Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.

 

« Previous | Next »


is anyone really surprised


teabaggers

is anyone really surprised that it’s written in crayon?

(Teabaggers)

I think it was written by her.

Picture by: Nathan C. Caption by: lyds1012 via Our LOL Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

» 749 comments

  1. Wow, and we almost went a whole day without one that’s gonna piss people off. Almost.

    • And FTR, misspelled signs on both sides of the aisle are ALWAYS funny to me. :D

      • slaggingham says:

        This is what happens when they make teachers tell kids that there’s no “worng” answers.

        Spelling still counts!

        • grimmiekins says:

          and man one walked side by side with t-rex’s!

        • Oh there are still wrong answers in my kids school. In fact, right now I’ve got him redoing a worksheet he only got a 70% on. I don’t intend to harp real hard on grades as they get older, but the kid had better be doing his best.

          • That’s what I always told my kids.. if they did their best, that’s all that counts.

          • slaggingham says:

            My parents are both retired teachers. You would not believe (or maybe you would, you seem pretty smart) the kind of crap they had to put up with from parents, and administrators, both of whom seemed only to willing to let such unimportant things as knowing math and science slide if it made the kids FEEL better.

            Seriously. One parent once chewed my mother out because part of a third-grade lesson included the statement “bears can be dangerous.”

            I see it at the university where I work, too… a student demanding that a professor give him a “do-over” on a test. A test which was ONLINE, do-it-on-your-own-time, and OPEN-BOOK, and the student still managed to fail.

            • Charlie Foxtrot (Floyd Extrodinare) says:

              Hey, as a teacher in modern America, I have only encountered perfect students, parents and administrators — every thing is perfect… everyone passes and they all move on to college. It’s the college Prof’s problem now — gotcha, sucker!

            • I’m not about the “feel good” schooling. I mean, I certainly am for kids having high self esteem, but not at the expense of their learning. Both of my kids are exceptionally bright, so when I say “do your best,” I expect good things. And that student with the test you described is a moron.

              • Charlie Foxtrot (Floyd Extrodinare) says:

                Rando, the problem today is that the kids all have great self-esteem. The down side is that they never earned it. They have been given everything because, hey, we don’t want to damage their self-esteem, it doesn’t matter that they can’t do squat, or that they don’t want to think, but hey, they feel good about themselves.

                • Cisco54 says:

                  Exactly! I heard a lovely quote by Bob Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo to those of us old enough to remember – host of a sweet kid’s show from back when I was a kid). He said that kids today know all about their rights, but nothing about their responsibilities. Real education (by parents AND teachers) should deal with BOTH, in my humble opinion.

            • jean jeannie says:

              In my district we are lucky if the kids COME to school to begin with. It starts at home people. I watched a second grader led out in handcuffs one year. Not kidding. I love to tell those who are critical of today’s teachers to step on inside our world for a day, just one little day. You try to hold a kid back and the parents threaten to go to court over it. The administrators freak out and cave in…and there you go.

              • slaggingham says:

                Hey, if I were Emperor, every teacher would be issued a handgun and allowed a 10% casualty rate.

                Although I’ve been thinking that things might go even better if you were allowed to shoot the parents, instead. They’re almost always the real cause…

                “MY Johnny would NEVER have done that!!”
                “Ma’am, we have him on videotape. See?”
                “You-you FAKED that!”
                *BLAM!* “…Idiot.”

                • bad fairie says:

                  i don’t know about the handgun – blood is awfully hard to get out of stuff, but a nice whip, or even a metal ruler across the knuckles would make any parent sit up and pay attention during parent/teacher conferences… not for use on the children mind you, but on the parents, i don’t condone child abuse by anyone, but corporal punishment for someone who’s old enough to make a child could be a good thing, especially when done in public (ala puritan stocks on town squares)

                • Naoyusimi says:

                  @slaggingham:

                  You, Sir or Sirress, win an Internets!

                  It will be delivered posthaste!

                  And lots of hugs and kisses, too . . . ‘cept you don’t want those, ’cause I’m recovering from da FLU :::dunDUNNNN:::

            • ladykitteh says:

              Giving them 50% is way too lenient IMHO.

              [old woman mode]
              In my day, if you didn’t turn anything in you got an 1 (that’s an F). Period. New school policies suck indeed…
              [/old woman mode]

            • Ser says:

              *is kinda happy to be across an ocean, safely sitting in the midst of archaic customs such as reading books and knowing your multiplication table by heart*

      • Villany says:

        This doesn’t piss me off, there are people everywhere that have lost the skills of spelling and grammar.

        Maybe the person that wrote it is dyslexic, I don’t really know. I feel like the biggest reason we see so many screwed up signs from the right these days is that most of the lefties are carrying uniform, printed signs.

        I don’t care about the spelling of the signs. I’m just glad to see people standing up for what they believe in, regardless of what that is, and refusing to be railroaded by the the government. That’s liberty and I hope we don’t get so complacent about it that we let it slip away.

        Of course, there are always the misspellings that are freakin’ hilarious because they change the meaning. But yeah, plain old misspelling? Meh…

      • Nineteen Kilo says:

        BS, Rando. The “both sides are equally guilty” meme is pure MSM claptrap. I defy you to find a picture like this from a “leftist” protest.

        When liberals start showing up at political rallies with semi-automatic military weapons and pistols strapped to their pants and shoulders, then we’ll talk about “both sides doing it.”

        • No1askedme says:

          That’s not fair! There are only a very few groups of “conservative” wackos that really do that, and no true conservative would be caught dead supporting that sort of behaviour I assure you. I’m almost certain that there are groups of “liberals” who do/have done the exact same thing. There are crazy people an all sides of the field, so chill the hell out!

          • Ignatz says:

            Just like no true Scotsman eats oatmeal with cream on it? Fallacy fail. The organizers of the teabagger movement have close ties with neo-Nazis, secessionists, Dominionists, and other whackjobs. The Left has its own whackjobs, but they mostly damage property. They don’t shoot people, or spread rumors about government death panels, or make up video games about Sarah Palin leading a guerrilla batallion.

          • Ignatz says:

            Just like no true Scotsman eats oatmeal with cream on it? Fallacy fail. The organizers of the teabagger movement have close ties with neo-Nazis, secessionists, Dominionists, and other whackjobs. The Left has its own whackjobs, but they mostly damage property. They don’t shoot people, or spread rumors about government death panels, or make up video games about Sarah Palin leading a guerrilla batallion. Click my name for a good run-down of the connections.

        • I’m just trying to be fair, yo.

        • justacarolinian says:

          You mean like those Black Panthers?

    • slaggingham says:

      They have to keep the site hits up somehow…

  2. Dhoti says:

    The image is lousy with JPEG artifacts, but even so, does the text look a little off?

  3. VictoryNotVengeance says:

    Fox News: Always keeping people Infromed on the sactity of marriage and the corruption of Washigton and will always push English as the offical language.

    • And how Obama is commander and theif. LOL

    • Semperfidd says:

      Most other networks other than Fox News: Always complaining that life is not fair.

      • Well, it’s not. It’s true.

        • bad fairie says:

          i agree, if life were fair, i’d be 5ft5in, 135 lbs which last i checked was about the national average height/weight for women in the us, and i’d love to be that tall. so no, life isn’t fair

          • No1askedme says:

            Life is simultaneously fair and unfair in that life, optimally, is equally unfair to all. Sometimes our cultures skew this though…

            • No1askedme says:

              If human society were logical it would be, but artificial constructs like money and social classes have disrupted the balance. Normally the genetic traits vs. environment pressures keep things balanced, but humanities’ evolution is far slower than its progress, so we get things like an illogical concept of attractiveness, outdated social hierarchies, and the stock market, which grants wealth (and therefore “fitness”) based on pure luck. When senseless and uninhabitable attributes like that make people more “fit” without anything being special about them, the balance of unfairness tips somewhat. It’s really complicated, and it overlaps a lot with the aspects of humanities’ corrupted evolutionary patterns, but when you gather all the data together the trend becomes obvious.

          • guest says:

            Don’t worry. Obama will make life fair for you. He can enact a government program that requires all women to be 5’5″ and 135lbs or pay a fine.

            • No1askedme says:

              …you’re a moron if you think he’s complaining… All the Democrats are trying to do is make the legal system more fair. If you have a problem with that I suggest you move to Mexico where the government is all about oppressing the massive “working class” for the convenience of the wealthy.

              • Lena says:

                As opposed to what our government is doing now? Oppressing the “wealthy” for the convenience of the “working class”. TBH, the only people suffering from the Democrats legislation is the working class. The middle class is getting stepped on here and in Mexico. Look at the taxes and the health care bill and notice, if you don’t accept the public option, you’ll be fined. That’s all ‘guest’ was making reference too.

                • No1askedme says:

                  Not really. The taxes on the “middle class” have actually been reduced. The only increases in income taxes was a 3%( 4%?) increase on those making over $500,000 a year. Also, the health care bill simply provides a government insurance option, you can still get insurance from a private company if you want. Think things through before you post something.

                  • slaggingham says:

                    Not really. While “income taxes” on the middle class may (I say MAY) not go up they’ve waffled on that more than once aalready… we will all pay, as we always do, in the form of higher prices for the various things/people that are taxed.

                    Higher fees and taxes and bills and fines always get passed along to us, the consumer. Didn’t you know that?

                    • No1askedme says:

                      Yes, but it’s indirect. We can choose to reduce what we spend on goods each month, but we can’t decide to reduce what we pay in income taxes on matter how much we want to.

                      • CyanEyed says:

                        … indirect? Yeah, we’ll reduce yout standard of living, but it’ll be indirect, so it’s ok. (also, we’ll blame it on evil corporations who raise their prices so we can still get reelected.)

                  • Mark Dwight says:

                    Yes, the bill doesn’t *outlaw* private insurance, imagine how many people are going to buy private insurance if they can get government coverage “for free” (eg paid for with other peoples’ taxes).

                    It would create conditions where market forces will eventually drive private insurers out of business, and all that will be left would be the public option.

                    The only way a ‘public option’ would be remotely fair would be if it was not allowed *ANY* public funding, and instead had to support itself SOLELY by the premiums it charged customers. But then it would be just another insurance company.

                    Pre-existing conditions: You can’t buy insurance against fire on a house that has already burned down, why would you expect to be able to buy insurance against sickness if you are *already* sick?

                    • So, genius, how are the sick supposed to pay for the care for their illnesses if they don’t have insurance?

                      • guest says:

                        How about low or no interest loans from the government that will only cover the costs of the care and don’t have to be paid back by the family if the sick person dies?

                      • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

                        The problem is that under the bill as it stands now, there will still be anywhere from 15-35 million people still left uninsured. How is that better than what we have now?

                        The point is that this healthcare insurance overhaul is supposed to benefit those without insurance. So why aren’t we focusing on those who don’t have insurance? We’re not, we’re revamping an entire program that doesn’t need revamping. It needs fixing, not a complete overhaul!

                        • I totally disagree. It most certainly does need a complete overhaul. I really don’t see how a couple stop-gap solutions are really going to help. Stuff like tort reform is really just avoiding the real issue here. And if we’re NOT going to overhaul the system, then it’s going to take oodles of government regulation to keep health care in line anyway. It’s NOT going to do it on its own. It won’t. And if we don’t overhaul the system, then there is a laundry list of problems that need to be addressed. The uninsured is only one part of it.

                        • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

                          The problem is that this “end all” measure that they’ve come up with does nothing more than put the power in the government’s hands, and doesn’t insure any more people than we have now. Plus, considering the fact that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (the biggest legal Ponzi scheme ever) will be bankrupt before too long, do you really think that the government can handle yet another program of that size?

                          On top of that, when has a government estimate of cost EVER been REMOTELY close? When Obama claims that this will be budget neutral, all I see is money running out of the Treasury as fast as they can print it because for some reason that no one thought of, now we’re an additional 9 billion over budget.

            • Isildo says:

              This gives me a sad face. No woman in my family is over 5’4″. I’m 5’2″ and my grandmother is only about 4’8″. Although I’d like to see ANYONE try to fine her for it!

              • bad fairie says:

                on my father’s side, everyone is tall (5-6 to 5-10) and so are all my sibs — me, i take after my mother and her side – stumpy at 5-2 if i stretch (but at least i’m not dumpy and frumpy too, lol).

    • maddok says:

      On the other hand, every single other media outlet has, at least, a slight liberal slant.

      • HelOnWheels says:

        “every single other media outlet has, at least, a slight liberal slant.”

        Are you f’ing kidding?? Every SINGLE OTHER media outlet?? Seriously? Maybe if ALL you watch is FOX News they do.

        • justacarolinian says:

          Maybe if all you watch is the other media outlets Fox News seems slanted? IMHO they all slant.

          • HelOnWheels says:

            Yes, they do all slant. But to say that ALL the other, non FOX News outlets slant liberal is ridiculous. Although…since FN slants soooo far right it only makes sense to believe that every body else slants “liberal” in comparison.

            • Danbala says:

              There is/was quite a lot of discussion here some decades back about how left all media was. (Everyone knows what journalists are like, right? Pinkie-commie-hippie-libtard types, the lot!)

              Then when someone actually sent out a form and quite a few journalists (I’m afraid I can’t remember the percentage, when it was or anything atm :p ) it turned out that the majority of those who responded were lefties, but the ones who worked in political reporting were righties. :p (I mean percentage-wise within the section, not everyone of them.) This might be one of the reasons why the left get less airtime and less newspaper coverage whether they’re in charge or in opposition. That, and the media being afraid to be labeled as “overly lefty” all the time.

              So, yeah … Just a small anecdote. Other than that, I see a tendency that lefties see right-slants more easily and vice versa. Go figure. :p

            • justacarolinian says:

              I was being sarcastic, answering your remark. Fox is slanted, but you are foolish if you don’t see the slant in the other outlets.

              • Danbala says:

                But do they ALL have a liberal slant?

                • n00bs says:

                  I can’t think of one that doesn’t

                  • No1askedme says:

                    There’s an old saying, “Reality has a liberal bias.” Not sure how true it really is, but some people seem to embody the idea quite effectively.

                    • n00bs says:

                      It’s not an old saying, it was said by Jon Colbert at some point which couldn’t be long ago enough to make it an old saying. Also, Jon Colbert has a liberal bias, which makes him no judge of reality imo.

                      • No1askedme says:

                        No, it’s been around longer than that. I forget where I first heard it though. As for the bias accusation, I hereby refuse to deal with that, on the grounds that he is a comedian, and his own beliefs are an enigma.

                      • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                        Then you need to learn the definition of reality. Reality is all about perception. You can’t deny someone’s perception without forfeiting your own. Sorry.

                        • n00bs says:

                          You just made my point! Thanks kind sir.

                        • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                          So… you agree that you have no idea what the definition of reality is then?

                        • n00bs says:

                          Yes, neither I, nor what’s his name does. He has no right to say that “reality” has a liberal bias. How can he define reality but I can’t?

                        • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                          I wasn’t arguing that. You see most of the time on this board, you read a post, then you infer something that’s not there and try to throw it on the person. I didn’t say he had any more right to discern reality than you do. I merely stated you needed to learn the definition of reality.

                        • n00bs says:

                          But, you needn’t of said it, because I was not saying I knew the definition of reality, I was saying he did not have the right to define it for everyone.

                        • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                          Now you’re just being argumentative, because that’s all you do on these boards. He stated his view on reality, you said “which makes him no judge of reality”
                          Every person is their own judge of their reality. He didn’t say “noob’s reality has a liberal slant” therefore you inferred that he was talking about your reality. Once again, you’re doing what you do best: adding to someone’s statement so that you have something to argue over.

                        • n00bs says:

                          He didn’t say MY REALITY HAS A LIBERAL SLANT, he said REALITY HAS A LIBERAL SLANT, which implies, my, yours and everyone elses. Now please, accept I was right and let’s move on. You obviously need to have the last word, so I will let you, I’m done with this thread.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I’m not saying that the euphemism is necessarily always correct, I’m just saying that sometimes people go overboard with the “liberal slant” accusations.

                        • guest says:

                          If reality is all about perception then it can’t have a set definition. My definition of reality must be different than yours because we cannot possibly have the same perception. Therefore if reality cannot be defined, then it must not exist. How can something exist, yet not have a definition? Conversely, if reality is all about perception, then his definition of reality has to be correct for him. Therefore, reality has an infinite number of definitions. How can anyone’s definition of reality be wrong if it is in fact based on their own perception?

                      • Dude-ette says:

                        I’ve heard of Jon Stewart, and I’ve heard of Steven Colbert. Who the hell is Jon Colbert?

                      • Who the fcuk is Jon Colbert? Is that like Branjelina? Or, oh! Bennifer!

                      • lowly grunt says:

                        Stephen.

                • justacarolinian says:

                  Can you name me one that doesn’t?

                • HelOnWheels says:

                  No, they don’t, Danbala.

                  • justacarolinian says:

                    YES, they do.

                    • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                      The problem Justa that HoW has with what you’re saying is that because something is to the left of you, doesn’t mean it’s liberal. I can think of plenty of news “organizations” that aren’t liberal but have been painted that way because they’re to the left of fox news.
                      It’s all relative… relative to where to stand on the spectrum. It’s why the Europeans laugh at the right wing of this country when they call Obama a socialist. It’s because Europe knows what being left is. And they laugh at our ignorance.

                      • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                        And HoW I’m sorry if I stepped on your toes, but that’s how I read what you’re saying.

                      • justacarolinian says:

                        Doesn’t matter what the euro news thinks of us. Most of the mainstream news has taken a decidedly left slant for years now.
                        And ftr, I don’t watch Fox News, and never have. But I do get sick and tired of the bashing because they don’t tote the liberal line. If you check sources other than the mainstream media, you would be astonished at what gets left out. That is where I get my point of view. After a while, it gets painfully obvious what their position is.

                        • You know what? I don’t want the NEWS to have a liberal or conservative slant. It’s supposed to be news. Objective, fairly reported news. Unfortunately even the definition of objective has become subjective. Objective no longer exists.

              • HelOnWheels says:

                I’m pretty sure that I said that they are all slanted.

                • HelOnWheels says:

                  Oh, wait no… I DID say that they’re all slanted. What’s your point, now? Or are you being argumentative just to be argumentative?

                  • justacarolinian says:

                    Just pointing out that you act like it’s only Fox News even when you admit it’s not.

                    • HelOnWheels says:

                      “you act like it’s only Fox News even when you admit it’s not”

                      You’re projecting. I don’t “act” like anything. If you feel the need to protect FOX News, go right ahead. I admitted that all media outlets are slanted. I’m not sure what else you’re looking for.

      • Lena says:

        I agree. The newspaper in my town, and county, did a huge editorial on why everyone should vote for Obama. The kids in my graduating class (in a 4 year accredited and recognized college in New Jersey) had no idea who was running against Obama, because all that was on the news was Obama. Only only a left leaning media would ignore comments that he made, and yet, harp on about how much Cindy spent on clothes.

  4. Care Troll says:

    infromeds, now available at CVS.
    side effects may include:delusions, hallucinations, psychosis, paranoia, confusion, loose stools, more frequent stools that may be hard to control, and gynecomastia.

    • Oh yeah, I saw an ad for those on Fox News!

      • Semperfidd says:

        You don’t watch Fox News because if you ever did watched Fox News long enough to see a commercial then I am sure you would give up your liberal ways :o P

        • I’d never watch Fox News that long because I’d have thrown something through the TV screen long before I hit commercial. ;)

        • wallFly says:

          i took a swing at watching fox news a few times, each time coming way flabbergasted they could get away with calling themselves news. then again, when i catch it on it’s usually sean hannity or o’reilly – baffoons, both of them (i do love how o’reilly will claim he’s only a correspondent when someone makes a jab at him being opinionated, yet within 10 minutes he’ll look at the camera and go on about what a great and objective journalist he is…).

          anyway.

          *pulls out umbrella and lawn chair and uncorks a bottle of wine*

          i forgot the beer this time, sorry, wine anyone?

          • Semperfidd says:

            So what channel would you consider news and whom would you consider a correspondent?

            • wallFly says:

              *pours semper a glass*

              well, i could be wrong but a correspondent usually covers a story then expresses their opinion on the story, breaking it down form their perspective (such examples would be Olbermann, Maddow, Walter, Shields, Brooks, O’Reilly, Hannity & Beck).

              a journalist *should* relay a story objectively, stating only what is known as fact. Wolf Blitzer is the primary guy who comes to mind, but the majority of true journalists are most commonly found not on TV – they’re always so busy jabbering about they seem too caught up in the fact they’re on TV And therefore we must be interested in their opion… bleh.. The Weather Channel does a better job than most at least. But if you follow BBC, AP and PBS you’ll have a better chance of finding more journalists than correspondents, if that’s what you’re looking for.

  5. Topper says:

    …and that 3 of the “F”s are written backwards.

    • Topper says:

      *2 of the 3.

    • Villany says:

      They’re not backwards. That’s an old style for writing a lower case “F” and is still perfectly acceptable.

      • Villany says:

        Man…I should proof my comments before I post. I meant UPPER case “F”.

      • grimmiekins says:

        Villany is correct on that one

      • Topper says:

        But “Fox News” is a proper noun and should be capitalized, and this person went all caps on their poster (minus the “i” in KEEPiNG, which seems to have been too difficult for them), so there’s no reason they should be going lower case.

      • VictoryNotVengeance says:

        How about this then? “F consistency FAIL”

        • Yeah, I don’t really get why they do the weird F twice, unless the weird F is only to start a word. In which case, we can go back to “infromed” to make fun of them. LOL

          • guest says:

            The third F is off because it was photo shopped to make conservatives look stupid and the guy who did the deed didn’t notice the other F’s which explains the misspelling and the one F that has a different font than the other two?

            • I think we’ve established that the other F’s were done on purpose. And a different FONT than the other two? It’s f’ing handwritten! What font are you talking about? And for the record, teabagger protesters don’t need photoshop to look stupid.

              • Semperfidd says:

                So it seems to be established that any protester on the right side of the isle is labled a teabagger. What are protesters on the left called? Union workers? Wrong? Just asking.

                I would also like to know why it upsets most of the left when someone excersises their right to free speech?

                • I’m not upset by them exercising their right to free speech. I’m upset by the fact that they’re wrong. *shrug*

                • bad fairie says:

                  @semperfidd – because the right side of the aisle have been telling us on the left side of the aisle that we are communists, anti-american, socialists, and baby-killers since the 1920′s.
                  it’s time to suck it up, agree that we’re all americans, that we all want what is best for this country, that it’s okay to disagree without becoming nasty and hateful about it, and that ‘love it or leave it’ has to apply equally to anyone who isn’t of native american descent!

                  • Semperfidd says:

                    Very good answer. Thank you. I would disagree with only one part. The part that says that we all want what is best for this country. I would have to say that people who think like VNV for example would not fall into that category. IMO of course.

                    • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                      I don’t want whats best for this country at all. I want whats best for the planet Earth and whats best for the future. That’s is where we differ drastically. You can’t get your mind past a dotted line on a map.

                      • Danbala says:

                        …which in the long run is what is best for any country.

                      • Semperfidd says:

                        What would be best for the planet Earth is for there to be no humans. As for what is best for an Earth with humans, who is to decide? You? I think that is where the big divide is between you and most free people. So is it best for the world if all people live free with the freedom to choose or is it best if all people have to comprimise and live under some sort of tyranny or world order? Either way you would be forcing something on somebody for your version of “the greater good”. You can’t get your mind off of world domination and your jealousy to people that have.

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          “What would be best for the planet Earth is for there to be no humans.”

                          I only wish I could describe in words how much of an idiot I think you are.

                          Eliminate Poverty vs. Destroy All Humans

                          Yeah. One of us is a bit loopy. And it ain’t me.

                        • n00bs says:

                          You will never eliminate poverty, there is no way to do it. First of all, poverty is subjective. If there are no rich, then there are no poor. So, if all of our standard of living came down to that of the poorest of the poor who are considered living in poverty, we would have in effect eliminated poverty. It’s a nice idea, with a huge emotional pull, but it is not possible to do. So why don’t you say what you really mean? You want to eliminate the rich? You don’t want anyone to have more than anyone else. Because you don’t “feeeeeeeeeeel” good about it.

                        • Semperfidd says:

                          “I only wish I could describe in words how much of an idiot I think you are.”

                          Typical world domination VNV response. So you don’t agree with my statement that the Earth as a whole would be better off without humans?

                          How about answering my question of bright one?

                          So is it best for the world if all people live free with the freedom to choose or is it best if all people have to comprimise and live under some sort of tyranny or world order?

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          Semper, that’s the worst most rigged question I have ever heard. You sound like FOX news. Do you want freedom or tyranny? Do you buy your mom a mothers day card or do you want her dead? Should you try to alleviate suffering or do you destroy the human race? Its set up so there is only one answer. Lets try a better question.

                          Do we let 2% of the world population dominate the lower 65%?

                        • slaggingham says:

                          “Do we let 2% of the world population dominate the lower 65%?”

                          We do, because your alternative is .000004% of the population dominating the other 99.999996%.

                          Mmm, Central Committee Planning!

                        • Semperfidd says:

                          Its not a loaded question. Maybe you have not completely figured out your plans for world domination yet but I have a news flash for you….To get to your Utopia you are going to have to supress someones freedom and it will be more than the 2% you speak of.

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          That’s not my alternative. Where did that come from?

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          Why does everyone act like I am taking over the world? I mean, its flattering. Honestly. But I am talking about a movement much bigger than myself. And I have a funny feeling like our options are either to address our current problems and try to fix them or to let the planet go off in the inevitable powder keg. Your opinion is to ignore any traces that there is a problem.

                          If I’m wrong I’ll go to jail. Peacefully, quietly, I’ll enjoy it. But if I’m right, and we can stop this thing, then we will have saved the lives of million of registered voters. ;)

                        • n00bs says:

                          VNV, from what I understand, your idea is to take from those that have and give it to those that don’t have. Where am I wrong?

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          You are wrong in what you think I would want to take. You are wrong in what you think I am going to give. Oh, and you are wrong about how much you think those you think I’m going to take from have to begin with.

                        • n00bs says:

                          Ok, good, glad to meet you. We have no argument.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I’m not even touching this one…

                        • Charlie Foxtrot (Floyd Extrodinare) says:

                          Cain’t touch THIS…

                        • Sigma says:

                          THIS:

                        • justacarolinian says:

                          @ VNV, sorry sir, but lots have people have had the thought that their line of thinking is what should be done in the entire world. Rome for a start.

                        • meyaht says:

                          For the longest time I vehemently disagreed with VNV, but then he quoted Ghostbusters, and now I want him to marry my daughter.

                      • n00bs says:

                        You aren’t the boss of us.

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          No. I don’t work at McDonalds.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a valid point.

                        • justacarolinian says:

                          VNV, quit being a prick to everyone that doesn’t have your one world vision. Your type of thinking has been tried, and it always fails.

                        • n00bs says:

                          He can have all the points he wants, most are on the top of his head.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Hmmm, lots of hair gel perhaps?

                        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                          @ justacarolinian

                          I was actually brought into this conversation. And no, my type of thinking has never been tried. Yours, however, has.

                        • Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

                          Just in the sense of being Fair and balanced, I don’t think anyone on this board has any right to EVER tell anyone else to not be a prick to someone who doesn’t share their world vision.
                          That goes for VNV, Justa, Semper, Rando, Myself, SB… everyone.
                          Not a one of us has the right to be a prick to the other because we have differing views. Not a single one of us.
                          And we all have been pricks at one point or another.
                          None of us can climb up on the high horse here because right now we’re all riding Shetland ponies.
                          You see, in order for our whole “equality” thing to work out people have to realize that equality doesn’t mean special treatment. It means we all sacrifice a little in different areas, some will sacrifice more where another will have to sacrifice nothing. On the other had, another would have to sacrifice more in a different area where some would not have to sacrifice at all.
                          My point is that in order for us to work together, to live together, and to fix things, we’re all going to have to sacrifice things. No one here on this board is advocating “take all of yours so I don’t have to give anything”. But it’s the mindset that seems to plague BOTH ideologies.
                          In order to fix things we’re all going to have to sacrifice SOMETHING. That’s the business… period.

                        • Word to your mother.

                          You are absolutely right. I was just having a conversation with a friend tonight about ways that we want to change for the better, and I think one thing I want to change is how I respond when I don’t agree with others’ political views, etc., especially on the internet, when it’s so easy to be disrespectful, in the comfort of your own home, without looking the other in the eye.

                          I don’t want to be closed-minded or rude. I am going to try to make positive choices in the way I respond when I am strongly opposed to the viewpoints of others. However, this doesn’t mean that I won’t occasionally sacrifice principal to go for the punchline, so don’t expect too much lol :)

                        • Eh. I’ll likely still be an asshole. Palin ornament, anyone?

              • guest says:

                Sorry Rando, by font i was simply referring to the style of the F, or as you called it “the weird F.” I will try to keep it simple so that your little liberal brain can understand.

  6. Happy_Cat says:

    Lol. “Who’s in this picture?”: Teabaggers

  7. Ignatz says:

    That, Topper, is the extra helping of awesomesauce on this LOL.

  8. Sniper-kun says:

    Of course. Those that defile everything. And yeah, those f’s are quite stylized. Kind of annoying because they almost appear to be backwards…

  9. katdemon♥fire says:

    Informed? I didn’t even know the plan was to provide competition for the Private insurence companies to get them to lower the costs till my friend showed me her current event today. Is that even the plan?

    • ChuvelxD says:

      Well that’s what they want to you hear. They protect the very insurance companies that deny us coverage for ‘pre-existing’ conditions and deny us coverage for anything that isn’t curable with a bandaid. I mean people, they are HEALTH INSURANCE companies and they are being defended for thier atrocious practices.

      How does ANY company grow and innovate people? Competition. The last time I checked, since when was billons in profits not be enough?

      • Semperfidd says:

        Yup. Buy insurance or we will tax you. By the way, we have some cheap insurance over here for you. How can we afford to keep the price so low you ask? Well, we don’t have to make a profit. We can just keep going in debt and taxing the rich. Right..competition…NOT.

        • Insurance that doesn’t exist to make a profit? That sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

          • Semperfidd says:

            Yup. It works well in public education. Errr…hmmm

            • n00bs says:

              …and in fiction.

            • No1askedme says:

              It actually does. So what’s your point?

              • Semperfidd says:

                So you think that everyone gets a good public education and is getting their moneys worth? That explains alot about what you write on this website.

                • No1askedme says:

                  Not at all, but that’s mostly due to monetary issues; especially here in California. Yet, has the education system failed entirely? Even here, where the schools literally don’t have enough money to keep running without some help, I have done fine. The schools are running, people are being educated fully and effectively, and people are graduating from colleges and universities. Where’s the problem? Blame the politicians (especially the governator) for the public education “crisis”, not the system. Besides, do you have any better ideas?

                  • n00bs says:

                    Ha, the whole state is failing…

                    • No1askedme says:

                      Yeah, the housing market crash hit us hard. And it doesn’t help that we have to pay other states to import our water.

                      • n00bs says:

                        And it doesn’t hurt that those running your government can’t seem to do things right.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Yeah… Why oh why did we ever elect Arnold Shwartzinegger?! I mean, of all the people in the world, an action movie actor?! Everyone was complaining about “experience” during the presidential election; where was that back then?!

                        • guest says:

                          California has a ton of problems. They are hemorrhaging businesses to states that have less corporate taxes because California has some of the highest in the country. In addition to the taxes they have more regulations, especially environmental. Not to mention property taxes and the high cost of real estate in California compared to most of the rest of the country. Businesses that started there have figured out that is cheaper and more efficient to move their operations to other states. Arizona, New Mexico and Texas all have had a huge influx of tech jobs that were almost all in Northern California a decade ago. California also makes their tax payers pay for public education and health care for illegal immigrants. Most of those illegal immigrants are paid under the table so they don’t pay into the tax system to help offset the cost. Workers who are losing their jobs because either the company they worked for decided to relocate or because the water was cut off to the farm that they worked on to save a minnow from extinction are also leaving and moving to other states that are still hiring people and have a much lower cost of living. At the same time, there are more and more Californians who don’t have a job, some of them here illegally, that are drawing unemployment benefits. In Imperial county, on the Mexican border, unemployment is over 30%. So, California has 1). Less businesses paying taxes 2). Less workers paying taxes 3.) More people drawing unemployment. Oh, and did I mention California spends 92% MORE than it did ten years ago with a $144.5 billion annual budget?

                      • CyanEyed says:

                        You can blame radical environmentalists for that.

                        Remember kids: Litigate to Legislate!

                        • Isildo says:

                          For some reason I saw the word “Legolas” in there, and I was very confused.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          No, you can thank government de-regulation of the lending industry for the housing crash.

                        • n00bs says:

                          No, that was the CRA that forced banks to lend to people that could not normally qualify. This created a huge demand for housing because there was a whole bunch more people who could get houses and created the housing bubble. The price of houses went up abnormally high in a short time. Then when their loans adjusted they couldn’t afford payments, plus the recession, a lot of houses in default.

                        • n00bs says:

                          No, the default rate is not at issue, the housing bubble is. Because of lax standards forced by the CRA more people were getting houses and it artifically inflated the price. It’s not about whether CRA people defaulted or not more than anyone else.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Yeah, but that happened everywhere. I guess you could argue that the CRA may have amplified the effect to some extent, but they aren’t expressly to blame for the housing crash. To be honest, I blame the morons who fell for the banks’ schemes to begin with. It takes a special kind of moron to take a $250,000 loan out on a $200,000 house and use the extra to buy two new cars…

                      • bad fairie says:

                        if it was your water, it would have fallen there and you wouldn’t have had to import it.
                        therefore because of waste, population overgrowth, living in a desert area you have to purchase water or do you think that other states should just give it to you?
                        sounds kind of communist to me…

                        • bad fairie says:

                          oops, missing punctuation, my bad.
                          that should have read: water; or do

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I’m not saying we should get it for free. Not at all, that’s just unfair to our neighbour states. All I’m saying is that it’s not helping our economic situation. I don’t have an issue with it, it’s just something few people are aware of, so I brought it up.

                  • Semperfidd says:

                    What?? A government run operation is having problems delivering what it says it will? Big surprise.

                    “Not at all, but that’s mostly due to monetary issues; especially here in California”

                    So all the taxes, welfare policies and enviornmental policies that California has enacted have not helped out the monetary issues? If it didn’t work for one state what makes everyone so darn sure it will work when applied to the nation because that is essentially what the current administration is heading towards.

                    “Blame the politicians (especially the governator) for the public education “crisis”, not the system”

                    What about blaming them for most of the problems in California and not just the education system. If I recall California had a few problems when Brown was there. I also think there would be alot more problems if the governator had not been in office.

                    • No1askedme says:

                      What can I say, California is at a decided economic disadvantage. We have too many people living here to be able to lower regulations and still maintain a decent quality of life. We have to buy most of our water from our neighboring states, which isn’t cheap, and every year we have about 15 wildfires or so, it isn’t cheap. Property is expensive because of the weather and businesses don’t like it. We have issues that are far beyond our ability to control. However, don’t you EVER come to the defense of our “governor”. He’s caused nothing but problems ever since he was elected, and he has lied his way through his whole term. No one likes him, not even the Republicans, so don’t try to defend him. We’ve always had these problems, but our state government was able to cope with them fairly well until about the time he was elected.

                      • Semperfidd says:

                        Oh I am not defending your poor excuse for a republican governor, but blaming him for the problems of your state is akin to blaming Bush for the problems of the US. Bush didn’t pass the laws the congress did. The same holds true for Obama. Although he will get the praise or boos for what happens with his administration while he is in office, ultimately it is the congress that will be passing any legislature. I am already planning on my end to help the situation by trying to help vote out Harry Reid. I hope you are doing the same for pelosi and the other idiots you have in charge of your state.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I’m not saying all the problems are the governor’s fault, most of them aren’t. What I am accusing him of doing is making the problems worse! Like I said, California has plenty of unavoidable problems, but we’ve done ok in the past so saying all the problems are the government’s fault is ridiculous. I agree with you on the congress being in charge, but you can’t ignore the power of the president. The president wields his/he greatest power not in law, but in influence. Being president suddenly makes one’s opinions far more significant, and something like that cannot be ignored. As for who to vote in or out, I’ve got my mind set on who I want to be gone as election season rolls about.

                      • CyanEyed says:

                        A lot of your water problems are due to environmentalists deciding there are endangered fish in the California water supplies, and that using it would cause their extinction, so we’ll just not use the water… Brilliant, isn’t it?

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Ummm, no. We just don’t have very much water. Sure there are some protected sources, but they wouldn’t really help. Considering the state is half desert, and we have the highest population of all the states, it’s more of an overpopulation issue. What’s your problem with environmentalists anyways? This is the second time you’ve blamed them for things that are beyond their control. It’s not like they can just magically move the endangered species somewhere else more convenient.

                        • pat says:

                          geologically, California is a region that either gets too much water or too little. nevermind hannity coming down here and using his scientific expertease to sell out a crucial link in the local food chain (that “useless” little fish that happens to feed all the salmon and other important californian aquatic animals. What an A-Hole know nothing pundit.

                        • pat says:

                          FURTHER MORE, if we didnt have to grow 1/3rd of the nations agriculture then there would be no shortage. Nearly all the water reclaimed from the feather river and other Sierra Nevada projects goes to the central valley.

                          I agree that we created this problem, lets cut off the rest of the nation, grow enough produce only for ourselves, and see the food prices skyrocket in the other States. A little economic embargo amongst the states, I dont see why we should subsidize the rest of the nation. We can make more money selling more rice to china actually.

          • justacarolinian says:

            Then Rando, you are uniformed. Look up how many insurance companies that are non profit. Such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield. You would be shocked to know how much of our health care is paid by non profits.

            • bitter troll says:

              non-profits that make alot of money-nods-

            • “You would be shocked to know how much of our health care is paid by non profits.” The answer: not enough.

              • justacarolinian says:

                Have you actually read a newspaper (online or not) from a country that has single payer health care? You might be surprised.

                • bitter troll says:

                  bitter troll reads the guam daily, nothing on health care…nice pig report…weather report is crappy

                • guest says:

                  April 23, 2008 in Health Care Around the World, International Health Care Systems

                  Great Britain represents all that is good and bad with centralized, single-payer health care systems. Health care spending is fairly low (7.5% of GDP) and very equitable. Long wait lists for treatment, however are endemic and rationing pervades the system. Patients have little choice of provider and little access to specialists.

                  Percent Insured. ~100%

                  Funding. Great Britain has a single payer system funded by general revenues. With any centralized system, avoiding deficits is difficult. In 2006, Great Britain had a £700 million deficit despite the fact that health care spending increased by £43 billion over five years.

                  Private Insurance. 10% of Britons have private health insurance. Private health insurance replicates the coverage provided by the NHS, but gives patients access to higher quality care, and reduced waiting times.

                  Physician Compensation. Unlike in the case of other single payer systems such as Norway, most physicians and nurses are mostly government employees. In 2004, the NHS negotiated lower salaries for doctors in exchange for reduced work hours. Few physicians are available at night or on weekends. Because of low compensation, there is a significant shortage of specialists.

                  Physician Choice. Patients have very little physician choice. However, under the experimental London Patient Choice Project, patients waiting more than six months for treatment will be offered a choice of four different treatment providers.

                  Copayment/Deductibles. There are no deductibles and almost no copayments except for small copayments for prescription drugs, as well as for optical and dental care.

                  Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. “A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.”

                  Benefits Covered. The NHS system offers comprehensive coverage. Because of rationing, care might not be as easy to get as advertised. Terminally ill patients may be denied treatment. David Cameron has proposed that the NHS refuse treatment to smokers or the obese (see 7 Sept 2007 post).

                  *

                  Tanner, Michael D. (2008) “The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World” Cato Policy Analysis no. 613.

                  • Wow. You have a cite. Too bad I’m not buying it.

                    • guest says:

                      Yes, I usually have a cite. We conservatives like to do a little thing called research on issues instead of just going with what our bleeding little hearts tell us to do. You should try it. There is plenty of information and you can check the figures with other sources and see that they match up. 40% of cancer patients never see an oncologist in the UK. How does that make you feel Rando? My niece and my grandfather both died of cancer here in the U.S., but it wasn’t because they didn’t get the best treatment they could here. Some things just can’t be fixed no matter what you throw at it. Government, money, free health care: none of it will save you when it is your time to go, and we all have to go.

                      • Naoyusimi says:

                        Too bad your cite is from the Cato Institute. These quotes are from Sourcewatch.org (link to page in my name).

                        “Cato was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries. [2] Koch industries is the largest privately owned company in the United States. Though diversified, the company amassed most of its fortune in the oil trading and refining. [3]

                        From that same site, referenced from Cato’s own description:
                        “Cato argues for the abolition of the welfare system, against the U.S. government pursuing an interventionist foreign policy, in favor of civil liberties and limits on executive power, and in favor of more relaxed immigration policies and for a more deregulated healthcare system.[4]“

          • guest says:

            Profit Bad, Government Good. Ugh.

            • No1askedme says:

              No, totally wrong. Profit gained from screwing people over: bad. Government which we can control; and without any incentive to screw us over since its purpose goes beyond the generation of profit unlike corporations, providing a relatively cheap healthcare option you can choose to use or not: good. Learn to think.

              • n00bs says:

                You mean there is no power or money involved in government? Wow! I did not know that.

                • No1askedme says:

                  Where’s the incentive to take advantage of people? If you’re an elected official and you screw over your citizens, you won’t be re-elected. The public won’t tolerate being abused unless they have to, and even then some people just won’t take it; regardless of the costs. Besides, are you really that trusting of the corporations; over whom we have absolutely no influence?

                  • n00bs says:

                    Yes, it’s called competition and it’s the same principal behind voting government out of office if you don’t like them. If you don’t like a product, don’t buy it, or start a boycott. Most businesses are out to make a profit, not rule the world.

                    • No1askedme says:

                      Competition doesn’t work when you have an oligopoly. They act just like the oil companies, they work together to keep prices illogically high and minimize losses. It’s more about pleasing the shareholders than providing a decent service, and it shows. They can make more money by collaborating and having little distinction than by trying to out-do each other and pricing policies competitively. Even if that weren’t happening here (which it really is), is it really so bad to make sure everyone is insured? Besides, we’ll actually save money in taxes by providing a public option. Right now people too poor to afford insurance use the emergency room as a general physician, and when they can’t pay the hospital bill the taxpayers are stuck with an $80 bill for a procedure that would have cost under $10 at a conventional doctor’s office. Also, since these people aren’t receiving consistent medical care due to their lack on insurance, they are generally less healthy, and tend to be less healthy, and when they develop a serious condition that is easily preventable with proper treatment, they once again go to the emergency room for treatment with no way of paying for it, and we get stuck paying the $50,000 surgery bill. I really don’t see why anyone is opposed to this reform!

                      • Danbala says:

                        Because it’s change, and change is always scary.

                        • Exactly. Once this stuff finally gets through, and we’ve had it for a bit, people will get over it. It’s the fear of major reform. Although I have my doubts at this point that serious reform will actually happen. Sad, really.

                        • I wonder how the people reacted in countries that have universal health care when it started, if it’s similar to the battles we’re facing here.

                        • n00bs says:

                          I so hope for the sake of our country and our freedoms, that this “reform” thing doesn’t happen and those idiots in the government stop spending.

                        • Semperfidd says:

                          Maybe it is scary because change is not always good.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          They’re Democrats, they’ll keep spending until the problem is fixed. It’s not a great fix, but it’s better than ignoring the problem. That’s not to say Democrats like spending, they dislike it too, but they see it as the primary tool of the government. Admittedly, access to nearly infinite funds is a rather potent tool for reform.

                          P.S. As for change not always being good, I’ll have to disagree with you personally on that. I have no rational explanation, I simply hate monotony. As long as things are changing I’m entertained, and that’s really all there is too it for me. Selfish yes, irrational yes, but it doesn’t affect the way I vote much so I’m not really hurting anyone.

                        • No, not all change is good. Some changes are long overdue. And nothing ever gets changed without people freaking out.

                        • Semperfidd says:

                          To No1

                          “They’re Democrats, they’ll keep spending until the problem is fixed.”

                          What have they fixed by throwing money at it? Education? Poverty? Healthcare? Welfare? Social Security? I am not saying that the Repubs are doing much better but in the case of Welfare, setting it up where the states benefit by having more people on the welfare payroll is probably not a good idea.

                        • emynii says:

                          I’m not calling for Government Run healthcare. I’m saying that something has to be done about the system in general.

                          If it’s reforming the prices of medical coverage so premiums aren’t so high or that normal people can afford medical treatment, or creating a government option to promote competition to keep prices down…so be it.

                          “Don’t Get Sick” isn’t a solution and leaving it as it is isn’t a solution.

                        • bitter troll says:

                          blindly throwing money at anything wont fix anything, never has never will.
                          ignoreing the issues and saying its a myth till your screwed is just as bad

                          comeing up with a plan and dealing with it is the way to go, might not have to even throw money at it.

                          problem is if you come up with a plan no matter what the other side will fight against it.

                      • n00bs says:

                        You know what, normal healthy people don’t need “consistent” medical care. You eat right, get excersize and take good care of yourself all you will really need is catastrophic care. No one is turned away for any life saving medical care in this country, no one.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          You never know when cancer will appear. There’s not much you can do to prevent it from occurring, but once it’s there it’s there. You usually won’t find it in time unless you visit the doctor consistently, and even if you find it early, you can’t get any treatment for it if you don’t have insurance. No one should need to wait until their life is in jeopardy to receive care for a condition.

                        • n00bs says:

                          Yes, there is, diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables and grains and small amount of meat, plus consistent exercise seems to bring down the incidence of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and now they are showing links to old age diseases from diabetes… So, your health is what you make it unless it is genetic. I think education would be key here.

                        • You’re right, n00bs, education is extremely important. However, it’s not everything. And a good diet isn’t going to save you from cancer, that’s silly. Plus, there are plenty of catastrophic things that CAN and DO happen, and do you really think people are going to be able to afford the $20,000 hospital bill (or higher even) if they do have to go to hospital uninsured? Most people can’t. And when they can’t, that bill gets tacked on to everyone else’s bill. Requiring everyone to have insurance makes sure that everyone has that safety net. I don’t like it either, but it makes sense.

                        • Oh, and if you do get cancer without insurance, good luck getting insurance afterwards. Not happening.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          You can’t do anything to prevent pancreatic cancer and it’s hard to detect. It happens, and if it isn’t treated immediately it’s almost always fatal. If you don’t have insurance you won’t get either. Besides, yeah, some people may have “genetic predispositions” towards certain condition. So what? It’s not their fault, but is it really ok with you if someone with a history of heart disease starts showing signs of congestive heart failure cannot get treatment just because they cannot afford insurance? Think about this, some people are born with diabetes. It’s not their fault and it cannot be cured, is it really ok that there’s no insurance company in the world that would willingly insure them?! If you don’t believe me you can look it up. There is no way in the world that ANYONE with a chronic health condition will ever be insured by a company, it’s just “bad business” to insure them. These are the people that need health insurance the most, and most of them were born with their conditions. How is that fair?! Isn’t it worth a little tax bump (which the current plan wouldn’t actually do) to insure these people so they can live their lives somewhat comfortably?!

                        • n00bs says:

                          I wasn’t talking about the people who can’t help it. I was talking about the people who can. Don’t you know that many of our modern ailments come from obesity? Or stress? Smoking and drinking and drug use? Those things can be controlled. The others not, and those people should be taken care of.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I see your point, although it would be nice if you had clarified earlier. However, there is no constitutional way to exclude certain individuals from receiving government insurance, should it pass. I forget what the exact precedent is, but I know it’s the same reason those special “taxes” congress wanted to impose on the bank CEOs were ruled unconstitutional. I don’t like it, but thems the rules. To do what your suggesting would require a new amendment.

                        • emynii says:

                          And there are other medical problems other than cancer that can cost an arm & a leg to fix. I have a friend who clenches her jaw at night and needs a mouthgard to prevent her teeth from cracking. Want to know how much that is uninsured? $500. I need glasses, not because I didn’t take care of my eyes, but because of genetics. My glasses can cost upwards of $300 without insurance. Get the flu? My boyfriend did. It was $150 for the doctors visit at Patient First so he could get a note and not get fired for not coming into work and BC/BS only paid for $30 of it.

                          No, we don’t need healthcare reform. Not for kids who are just out of college and can’t get a job with health insurance. Not for families who are barely getting by and an illness or accident could put them into debt for the rest of their lives.

                          Oh, nobody is denied life saving medical care…but what happens when they’re in recovery and can’t go to work? That’s hundreds of dollars lost for their family. Can’t pay rent because you couldn’t go to work? Evicted. Now what?

                        • n00bs says:

                          We don’t need government run health care to accomplish those things, we need to reform the system we have and make it affordable to people who need assistance and not penalize those that don’t. Also, what insurance pays your rent if you are out of work? I never heard of anything like that except maybe workers comp.

                        • Also, what insurance pays your rent if you are out of work?
                          Isn’t that what the duck tells us to get AFLAC for?

                        • The only way what you’re suggesting is going to happen is going to be vast amounts of regulation, and isn’t that totally anticonservative? Because if you think an “free market” for health care is gonna do it, you’re wrong. There is way too much wrong with America’s health care system to just fix it. The current system is a failure.

                        • n00bs says:

                          So is government run social security and medicare.

                  • slaggingham says:

                    “If you’re an elected official and you screw over your citizens, you won’t be re-elected.”

                    But it won’t matter, as long as you hide your graft money somewhere smarter than your fridge.

                    Then later, when the scandal has faded, you can pick up tons of cash as a political speaker at any university where the political climate is such that the powers-that-be will forgive your pecadilloes.

                    (For Republicans, that’s Bob Jones and Brigham Young. For Democrats, that’s Columbia, Berkeley, Harvard… and almost everywhere else.)

                    • No1askedme says:

                      Yes, but that means the exploitation eventually stops. With corporations we have no way of stopping it. They can abuse us as much as they like, and all we can do is sit there and take it while the government bickers about how to try to fix it for three decades. You seem to think government is pure evil. I’ll admit it’s not perfect, but it never will be. If you cannot accept that then fine, dissolve the government and put the businesses in charge, we’ll see how much you love them then.

                      • slaggingham says:

                        It’s not an all-or-nothing choice here.

                        The government is not pure evil.
                        Businesses are not pure evil.

                        Neither are either pure just and holy.

                        Of course there ARE differences… if I don’t like the way McDonald’s does business, I can go to Burger King. or Wendy’s. If I don’t like AT&T I can buy from Verizon, or Sprint.

                        If I don’t like the way the government is doing something… well, I can vote for the other guy, maybe (in my area a lot of Democrats have such a lock on the populace that they run unopposed… there hasn’t been a change of power in Philadelphia -cesspool- in 60 years). But that’s no guarantee he will WIN.

                        With businesses, I can effect a personal choice into a personal change. With government, that’s MUCH more difficult.

                        Also… have you EVER known the government to willingly GIVE UP a power which it has taken? I mean, up until 2006, we were still paying a 3% long-distance phone call tax that was first levied to pay for the SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. (1898.)

                        (Sorry for the caps, I don’t do bold well.)

                        To paraphrase Gandalf… There is only one Uncle Sam… and he does not share power.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Very true. However, I don’t see how providing government run health insurance would give them any power to exploit us any more than usual, and the competition could convince the corporations to get their act together. In the end we’ll just have to see how it plays out. I think that the situation is bad, but stable enough to be subjected to some experimentation. Sorry about exploding like that earlier, I’m in a bit of a bad mood today, but dinner helps.

                        • justacarolinian says:

                          Hey No1, you mean like the power the govt in the UK has? You can’t get this surgery if you smoke? Or no joint replacement because you are 10 lbs over the idea weight? Would that be more power over us?

                        • You think that doesn’t happen here? A little girl in Colorado was just denied health insurance for being a little underweight for her age. Somehow that is better than the British?

                        • slaggingham says:

                          Where do you think Colorado got the idea?

                    • guest says:

                      Also, most of the politicians we feel are screwing us over are not in our voting area. For instance, Nancy Pelosi represents the 8th district of California. Since many of her voters live in San Francisco they will continue to vote for her no matter how liberal she gets. As the Speaker of the House, she has a lot of power to steer legislation in the direction she wants to see it go. She can also strong-arm weaker, centrists Democrats into playing ball by holding committee chair appointments and big donor money over their heads. It has a huge effect on me directly, but I can”t cast a vote against her unless I move to San Francisco.

              • guest says:

                Don’t tell me to learn to think when you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
                1. Who gets to decide what profit is good and what profit is “screwing people over?” If people are voluntarily paying for a good or service and they don’t like what they get they can go somewhere else. Just the fact that one person is making money off of someone else could be considered screwing them over.
                2. We have very little control over the government other than when we vote. Even then our individual vote is only one of millions and has little real impact since most of us live in an area where people mostly think like us anyway.
                3. The government has no incentive to screw us over? Any time there is a large amount of money at stake there are people who will try to screw us over and just because they work for the government doesn’t mean they will suddenly lose their desire to make easy money. That is where pork-barrel spending comes from, kick-backs, and a large part of the corruption in politics. Not to mention that many politicians feel indebted to certain groups because of continued financial support for their political careers which can cause them to vote for or against things based on how it will effect their biggest contributors.
                4. A relatively cheap health care option, maybe. An option, I don’t think so. You will be forced to have insurance of some form, whether it is the government “option” or a private company. Although one form of the bill prohibits individuals from buying anything other than the government “option” within a year of the bill going into effect. Also, in countries with a single-payer system like the UK, patients don’t always get to chose whether or not they will receive care. For example, as I showed in another post here, 40% of cancer patients in the UK never get to see an oncologist because the waiting lines are so long. Why? Because when you forcibly cut the costs of health care, which you have to do to increase the number of people who are covered while at the same time lowering the overall costs, you cut things like doctors’ salaries, money to hospitals for supplies and advanced equipment, and things like that. So, when doctors become government employees who have a cap on how much they can make, that decade of time and money they spend training for their career in medicine starts to seem like a waste of time. They begin to look at other lines of work that would reward them for their investment in a good education. Those who decide they don’t care about making money will find that they have less equipment to work with and are limited on the care they can provide for their patients based on budgetary limits.

    • lowly grunt says:

      Everyone has noticed that “informed” is misspelled, right? I’ve scanned most of these comments and haven’t seen it mentioned yet.

  10. slaggingham says:

    I actually tend to write my F’s that way… a holdover from cursive writing.

  11. democrats suck the life out of our country

    • VictoryNotVengeance says:

      I had no idea your mom was a Democrat!

    • Oh please. That kind of ignorant garbage is what is sucking the life out of our country. Do you really think half the country is trying to destroy the other half? Do you really think only Republicans are actual Americans? Seriously, if Democrats were out to destroy the country, it’d be done already.

      • Semperfidd says:

        “if Democrats were out to destroy the country, it’d be done already.”

        Not as long as there are still Republicans around. :o )

        • ChuvelxD says:

          Go drown in a pool of UNSWEETENED Lipton plskthxbai.

          (The unsweetened part was very necessary)

          • Semperfidd says:

            Wow. An insult. How unusual from the “compassionate party”.

            • We’re compassionate. Just not to Republicans. :D

              • Semperfidd says:

                Or gun owners, or Christians, or anyone in upper middle class or rich (unless they are a hollywood actress/actor or a politian), the military….I could go on and on

              • guest says:

                You can’t really say you have a sympathetic consciousness if it’s only for people who think and believe exactly like you. That’s like saying I don’t hate anyone except my enemies. It doesn’t really mean anything if you can’t apply it across the board.

                • n00bs says:

                  On this site it’s tit for tat, but I do notice how lols critical of FOX News and Rupert Murdock get voted quickly to the front page but nothing critical of Ted Kennedy saw the light of day. You can’t judge all Republicans by what you see on this site, most of them are pissed off by the bias. Also, if you’re not a liberal, what are you?

                  • No1askedme says:

                    Well, you’ve got to admit, FOX “news” is pretty laughable; especially when they bill themselves as “fair and balanced.” My problems with the Ted Kennedy “LOLs” is not that they were criticizing him, it’s that they seemed to almost be celebrating or belittling his death. Almost as though he was some sort of monster for accidentally killing someone. Everyone makes mistakes big and small, and harping on someone for that even after they’ve died is just plain revolting. I’m not saying people have to idolize him or even respect him, just don’t paint his death (or anyone’s really) in a positive light.

                    P.S. To be totally honest, I really don’t have a distinct set of political beliefs. All my ideologies sort of a uniform mix of perspectives that apply to everything around me. I have a very abnormal perspective of the world, so my ideologies don’t really mach up well with either end of the political spectrum. I really have a hard time taking politics seriously because it’s all so abstract and convoluted, there’s no logic to the system! My views can range from militaristic to apathetic, and I rarely know my own beliefs until I think about them. So I really cannot say for sure where I fall politically.

                  • Heh heh. Heh heh. You said “tit.”

        • Don’t you see? If we wanted to destroy the country, we’d have just let you guys take over completely and watch the fun. ;)

          • Semperfidd says:

            Yup. Would have been fun to watch most everyone prosper. Maybe you will get the chance after November 2010 to watch it :o )

            • *”most everyone” may not include: the middle class, the poor, immigrants…
              I have no doubts the right will try to muster a huge counter attack in 2010. I just pray every night it fails, or we’ll be stuck in the same rut as the last 8 years even longer.

              • Semperfidd says:

                My bad. You are so right. I see the light now. Lets promote mediocrity. Bring down the rich and bring up the poor. That way everyone will be equal and will want for nothing. Of course not much would get done. What a Utopia. Of course if we get rid of the top 10%..who is going to cover the 40% of taxes they pay? Oh yeah I forgot, we can print more money, never mind.

                • Oh, settle down. I’m just having fun here. And you’re the one who says “most everyone will prosper” when I *know* the middle class almost never prospers under Republican rule. And I’d fear the lower class as a pure Republican government would likely be out to either severely limit or eliminate the programs that help them survive.

                  • Semperfidd says:

                    I appologize. It is Monday..Monday’s suck. Unlike VNV, I don’t think it is possible for “everyone” to prosper, at least not equally. I think it would be akin to making everyone smart. I just don’t think it can happen.

                    • n00bs says:

                      If we took all the money we have in this country and put it in a big pool and divided it equally among everyone, in 10 years all the money would be with the people who had it in the first place and the ones who didn’t would be poor again. That’s because they know how to use it to their advantage, they don’t squander it, like for instance, the government does.

                      • bitter troll says:

                        you mean paris hilton would remain rich cause she is so business savy?

                        • justacarolinian says:

                          No, she will die from some exotic VD. There are stupid rich and poor people. But think of all the money she spends foolishly, and the jobs she has created.

                        • n00bs says:

                          Well, she is a dumb-ass I’m sure, but she probably has financial advisors that invest her money and help our economy by providing jobs and products. If she just spent everything on purses and shoes she would be poor in a short time.

                        • bitter troll says:

                          no no, she is rich , thus deserveing of all her money. while my vet uncle is totally deserveing to have to live with his kids cause he has no place else to go.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Exactly, if you have a lot of money you can make more really easily without having any actual skill beyond being wealthy. When that happens, what’s left for everyone else? Like it or not, the money the wealthy “create” needs to come from somewhere (unless it comes from the stock market), and more often than not it comes from the pockets of those who need it more in order to live a decent lifestyle; usually in the form of inflation/deflation and limited availability of certain resources, like land and electricity.

                        • n00bs says:

                          It’s true that those that have more can make more easily, but it’s not without creating more jobs or products, there is no other way to grow money without investing, it’s not a mushroom.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          True, but they don’t invest all their money. they spend it on overpriced cars (which are inefficient and drive up gas prices), mansions (which take up excessive amounts of space that could be used to house dozens), and expensive foreign “status” products (which moves the money out of the country). It’s basic economics that you don’t invest very much of your money, and that means that the money the wealthy waste is just money coming out of everyone elses’ pockets! You don’t need to be obscenely rich to invest money, and those that do have that much money do more harm than good.

                        • n00bs says:

                          OMG, so much wrong in your post, I’m overwhelmed…

                        • No1askedme says:

                          Please point out what is incorrect. I must admit, I’m not remarkably knowledgeable when it comes to the economy, and I dislike being wrong. The economy is such an illogical beast I have a great deal of trouble understanding it, so any help would be welcome.

                        • slaggingham says:

                          No1… that money that the rich “waste” on mansions and yachts and cars…

                          Does it just evaporate?

                          Or does it pay the mansion architects and construction workers and yachtbuildres and car manufacturers?

                          Honda or Ferarri, SOMEBODY builds it, and maintains it, and they get paid to do so.

                          Take that away, and you’re destroying jobs of people who deserve to have them.

                        • n00bs says:

                          Think of it this way No1, a rising tide floats all boats. When the wealthy spend, we all do better.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I dunno. I HATE economics, it’s all so artificial! I can’t stand it! I guess I’ll just stop posting on it from now on then.

                        • slaggingham says:

                          Yes, there are Misers, but they aren’t the ones who live extravagantly. They’re the nutters that wear raggedy clothes and keep mattresses full of cash and die alone.

                          Take Ebenezer Scrooge. Wealthy… but if you read the actual story, a big point of it was that he basically lived like a pauper. Threadbare clothes, cold apartment, gruel to eat… All of his money in chests, not even doing him any good.

                          To live extravagantly, to “waste” money, you have to SPEND money, and all that money goes flowing through the system just like it’s supposed to… to other people.

                          Scrooge was terrified of ‘waste.’

                          But don’t be sad about not understanding economics. Take comfort in the fact that you’re not alone. Nearly every class-envying Liberal is standing there beside you, having watched too many “Richie Rich” and “Scrooge McDuck” cartoons and thinking that that’s an accurate portrayal of wealth.

                        • Naoyusimi says:

                          “A rising tide floats all boats.”

                          Yeah, and the people without boats DROWN.

                        • Didn’t you know, though? If they don’t have a boat, they just didn’t work hard enough and deserve to drown. Duh.

                    • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                      I think what you meant to say is that you don’t want everyone to prosper! And you are right. That’s where we are different! But I am digging on how you have referred to me twice in a post I wasn’t even talking in. Thanks for the free publicity! And I will sleep better tonight knowing you have been thinking about me. And don’t try to deny it. The above is proof. We’re making such great breakthroughs!

                • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                  Well, if we got rid of the top 10% then all the spending power would be distributed. Then everyone would be taxed equally, and magically, that same 40% is still there, just with the help of everyone. Thats the great thing about having 1 total amount of ‘wealth’ on the planet. It doesn’t really go anywhere. You can shift it a bunch of ways, but in the end, its still there.

                  I just think its sad that you always resort to your lame catch phrases like “Utopia”. No one is saying they can build a Utopia. You just like to say it because it sounds like make believe. But thats just your lack of imagination. You have to make things better for people. That should be humanities goal and although poverty is relative, there is still a standard of living that should be met by all, and when we make breakthroughs that raise that bar, it is our job to make sure everyone has access. You sir, are already the mediocrity. Thats why you don’t want the system to change. You want to feel better or smarter or more hard working than those below you, even though its not the truth. And you want to aspire to be rich one day and do nothing, which is what you threaten us with with our hopes of “mediocrity”. SO not only are you are hypocrit, but you are filled with think-tank catch phrases, so you are obviously not too bright either.

                  • guest says:

                    You are leaving out one important point. If you eliminate the top 10% who will be able to afford to pay payroll to workers? While a large number of people are employed by small business, anyone who works for a large corporation would lose their job. Large corporations need a bigger slice of the wealth to be able to maintain their daily operations. That includes paying their workers.

              • guest says:

                Wow, a Democrat that prays. There’s an oddity. Do you pray to Obama or do you actually believe there is someone more intelligent than him out there?
                The middle class, the poor, and the immigrants have the same opportunities to make it in this country as everyone else. Yes, they have to work harder to make it than the trust-fund babies who have it handed to them, but that just makes them appreciate it more once they get it.
                Show me a welfare recipient who has prospered by sitting at home all day and living off of government hand-outs. Democrats don’t want people to prosper, they want more people relying on the government for food, health care and shelter so they can grow their constituency. If they can’t get them on welfare, they will try to get them to work for the government so that everyone is relying on the government for all their needs.

                • bitter troll says:

                  bitter troll prays to cthulhu…for bitter troll shall be devowered last when the great elder god rises from his watery grave

                  • HelOnWheels says:

                    I pray. Or is it prey? Which ever one I do it involves consuming those that are less powerful than I and stupid enough to be out after dark in my ‘hood.

                    • bad fairie says:

                      for me it’s all about perspective: if someone wants to pray that i get a better job or get well, that’s a prayer; but when they start wanting me to find their version of religion, that’s when it becomes preying

                • “Wow, a Democrat that prays.”
                  Two things. 1) I’m a person. It’s “a Democrat WHO prays.”
                  2) Nice of you to generalize that no Democrats have faith. You suck, troll.
                  Nice little conspiracy theory there, pal. And the whole “same opportunities” thing is just a copout to avoid looking at how rough things are and that some people truly need help. You want people off welfare? Fine, so do I. I want them to use welfare until they can get back on their feet. That’s the point of it. Yes, people abuse it, and it’s sad, but people will always abuse any given program, even the charities that Republicans say will help all the people that need help. But it’s not right to dump all the people who need assistance out into the world and yell sink or swim when you know good and well almost all of them already have anchors tied to them. You don’t know these people, and you haven’t walked in their shoes.

                  • guest says:

                    Well if you want to argue semantics then “copout” should have been hyphenated. Like so: cop-out.

                    I don’t want to totally eliminate welfare. I think there are people who truly need help and I am all for that. Help them get back on their feet, give them a skill set they can use in the free market and cut them loose. The problem I have is with Democrats who want to continuously expand the list of people who “need help.” You admit yourself that there are people who abuse the system. The problem is that the system is designed so that it is easy to abuse it. Then there are non-profit groups like Acorn that receive some of that money that is supposed to go to help the “needy” and they are using it to train people on how to beat the system. Oh, and by the way, if it weren’t for Fox News no one ever would have heard about that story. The other networks weren’t exactly jumping at the chance to break that news.

                    • The problem with changing the system to prevent abuse is that it likely will cost more to do so. Yeah, we could crack down on all the abuse out of principal, which ideally would be fine, but they don’t do it because that would actually cost more than the abuse. That being said, we agree on what welfare should be. There’s no easy answer to this issue.

                    • Naoyusimi says:

                      “Well if you want to argue semantics then “copout” should have been hyphenated. Like so: cop-out.”

                      Wrong. On at LEAST 2 points:
                      1) Semantics studies meaning, not the finer points of punctuation.
                      2) A compound word often gets its hyphen removed after a long period of common usage, or, depending on the particular style of the setting, for example, an academic paper, journalism, or in medical usage. My own experience is with the medical profession, and most hyphenated compound words have their hyphens removed, as the superfluous keystrokes that they are. I say: “copout” is perfectly fine.

                • slaggingham says:

                  I’m a Republican who doesn’t pray. So with that said, let me just point out we can do just fine without you or your Imaginary Friend.

                  • That’s a good point, thank you. I knew there was at least one Republican on here who isn’t a Christian (I think there are more). The liberals=godless heathens and conservatives=good little Christians stereotype is full of fail.

                    • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                      Rando: I’m semi Republican and not really anything. However I do get annoyed at those who insult religion (Repo or Demo), don’t know why. I think it’s b/c usually it’s done with such intent to hurt someone. “Imaginary Friend”, “Fairy Tale”, etc it just seems demeaning. I don’t think people would like to be demeand like that, yet they spew it out.

                    • I Like Peanut Butter says:

                      Of course “guest” is demeaning like a douche too. But you should demean the person being demeaning, NOT the entire group.

                      • It wasn’t aimed at the entire group, just those who push that stereotype. And some liberals do tend to push the all-Republicans-are-fundie-Christians stereotype too. It’s not one-sided at all. In fact, I tend to get really pretty pissed at the liberals who go that road, which we’ve seen here in the past. And God help the next person on either side who calls me a moderate for having faith. LOL

                      • slaggingham says:

                        I see no evidence that you and “guest” believe in the same specific definition of “God.”

                        (There are what, about 500 definitions just under the general Christianity heading?)

                        So maybe your god is real. But I’m still pretty sure that “guest’s” is imaginary.

                • No1askedme says:

                  @ guest
                  GOOD LORD YOU’RE A DOUCHE! Honestly, I don’t even know where to start! You must have been living in a hole your entire life! Seriously, welfare CANNOT support any kind of lifestyle, why the hell would the Democrats be working against the people that vote for them, poor people and rich people DO NOT have the same opportunities!! There are plenty of religious liberals, 86% of the world is religious, only around 60% of Americans are liberals! What the hell is wrong with you!? You’re more of a puppet than FOX “news” is! You’re worse than even Rush Limbaugh is at his worst! Please, THINK! I’d say “think for yourself”, but you obviously haven’t even gotten that far yet! Are you completely insane!? Do you listen to yourself speak!? Do you have ANY idea of how ridiculous you sound!? You really need to realize that you’re no infallible, because there’s no grain of truth to ANYTHING you have posted so far.

                  • CyanEyed says:

                    ’60% of Americans are liberals’

                    yeah, and 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

                    • No1askedme says:

                      Vote statistics are not. However, if you want a more exact number: 52.92% of the popular vote went to Obama. Therefore 52.92% of the population are liberals. So I guess I was off by a bit, but that wasn’t my point for bringing that up. I was showing that it was statistically IMPOSSIBLE for all liberals to be atheists. Since you decided to bring it up though, only 45.66% of the popular vote went to McCain. So, like it or not, conservatives are a minority in the U.S.

                      • grimmiekins says:

                        if everyone voted, and all liberals voted for obama and all conseritives voted McCain. but they didnt.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I can’t think of any better way to assess the public’s political affiliations. I figure the way people vote is more telling than the party they claim to be part of. As for those that didn’t vote: if they didn’t vote why should we care what side they support, obviously they’re a null set.

                        • justacarolinian says:

                          No1, by your thinking, just 5 years ago, 51% were conservatives. They elected GWB, after all.

                      • CyanEyed says:

                        McCain was not a conservative, and his main campaign promise was to cross the aisle and consort with teh libz.

                        He didn’t get the conservative vote. (well, some of us voted for him, as the lesser of two evils, but the hard-liners voted for ron paul.)

                      • I’m gonna join the crowd here and say that not everyone who voted for Obama was a liberal. A great deal of fence sitters went with Obama (as well as many who went for McCain). And I’m sure there were at least 5 or 6 Republicans who voted for Obama just to spite McCain. And like bittiekins said, not everyone voted. How you vote is not at all an indication of how liberal/conservative you are.

                    • slaggingham says:

                      And 50% of people are below-average.

                      Which, come to think of it, might explain No1′s touted election results… *lol*

                      • No1askedme says:

                        Ah! Very good point, I hadn’t thought of that. Just a little not though, 25% are below average, 50% are average, and 25% are above.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I’m not sure what happened to my 3rd sentence here, the numbers are all that’s really important, but it came out all weird.

                  • guest says:

                    No1, How can you say I am a puppet who doesn’t think for myself AND that I am worse than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh at his worst? I either have to be a puppet or more extreme than them. I do think O’Reilly is a liberal. He always bashes the oil companies for making money, which is a very liberal thing to do.

                    I never said the Democrats were trying to give the poor a “lifestyle”, but they do give them most everything they need to live:
                    Government Housing: free or nearly free if you are a single mother
                    Food Stamps: Hundreds of dollars a month worth.
                    Child Tax Credits: Even if they don’t pay any taxes they will get thousands of dollars a year.
                    Pell Grants: Free money for college.
                    Student Loans: The government will now give you student loans and if you go to work for the government or a non-profit when you graduate you don’t have to pay back a penny. Just don’t go to work for one of those nasty companies that tries to make money or you will have to pay it all back with interest.

                    Don’t say that there is no grain of truth to what I say when you don’t even check your figures before you post them.

        • guest says:

          No, they can’t just say “Hey, we’re a communist country now!” They have to do it incrementally so as to avoid detection. Just like they were trained to do in the Communist Manifesto. Don’t believe me? Try Reading the Communist Manifesto. Here’s a little taste. I can give you a government program that either accomplishes each of the goals or moves us closer to it.

          1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

          2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

          3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

          4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

          5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

          6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

          7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

          8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

          9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

          10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

          • n00bs says:

            Along the same lines Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky is also interesting

          • No1askedme says:

            What does this have to do with Democrats exactly?

            • n00bs says:

              I can’t wait for my turn to work in the wheat fields, can you comrade?

            • CyanEyed says:

              #2 is already in place in America.

              #3 is partially in place in America. (death tax)

              #5 is in place in America. (federal reserve)

              #10 is also in place in America. (public schools)

              That’s 40% communist, holy crap pplz…

              • HelOnWheels says:

                Oooh, and get rid of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC so Cyan & guest can lose all of their savings.

                • n00bs says:

                  lol, not that the dollar is worth anything anymore!!

                  • bitter troll says:

                    well if you dont want yours, can bitter troll have them?

                  • No1askedme says:

                    Was it ever worth anything to begin with? Honestly, it’s a piece of paper. Why some people develop such an obsession over money I will never know.

                    • I know, right? How arbitrary is the entire financial system. It’s all make believe, but it controls all our lives somehow. Sad, isn’t it?

                      • No1askedme says:

                        I, personally, find it absolutely hilarious! Like when people run around panicking when stock prices fall, not only is the money not yours, it’s not even real!

                      • VictoryNotVengeance says:

                        And just think about it. Now its not even all paper. Its electronic credits. You log onto your computer or ATM, and those 0′s and 1′s tell you your worldy value. Corporations and the very wealthy don’t even think about the total any more, just percentage increases and that it is steadily increasing. Its like we are all playing with Monopoly money!

                        But you know whats real? Time. Only so many hours in a day. Only so many hours in your lifetime. Considering our lives are all equally valid, so is our time. Something is -very- wrong with the payscale.

                    • guest says:

                      Yes, it was worth something when it was backed by gold. Up until the liberal’s beloved Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 in April of 1933 which made it illegal for American citizens to trade with or hold more than a small amount of gold. They were forced by law to sell the majority of their gold to the Federal Reserve for $20.67 per troy ounce. In January of 1934, the Gold Reserve Act changed the value of that gold from $20.67 per ounce to $35.00 per ounce. That’s always a nifty way to make a profit. Force people to sell low and then artificially inflate the value by passing a law. Wasn’t FDR great? Oh yeah, and that is when paper money just became paper and not a real promissory note. Thanks Democrats!

                • CyanEyed says:

                  FDIC?… I don’t think i mentioned that…

                  It is worth noting that the Federal Reserve is not actually a Government … department thing. It’s just a bank, with a president-appointed ‘Board of Governors’ Who run it.

                  Oy? The board of governors serves 14 year terms!? Google has brought disturbing news indeed!

                  • No1askedme says:

                    Yes, and without the FED we would have had another great depression last year rather than a recession. Why are you complaining about this stuff?! You may not like communism, I don’t either, but some of its principles are sound.

                    P.S. The cold war ended almost 20 years ago, get over it!

                    • CyanEyed says:

                      You cant prove that.

                      The depression thing, not the cold war thing…

                      • CyanEyed says:

                        at no1

                        You seem to have confused the Federal reserve with the FDIC. (on the giving ppl their money thing)

                        Also it was largely just normal(slightly greedy) ppl who had all their money invested, even so far as taking out large loans from banks to invest, because the market was FLYING. When the market crashed, all those loans became noncollectable. THATS where the banks lost all their money.

                    • guest says:

                      The cold war ended, communism didn’t.

                • guest says:

                  I don’t have any savings. I’m not a top 50% earner. I don’t base my opinions or cast my vote on which system or politician would benefit me the most.

              • guest says:

                What about these?

                #1- Imminent Domain Laws, Property Taxes. If you think you own your property try not paying your taxes on it. Then see who it belongs to.

                #4- They don’t confiscate property from “immigrants or rebels”, but they do confiscate property if you don’t pay taxes on it or use your property in the commission of a crime.

                #6- What about the FCC, the FAA, the DOT, and the Post Office. All government groups set up to regulate or deliver the means of communication and transportation. The head of the FCC is talking about expanding their power and setting up regional offices all over the country so that they can monitor television and radio stations more closely.

                #7- Extension of means of production owned by the state? What about General Motors (Government Motors), what about health care? Keep in mind this book was written before people realized that the service industry was a valuable commodity. ” The cultivation of wasteland and the improvement of soil” kinda sounds like the EPA to me. The EPA can also prevent you from using your land or confiscate it from you if they choose to.

                #8- the “establishment of industrial armies” sounds very much like what Obama pushed for in his campaign with his Civilian Army.

                #9- Gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country. Why would this be important? Because people who live in the country take pride in ownership of their property. The ratio of people who own private property is much higher in the country. A large number of people in cities either rent or own a part of a bigger building (think apartments, condos, townhouses). While there are many people who own a house in the city, that house does not usually provide them with their main source of income or a means of producing enough food to live off of for the whole year. That is why people who live in the country are much more concerned about property rights than people who live in the city. By blurring the lines between city and country they can slowly choke out the farmers and ranchers so that no one owns enough land to live off of. Ideally, everyone rents government housing. If the farmers don’t want to go, they can always cut off their water supply and claim to be saving a rare minnow.

                #10- Free education. Oh no, not that. Yes, free education can be a dangerous thing when it becomes indoctrination. But that’s not going on is it? Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barrack Hussein Obama. No, that’s not happening at all. Look up the list of images and words that are banned from text books today and you will begin to see what I mean. Free education is great. However, indoctrination of our children is the goal of a communist-run public school system. It’s in the book people, educate yourselves.

                • bitter troll says:

                  you mean obama had all those words and books banned himself in such a short time?

                  • guest says:

                    No. That would be the public school system.

                    • There is no widespread indoctrination going on, except maybe the Pledge of Allegiance, and the disturbingly selective history books our kids get. Funny how history books always paint America in such a positive manner while glossing over the bad parts. No, I don’t think there’s an Obama indoctrination going on. Remember that speech he wanted all the kids to see? Do you know how many school districts declined to even show it? My kids’ school district didn’t show it. It’s not nearly as bad as your conservative pundits’ scare tactics lead you to believe.

          • Ur paranoia. Let me show u it.

          • bad fairie says:

            when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross

            don’t know if that quote applies here or not, but it flittered through my head reading that 10 point ???

    • slaggingham says:

      I completely disagree. Democrats provide a valuable service to this country by providing fertile ground in which the seeds of great things can take root and thrive, and grow strong and mighty on what they provide…

      Just like other forms of manure.

      LOL!

      (Okay, that one was bad, but it popped into my head and would not leave until I wrote it. I’m sorry.)

  12. ChuvelxD says:

    7ox News – InFROMING the public since never. Keep up the good work boys, you’re making the Democrats look like Einstien.

    • ChuvelxD says:

      *us Democrats

      • CyanEyed says:

        ‘you’re making the Democrats look like Einstien.’
        [inciteful comment]
        And that takes a LOT of work.
        [/inciteful comment]

        • Isildo says:

          Inciteful? In cite full? In full sight? Insightful? Don’t know why, but that word made me lol.

          • n00bs says:

            I’ll have whatever he/she’s having.

            • CyanEyed says:

              It’s a misspelling of the word insightful, changing the meaning from ‘enlightened’ to ‘provocative’

              • Isildo says:

                It’s odd, but I think the right side of my brain picked up on that while the left was going BUT THAT’S WRONG AND DOESN’T MAKE SENSE! I could feel the intention behind the word, but I wrote it off as an accident because I couldn’t name it.

                Cool wordplay! Kudos to you then. :)

    • guest says:

      Please, at least Fox News will actually report the news, even if it’s a negative story about Republicans. MSNBC just ignores any stories that make Democrats look bad or tries to twist it to make Republicans look bad.

      • I’m sorry, I believe you’ve made a mistake. I’ll fix it for you.
        Please, at least nobody will actually report the news, just a bunch of partisan opinions from both sides on the different news networks . Fox News just ignores any stories that make Republicans look bad or tries to twist it to make Democrats look bad.

        • guest says:

          Nice try, but I’m afraid you already admitted you don’t watch Fox News. So you have no idea what they report other than what MSNBC tells you. They don’t have to help the Democrats look bad. They do that on their own.

          • I watch it on occasion until my head hurts, just to remind me of why I don’t watch it. Why do I need to watch it? I already know who has their own shows there. Why watch something I know is going to just piss me off? Hell, I applaud MSNBC for putting Maddow & Olbermann on. Somebody has to balance it out a bit.

            • guest says:

              Most of the liberal news channels were around before Fox News. I think Fox helped bring balance by offering a conservative network. Plus, when you add up all the liberal networks’ viewers and compare that to Fox News’ viewers, you have a pretty balanced number.
              P.S. I watch Keith Overbite sometimes for the same reason you watch Fox. I think it’s funny that he always manages to make someone from Fox News the Worst Person in the World every day. Or at least in the top 3.

              • wallFly says:

                but that’s the thing – they’re not really news, they’re propaganda.

                but it is cute how you stoop to degrading someone by making fun of their name. kudos to you guest.

                • n00bs says:

                  They are all propaganda, just on one side or the other. At least FOX does some real investigative reporting on what’s going on in the government. The others are hands off, unless of course there is a Republican administration.

                  • n00bs says:

                    In other words I think we need both, it’s just that FOX is the only conservative outlet while the others are all liberal, even the New York Times has come out and admitted it.

                    • wallFly says:

                      “even the New York Times has come out and admitted it” – they NYT is knocked all the time, but when they say something you approve of, suddenly they’re a valid reference…

                      “At least FOX does some real investigative reporting on what’s going on in the government.” – pah, FOX was up Bush’s ass when he was president and they dog everythign Obama does. You could switch Obama with Bush, keep their platforms the same and FOX woulda bombed Obama no matter what he did. I’m sure there’s some decent reporters on FOX, but by and large, it’s a fail station. I mean, come on, they should be embarassed you can find better interviewing and more truthful coverage on the Daily Show.

                      • n00bs says:

                        What I am saying is that they balance each other out. When there is a Republican in office, we have NBC, ABC… PBS and all the others that will jump all over themselves to find corruption. The same way FOX does with a Democrat administration. And at least the NYT admits to their bias. I don’t read it.

                        • n00bs says:

                          Here’s an example, you don’t hear anything negative about the current administration on any of the MSM, like ACORN corruption or that White House communications director Anita Dunn looks to Mao Zedong for inspiration. What is this woman doing in our government? We have to go to FOX to hear this type of thing, which many people consider newsworthy.

                        • No1askedme says:

                          I think someone needs to step in and just tell them to cut it the hell out! We want to watch the news to learn about current happenings, not to be subjected to a torrent of partisan propaganda! We don’t need to accept the news as a propaganda machine, it’s not good for anyone and causes nothing but conflict! Down with the news giants!

                  • “At least FOX does some real investigative reporting on what’s going on in the government.”

                    Translation: You hate Democrats, so when Fox finds something to bash them with, you consider that investigative reporting.

                    • n00bs says:

                      Yes, and the same goes for the other side, you see how it balances out. Well, not really balance because there are so many liberal media outlets, but it does serve it’s purpose or it wouldn’t get ratings. Also, I don’t hate Democrats, I don’t hate anyone… I still am registered as a Dem but I’m very conservative.

                      • You’re registered as a Democrat??? Were you drunk that day? ‘Cos I’m not seeing a damn thing that says Democrat to me. LOL
                        Anyway, I’d say MSNBC is really the counterbalance to Fox. And I’m pissed at FOX for other reasons tonight anyway, relating to not getting to see House because of a goddamn baseball game. BUT I DIGRESS. Fox and MSNBC are really the most glaring examples of biased news. I’ll admit that I like MSNBC since it’s aimed at us liberals. I don’t think the other news outlets are nearly as bad though, although there might still be some liberal bias. A little.

                      • wallFly the cookie thrower says:

                        just to add real quick before i log off – they do not balance out- fox is propaganda, short ‘n simple. they, more than anyone else, push people to their agenda instead of just relaying what’s going on (look at that tea bagging mess for the best example). whereas msm, msnbc and cnn relay news – maybe not the most objective in all instances but they far and wide do a btter job than fox.

                        besides, the conservatives totally dominate on the radio.

                        • I always find myself dumbstruck by the fact that people still listen to the radio.

                        • guest says:

                          Any news that has NBC is inherently slanted. NBC is owned by GE. GE is hoping that Obama will pass a law requiring all doctors to have digital medical records. They are already airing commercials for the technology in hopes that the law passes. Do you think they are going to let their correspondents bad mouth the president when they have billions of federal dollars on the line? I don’t think so. The problem with people who think government is a safer bet than corporations don’t know that the corporations have the government in their pockets. Here is what the White House has said about MSNBC and Fox News:

                          About MSNBC:
                          KAREEM DALE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO OBAMA: At the White House, as we always like to say, we love MSNBC.

                          About Fox News:
                          White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want “the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox.”

                          Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”

                          “Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”

                          Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, “I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits.”

                          The White House stopped providing guests to “Fox News Sunday” after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.

                          Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was “something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do.”

                          Let’s not forget the cornerstone of MSNBC, Chris Matthews who said when he heard one of Obama’s speeches during the election “I felt this thrill going up my leg.”

                          As for Dunn’s complaint about Fox News’ coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News’ stories on Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

                          On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.

                          So when you accuse Fox News of being slanted you are showing that you don’t think for yourself. You just follow your orders from Obama and his staff.

                        • Is the White House really supposed to enjoy the way that Fox News bashes them? The White House is not an objective news outlet. Why are you expecting them to be? If Fox News was telling the world what a lousy parent I was, but MSNBC talked about what a good job I was doing, then hell yeah I’m gonna like MSNBC better. Journalism is supposed to be objective. I don’t expect the White House to be. They’ve got what they feel needs to get done, and you don’t get things done by hanging around people who thrash you at every turn.

                        • n00bs says:

                          Fox does not “bash”, just because they report about corruption in the current administration and not something you like to hear about it is the truth and needs to be told. They don’t make things up.

                • bitter troll says:

                  meh overbite not really that funny
                  bitter troll finds it more amuseing the way people make fun of Obama’s name

                • guest says:

                  Whatever, I have been called a douche bag on this post more than once. I don’t want to here about stooping.

  13. Andrew says:

    My God. They really can not spell correctly. They really are that dumb.

    • Captain Wow says:

      Show me your ID.
      *studies it carefully*
      Yes! Indeed! Captain Obvious has decided to grace us with his presence!

    • Smurf says:

      Why is it so many Americans get these two words confused: LOSE and LOOSE? I just don’t get it. Help.

      • guest says:

        The same reason they screw up ‘there’, ‘their’ and ‘they’re’ & ‘two’, ‘to’ and ‘too’.

      • TheOne says:

        Two words-”Public Education”

        • n00bs says:

          Isn’t that an oxymoron?

          • No1askedme says:

            *sigh* Where do you keep getting this?! Public education is underfunded, but perfectly fine.

            • Isildo says:

              Which is why the homeschooled kids I know consistently outperform my public school friends in such competitions as the SAT and the application of common sense.

              • n00bs says:

                Not to mention other “third world” nations who have a much lower budget than we do. Why do their kids do better than ours?

                • No1askedme says:

                  I repeat, UNDERFUNDED. It’s hard to give a great education when you don’t have enough money to work with. Besides, I don’t see how anything good could come of privatizing education. Schools would just become indoctrination facilities, at least that’s how private schools are used around here.

                  P.S. Third world nations may not have as much money as we do here, but a dollar goes a lot farther in Ethiopia than it does here! It’s all relative.

                  • justacarolinian says:

                    Maybe the desire to be educated is in there somewhere. American children don’t appreciate an education like 3rd wold children do. Same with the parents that support the kids, or fail to.
                    Too many children who think street cred is going to make them millions, or that the man owes them something.

                    • dissimilitude says:

                      I think you may be onto something there, but I think there’s more to it — we undervalue education in the US in part because we tend to take it for granted. It’s been several generations since going to school was a prized opportunity for children, many of whom were instead having to work in fields and factories. I’m pretty sure my son would appreciate his education more if working 12 hours a day in a textile mill was the alternative.

                      I’ve said before that it would do the children of our country a huge service if there was some type of student-exchange program wherein they’d spend 3 to 6 months at about age 12 in Indonesia making sneakers or something. Nice break for the third-world child laborers, too. Of course it would probably reduce the quality of the sweatshop goods somewhat, but I think the benefits might outweigh that.

                      • lowly grunt says:

                        We take it for granted and we don’t pay for it.

                        Wouldn’t it make sense to give teachers the same kind of pay we give doctors?

                        Plus, we keep kids in school too long. I think we should make school mandatory until a child learns to read and do math. Then, once basic skills are mastered, they branch out to what calls to them and apprentice themselves to someone in their chosen field. They spend the rest of their academic years learning the ropes and enter the working world as adults with valuable skills and aptitude and not just wondering how much longer they can or will have to live with Mom and Dad.

                        • I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I think education needs to do much more to prepare children for the real world. I know that once I got out of college, even having been married and working at Wal-Mart full time for 3 years at that point, the reality of job searching and what to do when it doesn’t go well and whatnot pretty much landed me flat on my face…and another 8 years in retail. Ugh.

                    • Isildo says:

                      I second desire to be educated and perceived value of education. I, for example, got a LOT out of school wen I hit college and suddenly I cared about my classes instead of seeing them as someplace I had to be all day.

                  • CyanEyed says:

                    Of course it’s much better when schools are government indoctrination facilities instead of private ones.

                • SemperGunny says:

                  Because you’re meeting the wrong homeschooled kids?

                  My friend’s daughter married a homeschooled boy (he was 19, she was 17, there was a dead rabbit involved, his father is a preacher, you get the idea) who can’t even pass the GED, nor can his two older brothers.

                  Mom homeschooled all of them and all of them either a. live on government assistance or b. live at home

                  • That’s not homeschooling, at least not in my state. In my state there are regulations on what has to be taught while homeschooling. What you’re talking about wouldn’t fly. Although if you’re a complete idiot, you probably have no business homeschooling.

  14. MsMsBurning says:

    In crayon AND misspelled! Is Dubya holding that sign?

  15. trolling says:

    Did we notice “Amercia” is spelled incorrectly as well?

  16. bitter troll says:

    BITTER TROLL DELARES NEW LAW! all illegal immagrants in the us will now be declared slaves! want to escape to us? fine…do it illegal and you will be SNATCHED UP and forced to work in the feilds.

  17. mabsba says:

    Just visiting (needed to see what my teenager was reading online) and had a comment and two questions:

    Reading the posts, I’m not sure many of the posters (is that the correct term?) should be laughing at anyone’s grammar/spelling, although I acknowledge that a sign for public display should be proofed a bit more carefully. Still, errors such as not knowing when to use ‘as’ versus ‘like’ or even ‘a’ versus ‘i’ occur in most of the posts I skimmed. (“Immagrant,” anyone?)

    Question 1: Please don’t take offense, but do you all have jobs? It took me over half an hour to skim this post!

    Question 2: How do you know when someone replies to your post? (I saw the follow-up notification box, but it tells you of ALL comments.)

    Thanks.

    PS All very entertaining, although a bit crazy at times. At least I know I don’t have to block the site. (Imagine smiley icon here — I don’t know how to do those either.)

    • VictoryNotVengeance says:

      hehe. You’re mom lets you read PK!

    • I have a job! It’s my day off.

    • n00bs says:

      I have a job, I’m slackin’

    • slaggingham says:

      I have a job, and I am AT my job.

      I’m just so incredibly efficient that I’ve already completed all my assigned tasks for the day and am therefore permitted to goof off.

    • HelOnWheels says:

      I have a job. I stick around later so the traffic dies down.

    • Mina says:

      I have a job, but fortunatly for me it’s an easy one where I can be on here all day. And the only way that I know of to know if someone replies specifically to your post is to look. I tried the noticfication box and it’s worthless (in my opinion).

      The way to do a smiley on here is use : plus ) and it shows up :) when you post. Just don’t include the word plus or any of the spaces.

      Nice to know that there are parents who actually look into what their teenagers are doing. I grew up thinking mine were the only ones who did that! :)

      • mabsba says:

        Thanks for telling me. The other question was somewhat of a joke; although not entirely since I am self-employed and literally only get paid when working and then I AM working. :)

        Teenagers are taxing. I am a little stressed about parenting this week because my friend’s wonderful. straight A, unlicensed teenager let her wonderful, straight A friend ‘car surf’ and now the other girl is dead. It’s a hard lesson for a fifteen-year-old. Makes us all wonder how any of us survive the teenage years…

        • bad fairie says:

          sorry about the life lesson for your friend’s daughter – that is a hard one at any age.

          for me, i am self-employed and keep this up on my old pc, plus when you post a comment you can have all responses sent your email, which is what i do. then if there is something i want to respond to, i’ll do a search on that page – saves time and i can bypass the things that either make my blood boil instantly, or are just too inane for words.
          we do tend to pick apart protest signs that are messed up, and sometimes each other for posting bad spelling & grammar. but we aren’t as cut-throat with each other as the lame-brains who write the signs.
          stick around, you might like us, but stay away from the lolcat site – lolspeak will curdle your brain faster than vinegar in cream.

          • mabsba says:

            Oh, but I love the kitty pictures. (That’s actually how my son found this website.) But I do hate the lolspeak.

            • bad fairie says:

              and the dog pictures, that’s how i found my way here too. and i tried reading lolspeak – even my daughter’s slow dog knows better english than that and he’s dumber than a rock and half as useful.
              (at least rocks stay when told to.)

              glad to see you enjoying yourself here, pull up a chair and kick back, just watch out for the lawn, the owner gets a mite protective, but he can usually be bribed with cookies and beer.

        • lowly grunt says:

          OMG that’s terrible.

    • meyaht says:

      I think most of us here have jobs, I work full time.

      To check for responses I use google chrome search function and search my username, then look at nested comments.

      Enjoy.

  18. Maxwell The Beatlist Pope Supreme says:

    *sighs* Yep… I’m staying the hell away from this one.

  19. allen says:

    for every time one of the libs call us “tea baggers” I’m going to call their commie love-fest protests “a$$hole licking contests”

    it’s only fair.

  20. CMS says:

    Hah! Allen, I like the cut of your jib.

  21. NEA says:

    Gotta love liberal pukes pointing out how “stupid” conservatives are when every welfare leach in the country votes for democrats, safe to say the average Obama voter that ACORN signed up can’t even read and who TEACHES all these stupid people you elitist dicks look down on? THE TEACHERS UNION! The most communist group in the country and they spend MILLIONS to elect democrats. They WANT people to be stupid and the current “president” proves it.

    • grimmiekins says:

      damn teachers…someone should dosomething about them…i suggest leg breaking and old fashion union busting. teach them to teach things

      • Sqwirk says:

        Teabaggers just understand what teaching is for.

        Your regular middle class or poor american doesn’t need a full education. It’s this misguided liberal notion that’s created our current problems.

        All they need to be taught is the bible, discipline and respect for their superiors.

        They need the idea that if you work hard and do as your told you’ll be rewarded (just the belief, in the real world of course this isn’t true).

        And they need clear examples of what happens if you don’t. Welfare removes these examples, that’s our problem.

        All most americans need is the two motivators, fear (of losing their job, health cover, for women fear of pregnacy etc) and hope (that one day they can be rich too).

        Maybe liberalism can work in more ‘sophisticated’ societies in Europe, but it’s not suited to America where we have so many blacks and hispanics with their low IQs.

        • slaggingham says:

          And the second and third little Sqwirkies build their men out of sticks and bricks…

          You won’t get a ‘full education’ in a public school. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

          There just isn’t the time… especially if you have one of those “mainstreamed” classes where they have to keep the lessons slow for the learning-disabled and the just-plain-dumb kids.

          If you want to get one of those, you’re pretty much going to have to do it yourself.

          • Wow, good point. Why bother trying to teach learning-disabled or dumb kids. Hell, let’s just put them in the nuthouse where they belong so we don’t have to deal with them.

            • No1askedme says:

              Actually, slaggingham has already established earlier that he’s against educating the stupid. So your dig isn’t too far off.

            • slaggingham says:

              No, actually let’s give the learning-disabled kids their own special classes at their own speed with teachers especially trained to handle their special needs.

              And lets do the same with the GIFTED students (not the same classes of course.)

              This will better enable everyone to achieve their own potential.

              Seriously Rando, don’t disappoint me here. I figure you’re pretty smart. Were you in a mainstreamed class? Didn’t you ever get frustrated and/or bored waiting for a slow learner to catch up? Wouldn’t everyone be better off learning at their own pace?

              I don’t believe that learning-disabled kids are uneducable. Just, not in the same way as everybody else. (Another point against collectivism, BTW. We are not all the same, and we can’t be… unless we go the route of the society of “Harrison Bergeron.”)

              As for the simply unable… a 30-year veteran of teaching said it better than I ever could… “You can have all the money and the best teachers in the world… and you still can’t teach a potato algebra.”

              • bitter troll says:

                dont they do that around, advanced placement and speical classes for slower or stupid kids?

                bitter troll spent the first 2 years in a slower kid class in middle school, till they realized bitter troll should of been in advanced placement instead.

                • slaggingham says:

                  They used to. Then it became fashionable to throw everybody in with the “normals.”

                  So you had the normal kids fidgeting and getting bored waiting for the slow kids to catch up, and the gifted kids getting REALLY bored, to the point of acting out or completely losing touch with the rest of the class.

                  That’s what “mainstreaming” was, and it simply did not work.

                  Now, to be fair, I was in one of the separate “advanced” classes when I was a child, and it sucked too. Mostly because we were only separated for a few hours, rather than all the time, which pissed the other kids off because they thought we were getting special funtime, but also because “gifted teacher” really wasn’t a priority specialty back then, and they had NO idea what to do with us.

                  So they basically shat more make-work on us. “You’re smarter? Then your book report should be twice as long.”

                  I got more out of spending hours by myself reading everything I could reach at the public library than I ever did in school.

                  Of course, I also lucked out in that my parents were teachers, and I could get a whole lot of “unstructured” knowledge.

      • n00bs says:

        Because as we all know, no one ever gained anything by working hard, and no one ever gained any character by going through hardships. We don’t need any of that crap. And of course no one ever got any comfort from religion, got off drugs or alchohol, changed their lives or any of that rot, it’s just brain washing, everyone knows that. Oh and a front for child molesting.

    • CyanEyed says:

      Random quotes make you “smarter”.

    • slaggingham says:

      You’ve confused the NEA with the AFT union.

      Yeah, there’s more than one national teacher’s union, and the real hardcore reds go to the AFT. They’re the ones that supported the Soviet’s suppression of Czechoslovakia.

      Heck, my father was president of his local NEA-affiliated union… and he’s Conservative (okay, he had to be a registered Democrat to get the job, because republican’s just aren’t allowed, but still…)

    • Mina says:

      Aw… poor little high school brat doesn’t want to do his homework. Go study your grammar text book and come back when you can post like an adult, ok cupcake? *Pats NEA on head and sends on his way*

    • HelOnWheels says:

      Heehee. Look, it’s irony! You just proved our “liberal pukes’ ” point with your severely grammatically challenged rant.

  22. NEA says:

    Typical liberal, since you can’t deny the truth of what I said, you just act like you’re somehow “smarter” than me but you’re too damn stupid to see the communist takeover we’re in the middle of and that you’re nothing but a useful idiot to the cause. If you think everyone is soooo stupid but you refuse to look at why then you’re just as stupid as everyone you claim to be superior to.

  23. Kirby the Cow says:

    meh, another “Fox News Sucks” submission to be added to the thousands.

  24. mac says:

    hahaha, typical american

  25. Robert Johnson says:

    testing

  26. Wow. Over 500 responses!

    Listen, I’m way too high to read them all, but I thought I would take this opportunity to say that Bored to Death on HBO is my new favorite show, and if you’re not watching it, you’re a sucka.

  27. Malfeasance says:

    FOX News: REJECT REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE YOUR OWN

  28. didgit says:

    somehow, infromed doesn’t seem to be an incredibly obvious misspelling of the word.
    “Infourmed”? “Enformed”? I mean, unless the guy is some kind of dislexic (?).

  29. red says:

    Has it occured to you that the fact that it’s written in crayon, some of the letters are not capitalized and the Fs are all backwards – that it MIGHT be intentionally mispelled to look like a child wrote it?

    • didgit says:

      yeah; I was just criticizing the way it was faked.
      I’m not good at recognizing shops, but this was either shopped or crayoned with deceit. It’s pretty obvious, just by what it says.
      Also, if you look closely you can see that the switched letters (“o” and “r”) are written bolder than any of the other letters in their word.

  30. lolwutretard says:

    ‘Shopped

  31. matt says:

    um… i think the caption expresses the point of the sign…

  32. ... says:

    Why do I get the feeling that that people who hate Fox news made this sign in an attempt to make Fox news supporters look stupid?

    People who hate Fox news talk about it all the time. I don’t think anyone likes Fox news enough to make a sign about it. I call BS.

    • Dude-ette says:

      FN “supporters” (that’s Freudian in and of itself, BTW, Shouldn’t it be “viewers”? Supporters suggests that they have an agenda. Which, of course, they DO.) don’t need any help to look stupid. The fact that they believe FN is anything but an extension of the Republican Party is hysterically funny.

      • VictoryNotVengeance says:

        But its a fair and balanced extension of the Republican Party!

      • allen says:

        the fact that they think the tea party movement is part of the republican party is just as funny.

        • VictoryNotVengeance says:

          Lets dress up like Indians so we can divert punishment away from us!

        • Dude-ette says:

          I know! I mean, EVERYbody knows it is a construct of Glenn Beck. Sheesh!

          • meyaht says:

            There are ALOT of people at these tea party things. More then at Obama’s inauguration for the last one (the last one I heard about, I don’t keep tabs on them). Are you saying that there isn’t a free minded thinker in attendance out of all of those people? Are they all sheep following Beck and the Republican party?

            If you are, that’s a bold statement. If you’re bold statement is accurate I’m moving to New Zealand.

            • VictoryNotVengeance says:

              “Free minded” is a very strong term in today’s world. We have been mind washed for generations. Americans are now domesticated animals. All we do is comsume and breed. We are like the pets of the the bourgeoisie. You may be safer in New Zealand.

            • Dude-ette says:

              Those numbers at the last tea party were fabricated by Fox Noise. There were NOT more people there than at Obama’s inauguration. This has been thoroughly debunked.

              And yes, they are sheep, following Beck and the Republican party. Thanks for making my point for me! Enjoy New Zealand!

            • Isildo says:

              This comment made me lol, because the only thing New Zealand is famous for (besides Lord of the Rings filming locations) is its sheep industry. I know the lamb at the restaurant where I work is ALL imported from New Zealand. Seriously, I think they have more sheep than people there.

  33. Dude-ette says:

    Do you type letters to your mother with those fingers?

  34. VictoryNotVengeance says:

    Wow. Support prostitution by underage illegal aliens? Where do you people come up with this stuff?

  35. Does it really matter what the gender of the underage partner is?

    You know what they say around here: 16 will get you 20.

  36. Dave, as always, you are a bright ray of sunshine!

  37. Bulbachu says:

    Well, at least it’s writing. It’s more than CNN and ABC, etc. can manage. I think they’re still working with pictures.. or maybe not that far, yet.

  38. John Harsin says:

    1. Its handmade – real grassroots movements don’t use factory-made cookie-cutter signs.

    2. Yes, its spelled wrong – people who are upset about things often write too fast.

    3.Its called a “Tea Party” (You remember American history right? The Boston Tea Party?) *NOT* “Teabaggers” (which is an insulting term used by people to insult the people who think raising taxes on honest hard working people to give free benefits to lazy welfare recipients is a bad idea)

    • Bulbachu says:

      Oh, no John Harsin, do continue. I’m glad someone is making statements and not sitting on the sidelines to boo at the crowd.

    • Dude-ette says:

      Come now John. They brought it on themselves by bringing all of those tea bags to the first “grass-roots *snicker* (can’t even TYPE that with a straight face!) protest that The Fox Variety Show sponsored.

  39. Joseph Fralik says:

    I support the Tea Party movement.

    I am NOT a republican (OR a democrat).

    I agree with Glenn Beck’s positions in regard to taxes, health care “reform” and corruption.

    I do NOT agree with his thinking that not as many Americans believing in an imaginary being he refers to as “God” has anything to do with our problems.

  40. Jason says:

    That’s a terrible photoshop. Put more effort into it next time.

  41. didgit says:

    punditkitchen: “your mom and dad discovering the internet, one thread at a time.”

  42. dirtymind says:

    I wonder if they know the alternative meaning to teabagging and would they continue to call themselves teabaggers if they did

  43. Cani Lupine says:

    Let’s see… Mixing capitol and lowercase letters, couldn’t spell to save her life… Yep. That’s what people who call Fox “news” good information come out to be. Idiots.

  44. TheExorcistX says:

    Thanks for keeping us informed you crayon writing retards

  45. skull025 says:

    someone has a temper. funny that you’re probably a 25 year old drunk redneck and yet i have to tell you to stop insulting yourself.

  46. Bob says:

    :D i agree with you, & unfortunately those liberal bastards on here are going to make fun of your penis size…because they can’t find anything wrong with your spelling. xD


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up