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

 

« Previous | Next »


POLITICAL PARTIES


george washington

POLITICAL PARTIES
He was against ‘em. Too bad the idea didn’t stick.

(George Washington)

People barely remember him …

Picture by: dunno source Caption by: EWAdams via Poster Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

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

» 306 comments

  1. froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

    Wasn’t he also against things like being president?

  2. Lefty says:

    Wow. Didn’t someone call an EWAdams lol today after all the preachy that happened yesterday? They’re psychic.

  3. Dhoti the anti EWAdams-ist says:

    *checks watch*

    Yep, no-talent ass clown makes a LOL…it must be Tuesday…

  4. The Steve says:

    Who was that girl that we used to accuse of slobbering pole to get LoL’s on the frontpage?

    Is it possible that EWAdams is a re-manifestation of a previously annoying personality?

    • shortright the ivanist says:

      heatherjlc… and we already discussed that and don’t think so. heather wasn’t nearly so preachy. although her “LOLs” made it to the home page with the same frequency and with the same lack of actual lol-ing.

  5. Igor the Vigorous says:

    It’s amazing.
    EWA, I leave for months, and you haven’t gotten ANY funnier?
    Is that even possible, around this crew?

  6. ausna says:

    Tom BOOTS!!!! why did the guy on the currency became president?

  7. keithybabes says:

    It’s not funny. It’s kind of preachy, I suppose, but what the Fvck was he getting at? Am I missing something?

  8. doubts says:

    Not only s there a serious lack of funny, there is a serious lack of common sense.
    Yes our current political parties have devolved to angry pre-schoolers in expensive sandboxes, but one party systems = totalitarianism. EW needs to pick up a history book along with a joke book.

  9. Things that are funnier than EWAdams:
    funerals
    drug interventions
    The Color Purple
    being eaten alive by bears
    The Holocaust
    The Passion of the Christ
    A Night at the Roxbury
    Hurricane Katrina
    just to name a few.

  10. Icer says:

    The reason for political parties forming was a direct difference in opinion in Washington’s Cabinet, which formed the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

  11. No1askedme says:

    I’m just curious, EWAdams, do you REALLY have nothing better to do? Also, I’d like to know how many socks you have, I’m guessing around 40.

  12. bitter troll says:

    -makes a dummy, posts a tag labled “EWAdams” and grabs a torch-

  13. RudieCantFail says:

    Given that we use single-member district plurality, political parties were an inevitability. It would require a fundamental change to our electoral process in order to move away from a two-party system.

  14. themightysven says:

    he wasn’t against having political parties, he was against having more than one political party

  15. Ghostwish says:

    Knowledge fail.

    Our founding fathers were against political parties.

    George Washington wasn’t a founding father. He’s just the poor general they convinced to be the first President. Our history books are unsure of his stance on political parties.

    And all your EWA bashers, how could you possibly forget spontaneous combustion?

    • …..this is true…-EXPLODES IN FLAMES- ahhhh! ahhh! yes this is better! AHHHHH

    • ay dios mio EWAdams no es gracioso says:

      I’m pretty sure he meant don’t have just two parties when he said don’t have two parties.

      The lol sucks but it doesn’t mean that EWAdams is stupid.

    • S.A.R. member says:

      again, read “washington” by david McCullough, he was a founding father, even though scarlett fever made him sterile as a boy.

      • Ghostwish says:

        …. what the fork is that sentence even supposed to mean??? Sterile? He had two kids. Both died, tragically enough, but he wasn’t sterile. But what the hell does that have to do with his status as a founding father?

        Apparently, you need to stop reading from this david fellow, and, you know, take HIST 1301.

        • S.A.R. member says:

          david “fellow?” DOCTOR McCullough is a professor amerutis(sp?) and recognized as THE expert on American Political history. He has written several books on ALL the founding fathers. maybe YOU should stop skipping history to shoot dope and start attending your classes ghost. but hey, you probably think Ken Burns is George Burns’ grandson(Ken Burns produced such quaint little films as “the War,” and “the Civil War, btw,…assclown!!!.)

          • Ghostwish says:

            That’s just dandy. You’re still wrong.

            • S.A.R. member says:

              prove it and i’ll admit it

              • Ghostwish says:

                Okay.

                Look up a copy of the declaration of independence, and find George Washington’s signature.

                That was easy. I guess you missed the part, or maybe this david fellow never mentioned it, in which George Washington was not a part of the Congress which decided, planned, and FOUNDED this country. He showed up afterward, in full uniform, and declared that he was ready to fight. He did not found the country, and is hence not a founding father, but he sure to hell fought for it. His brilliant and cunning tactical decisions were one of the few reasons this nation ever existed and resulted in the people of this young nation adoring him so much that he was elected to be the first president, a position which he reluctantly accepted.

                He also wasn’t present during the signing, although there’s quite a few facts that hint he knew of the document. He was a bit too busy doing exactly what he said he would do.

                He didn’t plan America. Many speculate he did not truly want to break from Great Britain, but like many others, events had left him no recourse.

                George Washington wasn’t a founding father. He was more important than that. He was, and still is, one of the sole reasons this nation even exists.

                Oh.

                And he had small pox as a child, not scarlet fever, smart one. You can even trust wikistupida on that.

                • S.A.R. member says:

                  i stand corrected, my apologies, but we both agree that he is the best president this nation ever had, so we are argueing that we agree. its a shame that there are no real leaders in this country like he and his generation. agreed?

                  • Ghostwish says:

                    That’s some mighty big shoes to fill… Apparently, he was 6′ something! But aye, he was, and still is, the best president we’ve ever had.

  16. Shadowdancer21b says:

    We can’t forget that he also thought that male landowners 21 and older should be the only ones who could vote.

  17. Again says:

    Still, you have to remember that of the two parties today the Democrats are by far superior in every aspect.

    Honestly, Republicanism should be outlawed. It promotes violence, inequity, racism, and idiocy.

    • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

      All I will say to this post is this: You fail at life.

      • shortright the ivanist says:

        this is sooooo not fair. peepers AND again?!

        WHAT DID WE DO TO DESERVE THIS!?

        next thing we know, random will be back too.

        • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

          Something tells me that Random won’t be back, at least, not as Random and not with that email address…..

          • Igor the Vigorous says:

            Froo, judging by the amount of time Random has been gone without showing back up to annoy us, I believe PK set A) a cookie on his computer and used it to block him out by blocking the cookie # whenever it tries to submit to the system or B) blocking his IP address, if he’s really, really stupid.

    • Igor the Vigorous says:

      “Honestly, Republicanism should be outlawed. It promotes violence, inequity, racism, and idiocy.”
      Honestly, Again, look- if you want a political opinion to be outlawed, you are the one promoting ignorance and idiocy.
      I’m not saying I agree with people who promote violence, or that they should be allowed to speak their piece, anyone who promotes violence should be an outlaw, damnit. I’m sick of people promoting violence then acting like they’re shocked when the result of their promotions is violence.
      Anyway, we’re all supposed to be able to believe what we want, personally- how Democratic would it be if we could outlaw beliefs here?

      • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

        Republicanism doesn’t promote those things any more than Democratism does. Each party has its own core beliefs, and nuts that carry those beliefs out to scary levels. Again is an idiot.

        • Igor the Vigorous says:

          I completely agree, Froo- I’m just saying that we SHOULD outlaw people actively promoting violence and harm to others.

          • Igor the Vigorous says:

            Andddd I forgot to finish my sentence- regardless of their parties, or what they claim their beliefs are. They’re so whacky they all come out at the same end of the political spectrum, they just don’t want to think about it that way and define themselves by something that they no longer are.

          • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

            That pretty much already is outlawed, darling. It’s been reinforced with the recent hate crime law passed as a rider this week.

            Which brings me to this point: The reason for that rider was given as needing legislation to stop or punish crimes like the murders of Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd. In those cases, everyone either got the death penalty or was given life in prison (that was only one guy, IIRC). So if those crimes were properly punished, what good is adding to the law going to do? It just seems unnecessary and a waste of time.

            • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

              Unfortunately, screaming for the death and dismemberment of someone isn’t a crime. It’s when you act on it that it becomes a crime. There is a possibility that someone encouraging it could be charged as a conspirator or agitator, but do you really want to go down that road? Think about how many statements are made on this site alone calling for the death of trolls. If the troll you tell off and tell to get bent and go die actually gets hurt or killed tonight, do you want to be dragged into court as having promoted his violent demise?

              That’s a very slippery slope, and while I think that idiots who call for the death of others on ideological, religious, or other grounds should be silenced, I can’t bring myself to take the right to be an idiot away from people.

              • Igor the Vigorous says:

                “And while extremists who promote violence against abortion providers could be prosecuted under state and federal law — and particularly under the federal FACE Act — the federal government in recent years has hardly prosecuted any such cases.”
                [http://washingtonindependent.com/45408/prosecutions-of-anti-abortion-extremism-fell-under-bush]
                Froo, I’m saying that people like the leader of the FSU gang should be arrested, because they’re aware of the consequences of their actions, that people really do believe the things they say, and that people will take action on it. In regards to that, Froo, there are also laws about “malicious intent”, etc, that would protect one from such a thing- me telling a troll to die, and him dying the next day, would not be a problem unless I was telling people, in a serious manner that suggested I knew people would follow my instructions, that they should kill him are two different things.

                • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

                  You’re trying to legislate thought in those cases, and while it may be obvious that the leader of the FSU gang is fully aware of the consequences of his words, proving intent in a court of law is one of the hardest things you can do. I’ll defer to Diss on this one. If you don’t have anything concrete, then double jeopardy attaches and you’re screwed as far as holding him accountable for the crime.

                  Like I said before, trying to punish thought or supposed intent is a slippery slope that I don’t want to go down.

                  • Igor the Vigorous says:

                    You know, Froo, I’ve been studying this thing called “Cognitive Dissonance”… And I feel like me even trying to argue this any further would be the same as being a stubborn old mule who can’t admit when he’s wrong. So, I see your point. I just wish we could stop people who’re fully aware of the situation and the power with which they speak and that violence will occur… and they encourage it. To me, it’s the exact same thing morally as committing every crime that you cause yourself.

                    • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

                      I absolutely, 100% agree with you. I wish we could stop it. Personally, I want a license that allows me to shoot, run over, or sterilize 6 idiots a day. Just six, that’s all I’m asking for. I promise I wont’ abuse it….

            • mabsba says:

              I don’t think the families of the people killed in the civil rights movement whose known killers were let off by local law would agree with you.

              I agree with you, however, that the enforcement is uneven. But remember that someone has to request fed involvement.

              • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

                I feel that the legislation for hate crimes is spottily applied at best, and abused at worst. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty (and this is where my main problem is), every crime can be considered a hate crime.

                Also, for it to be a hate crime, the perpetrator has to target a specific group. With the Shepherd case, that’s clear. With the Byrd case, under that definition, it wasn’t a hate crime. Also, if you have a first-time perp, how can you possibly classify what s/he did as a hate crime, absent the declaration?

                These are my main problems with the legislation. That, and the fact that they tend to skew in such a way that certain groups get left out of the protective circle completely.

                • mabsba says:

                  But what I was talking about was why there is the need for the legislation.

                  Most laws are not applied uniformly. But that doesn’t mean they are good or bad laws. And it was actually the failure of local law to apply exisiting laws that created the need for hate crime designation.

                  Incidentally, the perpetrators in the Shepard case did make a declaration. In other cases, writing things like ‘This n*****r ain’t gonna vote’ on a black man’s body is a declaration. Don’t know the Byrd case, sorry.

                  I do agree that any crimes of this magnitude are ‘hate crimes’ in the way we morally define hate. It’s probably a poor choice of words, but I’m not sure what else one would call it. “Beating the sh*t out of you because you’re a f*g” is a bit long.

                  • mabsba says:

                    I understand (I think) what you mean and agree mostly.

                    But do you understand that most crimes are handled by local law? And if they choose not to act, it’s really difficult to do anything. But since this is a federal law, if the locals don’t step up, you CAN call the feds.

                    NOw ideally, there would always be recourse for ANY crime not handled properly locally. Unfortunately that crosses the constitutional division between state and federal authority. So they just keep adding the types of crimes most frequently screwed up locally.

                    But I’m thinking maybe women should be a protected group, eh? Then we could sick the feds on rapists. **leaves to ponder and check on new cat — stupid black cats not getting along**

                  • Igor the Vigorous says:

                    I definitely hope we sick everything we have on rapists…
                    Honestly, I can’t think of a group of people I have more contempt for in this world…

                  • mabsba says:

                    My youngest brother told me that an old Greek penalty was to give the rapist to five of the victim’s male relatives.

                    I thought that was totally unfair. Should be five FEMALE relatives. Men are too soft; with women you know there would be no reproduction of rapists!

                    My father voted for castration with a rusty saw. (Course he had two girls; may have affected his vote.)

      • mabsba says:

        WIN for the teenager’s reply!

    • I blame myself. I summoned him. *hangs head in shame* You’re leaving now, right?

      • Vila Restal says:

        Didn’t they teach you about Protective Pentagrams in Summoning 101. Your summoning circle couldn’t have been created properly. Now go back and try again (and if you happen to summon up a 6′ blond bird carrying sacks of money then pass her over to me :-) )

    • S.A.R. member says:

      democrats were the party of the slaveholding southerners, how is indivuality, freedom of speech and capitalism violent, racist, unequal or idiotic. please respond to each adjective in detail with historical and socialogically verifiable facts. thank you.

    • Jane is a Saint among EWAdams says:

      Well, I admit my attendance has been spotty at best lately.

      • Rando the Randoist says:

        Low attendance means you don’t get the coupon for the free cheeseburger at McDonald’s. Only those with perfect attendance get the cheeseburger coupon.

  18. Girlysprite says:

    You know, I never noticed how rosy his cheeks were. Well, it’s offtopic, but just look…it’s like he is shy and blushing away!

    • slupine says:

      Guys wore makeup back then.

      • HelOnWheels says:

        French courtiers wore makeup back then; make up was rarely if ever worn by the colonists. Actually, in the American colonies, between 1700 and 1800, makeup was outlawed (by churches, I believe). The most that George probably would have worn was some powder on his wig. This is a painting of Washington, not a photo. There’s some creative license going on here, making George look not so pale by giving him rosy cheeks.

        • froofrou the Barenaked Lady says:

          I saw a show on the History Channel about death masks of famous people, and George was one of them. According to the show, he contracted small pox as a young man and had pockmarks on his face. The artistic license in this painting probably extends to making the pockmarks and skin discoloration into a nice rosy glow.

        • Even french kings whore makeup back then, and since they controlled american presidents, i suppose it’s safe to say that they made them wear makeup as well, to show their subordination.

    • keithybabes who thinks EWadams is a demmed bed het, what what? says:

      Maybe he’s just been teabagged.

  19. slupine says:

    Eh? I thought he had a political party, just that he was against a bipartisan system?

    Need to brush up on my history.

    • Merbet says:

      He technically preached against politics, but probably best affiliated with the Federalist party based on some of his actions and ideas of a centralized government and the like. If anything, he was on the brink of being hypocritical with his hammering against party politics but obvious slant towards one side. But he never claimed to be perfect.

  20. bailey says:

    well i guess no one followed the one truest greatest speech this man ever made. and frufru to you i have to say go to hell dumbass

  21. Captain Wow for the severe beating of EWAdams says:

    I think we can all agree on one thing Georgie here wasn’t against. Man-Rouge!
    -
    Also, he totallylookslike Bernie Madoff… or Bernie looks like him.

  22. bob says:

    Who cares what he would’ve thought? He’s dead.

  23. bitter troll is confused, this is amuseing and cute, where is the preachy, non-amuseing, boreing and inaccurate. this scares bitter troll who does not like change, where is the “lol” about how the troops save us everyday and we should blow them, or the “lol” about about a fireman being a true hero again and again. perhaps him saveing a kitten while children burn to death and how we should blow them too. where is it?

  24. SigSauer says:

    Too bad Washington wants a big, centralized government. Or else he’d be THE man.

  25. Sean says:

    First of all- not funny caption, you kind have to add some comedic spice not just go out there and say it and expect laughs. That’s like saying this is a funny caption.

    “Bush went to war with Iraq. That was a bad idea.”
    HAHAAAAHHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!

    Also, the problem with Washington’s plan is that ideologies eventually split into parties. It’s kind of inevitable. That was just a pipe dream of his.

  26. trusts says:

    GW was not all he was made out to be. not my hero.

  27. Champagne and Gunsmoke says:

    Washington was opposed to political parties because he was worried about a system where members of the party who won the election would lord it over those who lost. In other words, he was concerned political parties would divide the nation and lead to a “ruling class”.

  28. MLD says:

    when did pundit kitchen become preachit kitchen? I appreciate the truth behind this picture and the Einstein quote one, but… really don’t come here to get preached at–my bible and my history books do that

  29. Christine says:

    And yet, by being against them, he created them.

  30. Star says:

    George Washington is an idiot. He didn’t do anything.

  31. colBoh says:

    Dear Lord, THIS!!!


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