‘niceness’ or lack of same…
Also, without the government skimming the majority of it off the top?
I’m all for helping people out, but I don’t think it should be a governmentally mandated thing.
Then what should it be?
The States won’t do it, for fear of being inundated by free loaders.
All the charitable donations in the country don’t add up to a hill of beans compare to what’s needed though.
I don’t buy that for a second. People talk and talk about How Much Need there is out there, but I also hear how there is more than enough food produced on this planet to feed twice its human population and then some.
.
I agree that without some sort of control, the rich will continue to grind the poor.
.
I also agree that getting the gov’t involved and mandating charity is, effectively, state-sponsored slavery of the people, by the people, for the people. It’s a bad solution.
.
It also ignores the root of the problem, even though this root that I speak of has been in the news every day for the last few weeks vis-a-vis the use of the Wall Street bailouts. The root of the problem is that corporate execs can make tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars per year just in salaries and bonuses, while the common working man makes $40k or less. That’s a 10,000-to-1 gap.
.
It’s not poverty or need that’s the problem. It’s the size of the gap. If we were all suffering, we would all just suffer together. But many suffer while others wallow in such amazing riches that they could enrich entire cities by themselves and still have not just “plenty” but downright *wealth* left over.
.
That, friends, is The Problem.
.
The perennial problem is whether it is up to the government to solve it. If the answer is no, then who will do it? If the answer is yes, how can we keep such clearly vast and dangerous power in check?
.
That, friends, is why The Problem still exists. Give it some thought. I haven’t come to any good conclusions yet, except to note what history teaches us. Sooner or later, either the Rich Folks realize the danger and wax humanitarian (wise), or we have a revolution (or come very close). Time will tell.
Well put. It was as if you were speaking my mind for me.
Applause…
You do NOT have to have income to get welfare, unless you’re counting unemployment as income. Also, I have no idea how many ‘job search’ forms I passed off to my boss to sign at the grocery store in which I worked where the person walked in, said ‘sign this please’ and never asked for a job app. Yes, I have a problem with the moochers on the system. If we actually enforced the welfare to work laws we have in place, then I wouldn’t feel so strongly about putting money into a corrupt system.
-
And children getting money for food and medical care is sometimes a separate deal than simple welfare. Usually separate, that is, unless it comes in the form of AFDC on a foodstamp card.
Unemployment is not welfare.
I never said it is. I said it is being abused. We have a guy working for us right now who is about to get fired because he filed for unemployment while still employed with us.
Yes, but you do tend to assume that the cheaters are the rule, not the exception. if that were the case, the system would have failed long ago.
I will freely admit that. In my small microcosm, I see welfare abuse running rampant, and have for a long time. Living in three different cities over 100 miles apart over the last 10 years showed me the same thing. It may be the state, it may be the people, it may be the types of work I did, but I saw it all over the place. It’s enough to make you lose faith in humanity.
Most people see what they want to see. They see the things that confirm your beliefs, and they ignore things that contradict them. Most people feel thatr there is one right set of beliefs, and all others are wrong. They do not know how to look at reality, only at their fantasy of reality. Things that contradict the One True Belief System must be wrong. It’s called confirmation bias, click my name for a wiki article about it.
Oh my God. You know what? Republicans aren’t allowed to talk about frigging welfare anymore. Seriously. AFDC? We haven’t had AFDC since the frigging 1990s. Thank Bill Clinton, the best Republican President we’ve had in years. No, that is not a typo. Ever heard of TANF? That’s what we have now. It is NOT food stamps. For that matter, food stamps aren’t food stamps anymore. It’s a debit card now. And yes you DO have to have a job to get welfare. It’s not much of an income, you’re almost right–but you have to have one. It used to be that the states could decide to let parents go to school in lieu of a job but Congress nixed that in 2006 so now you have to work some crap dead-end job just to get a crap check from TANF that doesn’t even cover the monthly expenses. Sometimes I think the government wants to keep the poor poor. This is why I don’t even try to get on it and I qualify for it. But God. You know SO MUCH about welfare and how much it is ABUSED but you don’t even know what the programs are and how they work? Shut UP, ma’am, til you get a clue. God, a simple Google search would have saved you the embarrassment. Did you even want to bother?
“Sometimes I think the government wants to keep the poor poor.”
Ding ding ding! What does the man win, Charlie?
I’ve believed this forever. There is enormous power in maintaining a sizable poverty class — you can’t play one class off the other if everyone is at the same level, and modern politics are about class warfare.
Now hang on a minute before you call me an idiot. Texas has debit cards (Lone Star cards) that are food stamps with two separate designations: AFDC and regular EBT. AFDC is usually used for child support type cash that can be used for anything, even alcoholic purchases that can’t be made with the TANF part. I worked in retail for many years, don’t tell me about Lone Star cards and most of the people who use them. There are some truly needy people who use them, and then there are the idiots buying name brand food that I can’t even afford while dressed in nicer clothes than I with perfectly manicured nails and a Coach purse.
-
It IS possible to get food stamps (or TANF) without the benefit of a job. You might not be able to stay on it very long, but it does happen more often than it should.
-
Do not denegrate me because of your own bitterness at the failures in the system. The failures that have screwed you over come from the idiots who abuse a system that was set up to help needy people, not people who just don’t want to do better. And yes, Minerva, I do agree that you can’t normally just ask for a hand out and get it, but you have to understand that I’ve seen too many people ask for that particular hand out and actually get it, even if just for a short while until they are caught. My low-income town was notorious for it, and a lot of truly needy people suffered for it.
-
Just because you are a Democrat who has been held down by the system or have had difficulties that have forced you to rely on government help, that doesn’t make you better or worse than me. It also doesn’t make Dems better than Repubs. Dems and Repubs both have their share of blame in the ponderous, top-heavy ball of red tape we call welfare.
You definitely don’t need a job to be on welfare…and you sometimes don’t even need to look for a job to be on welfare (depending on the size of your family). The more kids you have, the better chances you don’t need to work (cost of childcare vs. the amount you’d make). Personally, I can’t stand to think about paying taxes for this situation but don’t mind if there is a way that the parents are trying to better themselves so that, eventually, they will be able to provide for their families on their own.
Oh…not necessarily ‘job’…you don’t need an income. Period.
Clearly you know nothing about the TANF program. The fun part? You can no longer go to school full-time in lieu of working. Congress made sure of that two years ago. So it’s work at McD’s or get no TANF. You can still get food stamps and Medicaid, for what they’re worth, which ain’t much.
While I will claim a lack of understanding of TANF, but let me see if I can understand what your issue is. You can get a minimum wage job at McD’s and get support, or possibly get a job that will cover what you would get at McD’s and TANF and might even have employee tuition assistance. Have you looked beyond the scope you’re currently at?
-
I’m not trying to be a smart ass, but I am really interested. My sons each have gotten jobs that don’t necessarily pay huge salaries, but they get by AND go to school without any help from me or the government.
You’re full of it. All you have to do to receive welfare is be LAZY. Hard workers with kids don’t get free handouts, though many of them are the ones that deserve it.
ANd go ahead, raise taxes on the wealthy. See in a few years how that trickles down and helps out this economy. Dumb idea.
Of course, another yahoo liberal thinking the war is based on oil. Get off it already. You had no problem with Clinton going into Somalia and Kosovo to dter attention away from his presidential blowjob, but Bush goes in, removes a hideous dictator, saves thousands of lives, and all of the sudden it’s wrong because a REPUBLICAN did it.
Socialism didn’t work for the USSR, but you want it here. Go for it.
clearly you are uninformed and bigoted. there are people working to get off welfare. Also there are many requirements you have to meet before you qualify, most of which are dismally low. You can’t just quit your job(or avoid getting one in the first place) and go ask for a handout. That’s the way it’s portrayed by the right wing, but it simply isn’t true. Even froofrou, who’s conservative, would probably agree to that.
Incidentally, trickle down economics has been proven to not work, time and time again. Others have pointed out that much of the rest of the world sees the US as right of center on both parties, and laughs at you. Get with the program. At least try to be a little informed before spewing bile instead of just repeating talking points, k?
So, in summary:
1. Welfare and other social services are for lazy people who want handouts
2. “Trickle down” economics benefits everyone
3. The war was not for the benefit of big oil/Halliburton
4. Clinton was a bad president because he got a blow job
Ooh, so close, but I’m not seeing:
5. Reagan was the greatest president ever
6. The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were fair and transparent.
Anybody else got any?
Anyone who disagrees is a pinko commie and NO patriot…
Another idiot. If you’re breeding, stop. If you haven’t had kids yet, don’t start.
If you think being a parent is being lazy, clearly you either don’t have kids or you don’t raise your own.
Welfare has always sucked. People only go on it when they need it. Oftentimes they don’t try even when they do need it. *raises hand* Partly because I don’t feel like letting the state run my life. Partly because I couldn’t possibly make enough money at the jobs they’d shove me into, to make it worth my while. Partly because I like knowing I don’t have to hear you whining about me “taking” your money. As opposed to rapists, racists, and murderers in the military “taking” your money. Or the dirty politicians “taking” your money. You’d rather pay them than a mom with kids. Those are your values. Dig it.
And yet ANOTHER strudent of Das Kapital speaks…
LOSER!
Not to mention, but this still marginalizes the middle class as if we’re a nation of only wealthy people and poor dregs with nothing to offer society but an open hand.
Unfortunately, that’s how the demagogues (on both sides) paint us…
I don’t think Obama does. he seems to be mainly pro middle class. The middle class is the backbone of the economy and needs to be supported or the whole thing crumbles.
Right, sorry, I was commenting on how the angry left and right paint us — as a nation of only wealthy and dregs — because class warfare is still a money-maker these days. Wasn’t puttin’ that one on Obama…
That’s what I thought you meant. Fair enough. There are several right wing trolls that tend to scream it on this board though, so I clarified.
Being pro-middle class isn’t a bad thing.
There’s not been a successful revolution wasn’t fomented and led from the middle classes…
Yeah, It’s one of the things I like about Obama.
Unfortunately for all of us, this is significantly closer to the truth than it was 8 years ago.
You mean like Joe the Plumber?
Yeah, instead of deserving banks and Wall St. honchos.
You mean like BushCo has already done?
Oh, I’m sorry–you didn’t mean CORPORATE welfare.
Run the numbers sometime, compare the two, then get back to me.
He’s wearing his cornflower blue tie…must be tuesday.
you know, you can swallow about a pint of blood before you get sick
For moment, I wasn’t thinking about our controlled demolition or the revolution and I just wondered how clean that gun barrel was.
Fight Club reference FTW
I am Jack’s colon…..
Funny… this caption was stolen (or borrowed) from a headline on Fark.com a few days ago. Wonder if the submitter is a Farker?
probably a mother farker.
I miss the days where lols on this site were funny.
I just can’t wait for the appeasement Obama has in store for the world and the fuccups in store for the US.
Oh Bob, now you’re cross dressing?
Instead of hoping for Obama’s and the United States downturn, would it not be easier to hope for the best? Seriously, I think hoping that the President and the United States tanks to me seems highly unpatriotic.
Well, seeing as both major candidates wanted to push the idea of unity and moving forward, I blame the right wing media and their continued hate mongering. Choose your medium, Rush, Hannity and others on Fox, newsmax, etc. They’re all still doing it. It’s very sad.
That’s right Minerva because the left would never do any hate mongering would they? Let go over to daily kos or the huffington post and bask in all the warm fuzzy love for their fellow humans.
My point being is that it is done on both sides so lets not just point at one like they are the only ones doing it.
I may be partly offbase as I don’t spend a lot of time reading Huffington, but in my experience, they tend to single out individuals they disagree with or give their take on the issues. they don’t just paint with a broad brush and say things like “republicans are all racist nazi’s who all want to kill your rights to gay marriage.” Which is the sort of thing you get from hannity, etc. Stuff like “Democrats are unamerican, or democrats are socialists who want to give your paychecks to welfare queens”
Of course there’s some fluff from either side, but it’s more vitriolic from the right. Your own comment amounts to little more than “I know you are but what am I?” or “But he did it tooo, waaahhhh!11!!”
Well, for starters you are assuming I am someone on the right/republican which Im not. ive been an independent since i started voting that being said Huffington and Daily Kos do use the “All republicans are racist/nazi’s/totalitarian buffoons brush fairly often. All Im trying to say here is it happens on both sides so lets not just point at one side and say omg look at how horrible they are.
Had to LOl at the last couple lines. I haven’t heard “I know you are but what am I” in a long time
I see you guys placed an order for my wang?
*wang dances*
Stiff and awesome
I rise to the occasion
Drink deep my flavor
Wow, wang has “expanded” his repertoire to include haiku!
I don’t know if I’d call Rush a hatemonger, all the stuff he says is either factually based (which can be found on his website) or it is opinion based on said facts.
Even all the pet names he uses for Obama were not coined by him. The “Messiah” name was first used by Farrakhan, “Chicago Street Thug” was first said by Bill Clinton, even Evan Thomas of Newsweek referred to Obama’s “slightly creepy cult of personality”.
Though it is obvious that Rush doesn’t like Obama, and is also not afraid to attack him. But in all his attacks, there is always evidence behind his statements.
He inflates some of them with enough bile you can’t tell where any facts begin or end. Here’s a website that tracked his lies though. Even if you think some of the examples aren’t lies, the “facts” are certainly twisted enough to mean something entirely different. He also is definitely one of those responsible for stirring up the unthinking part of the base into frothing sycophants. Even if you think it’s unintentional, which I don’t, it is the same in the end result.
Just because Rush makes stuff up to support other stuff he makes up does not mean it is ‘factual.’ Rush lies continuously, his BS has been debunked over and over. He doesn’t care about the truth at all, only about selling his idiotic audience to his advertisers. Click my name for a list of just a few of his lies.
Um, you posted the same link as me Seth. Now we look even dorkier.
Hehe, well, if you type ‘rush limbaugh lies’ into Google, it’s the first things that comes up. Out of millions of hits.
Huh, I guess I shouldn’t have said “All of his stuff”
But also note that there isn’t anything anything in there newer than 2004.
I was going off of my own experiences, going back to about 6 months ago.
He is as almost every political commenter is, you take his statements with a grain of salt, as most of it is said with respect to his own views.
Also, you two are dorks…
“He is as almost every political commenter is, you take his statements with a grain of salt, as most of it is said with respect to his own views.”
Trans: I know he lies, but so do all the rest and I like his lies best…
It’s what I call post-paranoid. You know you’re being lied to and manipulated, but you no longer care.
Or, just take it for the entertainment value.
When it’s simply entertainment, why do so many seem to take it as stent down the mountain by God on stone tablets?
Seems to me that we’re just spinning semantics to cover up for people who either don’t know or don’t care it’s ‘entertainment’ and not ‘factual’
But that’s news media across the board.
You know UF, that’s a good description of me: Post-Paranoid.
But people are sheep. How many do you know of either think that the moon landing was a hoax, or that we’re mining uranium on the moon right now?
That’s because the article is dated 2005. They just haven’t compiled after that because they simply lost count.
Please, both of you, tell me you don’t *actually* pick random Google search results as “factual” basis for your arguments…please, say it ain’t so.
No, but media matters isn’t a bad organization to use. I skipped a couple other choices because they were just liberal spewage.
We’ll now wait for Cobra to make something of that Hash..
Hash browns?
any sort of hash you like, Poppa Bear! xxx
There was a day when Rush Limbaugh actually made points that were valid. Unfortunately, over the course of years he has become more and more a joke. I used to be able to listen to him for three hours straight and agreed with 99% of what he said. Now, I hear him and ask my self where he got the bad mix of crack. I used to like Sean Hannity as well as I thought he came across as sane and had valid points. Now, I think he is to up himself and it’s all about shouting down the guy on the other side. And don’t EVEN get me started on Michael Savage.
-
Bottom line is this, there aren’t any conservative commentators on the national level that I truly like or respect as I think most of them have become mouthpieces for the far/extreme right. I know of some conservative commentators at the local level that are honestly trying to be fair minded. Unfortunately, they will never get beyond the local level.
Something you have to remember… the ‘after dinner’ speaking route is as, if not more, profitable as/than broadcasting…
Pander to the right audience and you double the annual paycheque
True enough, but that really seems to apply to former politicos. People like Limbaugh are destined to be on the radio until they die or retire or possibly go into televangelism where the money isn’t to shabby either.
Limbaugh does both… so do most Jocks. Effectively their radio show is a protracted advert for their other career.
He looks like the Church Lady…
I don’t know what there is to argue about here. Whether the people who read this approve or not, Bush IS unpopular. His approval rating is very low. And whether you approve of the Iraq war or not, beginning a war is certainly an aggressive act, especially since it was a war against a country that had not attacked us. And yes, Obama met with Bush without preconditions. Nothing is being misrepresented here, so what’s the problem?
Yeah, but then you take away all our fun.
Yeah, nothing being misrepresented, but easily taken out of context.
Besides, there is a precondition: Obama was elected the next president. I doubt Bush would have allowed a one on one meeting in the oval office if Obama was not the next president elect.
Did you know the approval rating for the DEMOCRATIC congress is even lower than Bush’s? Kinda puts things into perspective, no?
That’s because, with the exception of Dennis J. “Denny the Hose” Kucinich, they’re all spineless.
Hard to get anything the people want accomplished when you’re faced with filibuster all the time.
Yeah I thought George Bush made fun of Obama for saying he would meet with agressive world leaders without pre-conditions…. oh wait a joke against President Bush, now that is totally original, not just from this site, but from anything out there…. man I am so glad I can think for myself….otherwise I might start bashing the President for no apparent reason.
You don’t get out much, do you?
I don’t get it…
way to quote “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” …but still awesome.
It is hard to believe that I had to scroll all the way to the bottom to find someone who actually noticed that this was lifted from elsewhere. It was funnier the first time.
HA HA! Excellent quote, visually well placed too!
Obama has threatened to invade both Iran and Pakistan as well. Being a Democrat doesn’t make you non-aggressive, look at JFK.
LOLs
:D:D
Anybody for the “Pallin-g around with terrorists” joke?
Excellent caption! Very clever.
Good caption. Bush is meeting with an aggressive world leader, Obama!
wow ur dumb
Some of these people amaze me with their sparkling brilliance.
The fact that there are people who still believe that Obama is Islamic (which shouldn’t be relevant anyway. There are quite a few radicals from other religions and plenty with no religion.) is stunning. He hasn’t practiced the religion of Islam since he was SIX years old. Looking back at my life I seem to remember going to the church my parents went to when I was six. Not for any particular reason of mine. Just because I was six and my parents still had say-so over what I did. Barack’s father converted to Christianity early in his life. Nothing very suspicious about it to me. Conversions happen all the time. Also, as many people have pointed out above, all the statements in the picture do unfortunately describe poor Georgy. I really feel kind of bad for the guy. He’s not that bad a president, he just gets a lot of crap, mostly poking fun at his intelligence level. Actually his intelligence level is pretty high, or so I’ve concluded from listening to him speak in general rather than listening to solely every slip-up reported on the Daily Show(although I do enjoy the Daily Show). Well, I think I’m rambling now so I’ll just stop.