The Cellar
Page 6 of 28 12345 6 7891011121316 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The Obamanation (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19310)

piercehawkeye45 04-11-2009 11:01 AM
We realize they are no different then any other country?

TheMercenary 04-11-2009 11:12 AM
If that is the case do you continue to treat them as "partners".

piercehawkeye45 04-11-2009 11:37 AM
Of course, you just try to put yourself in the position to exploit them in return.

classicman 04-11-2009 11:37 AM
no merc, you are mistaken and your fear is irrational. The whole world just wants to hold hands with us and sing Kumbayah.

sugarpop 04-12-2009 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 555201)
So what happens when they act like our partner and in fact they are actually using the relationship to screw us at every corner and take advantage of our friendships to exploit the relationship for their gain at our loss or worse to facilitate our demise?
It is my contention that we are the ones who created the mess in the first place, by our past actions. We continually get involved in the politics of these kinds of countries, and it always comes back and bites us in the ass. Usually though, we do it for selfish reasons. Maybe if we try doing something for unselfish reasons we might find more success. However, there will still be some (al qaeda, taliban, etc.) who want to destroy us. We will never minimize those people if we continue doing what we've always done, because we know it doesn't work. It's time to throw that playbook away and try something different. Maybe we should just LEAVE that part of the world altogether and let them work out their problems on their own.

lookout123 04-13-2009 01:51 PM
we haven't tried turning that region into a glass parking lot yet. should we try that?

richlevy 04-13-2009 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 555980)
we haven't tried turning that region into a glass parking lot yet. should we try that?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to park on glass?

I think you mixed your metaphors there.

TheMercenary 04-13-2009 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 555837)
It is my contention that we are the ones who created the mess in the first place, by our past actions. We continually get involved in the politics of these kinds of countries, and it always comes back and bites us in the ass. Usually though, we do it for selfish reasons. Maybe if we try doing something for unselfish reasons we might find more success. However, there will still be some (al qaeda, taliban, etc.) who want to destroy us. We will never minimize those people if we continue doing what we've always done, because we know it doesn't work. It's time to throw that playbook away and try something different. Maybe we should just LEAVE that part of the world altogether and let them work out their problems on their own.
Well just nail us to a cross.

Not.

Fuck that.

lookout123 04-13-2009 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 556061)
Do you have any idea how hard it is to park on glass?

I think you mixed your metaphors there.
I think it would be pretty. miles and miles of glass.

TheMercenary 04-19-2009 09:36 AM
An Airport to Nowhere. You'all remember that bridge in AK?

Quote:
Murtha's Earmarks Keep Airport Aloft
State-of-the-Art Pennsylvania Facility Sees Few Travelers but Lots of Funding

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 19, 2009



JOHNSTOWN, Pa. -- The John Murtha airport sits on a windy mountain two hours east of Pittsburgh, a 650-acre expanse of smooth tarmac, spacious buildings, a helicopter hangar and a National Guard training center.

Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.

The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway.

The facility, newly renamed the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, is a testament to Murtha's ability to tap streams of federal money for pricey, state-of-the-art projects that are rare among regional airports of comparable size.

Murtha, dubbed the King of Pork by critics, consistently directs more federal money to his district than any other congressman -- $192 million in the 2008 budget. His pattern of steering millions in earmarks to defense contractors who give to his campaign and hire his allies as lobbyists is being scrutinized by the FBI as part of an investigation of a lobbying firm led by one of Murtha's closest friends.

The lawmaker, who uses the airport frequently during his campaigns, has steadily steered millions of taxpayer dollars to it to build a new terminal with a restaurant; a long, concrete runway sturdy enough to handle large jets; and a high-tech radar system usually reserved for international airports.

The airport's passenger count has fallen by more than half in the past 10 years. When Johnstown native Bill Previte arrived on a recent morning, he lamented that his plane was half-empty and that the terminal was deserted.

"Doesn't it seem kind of ridiculous to have a motorized carousel for the baggage claim when 15 people get off the airplane?" he said. "It's obvious: There's not enough population to justify this place."

Murtha, who heads the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, has fought for airport funding as a way to bring jobs to his congressional district, devastated by losses in the steel and coal industries.

Murtha spokesman Matt Mazonkey defended the public spending and said it is unfair to weigh the airport's low volume of passengers against the federal dollars invested in the facility. He noted that several regional airports are confronting the same problem.

"Would we like to have additional commercial flights and business? Absolutely. But you don't attract additional business without having the infrastructure in place to do so," Mazonkey said.

Airport officials said the facility has been a selling point for businesses that are considering locating in Johnstown and praised Murtha's dedication to ensuring air service for the community.

"Mr. Murtha's been a godsend to this airport, no question about it," said airport manager Scott Voelker, who took the job nine months ago. "The economy's been really bad here since the steel mills pulled out. He has a vision for developing this airport and using it to bring businesses into this community."

But a watchdog group on federal waste called the airport a "white elephant."
continues:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...802128_pf.html

TGRR 04-19-2009 12:18 PM
I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

sugarpop 04-19-2009 02:43 PM
He should be voted out of office.

Hopefully this silliness will start ending and the money will only be spent where it actually should be used. That isn't to say that money should never be used in sparsely populated areas. But, it should be used wisely, and that doesn't sound wise, what Murtha was doing.

xoxoxoBruce 04-19-2009 02:54 PM
But the "watchdogs" will be lining up to use it when dirty bombs hit the cities with major airports. Once again PA in preparing while the rest of the country lags behind. :p

classicman 04-19-2009 07:35 PM
Quote:
$800,000 to repave a backup runway.
Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays
Isn't the Pittsburgh airport just a hundred miles or so away?
Who is the backup runway for anyway?
Quote:
a watchdog group on federal waste called the airport a "white elephant."
So what, we in the cellar have a pink one!

TheMercenary 04-19-2009 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 557886)
He should be voted out of office.

Hopefully this silliness will start ending and the money will only be spent where it actually should be used. That isn't to say that money should never be used in sparsely populated areas. But, it should be used wisely, and that doesn't sound wise, what Murtha was doing.
I am not sure that they treated the Gov of AK with such kit gloves.

TGRR 04-19-2009 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 558020)
I am not sure that they treated the Gov of AK with such kit gloves.

What, she was impeached, or something? News to me.

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 03:40 PM
Morris nails another one on Obama.

Obama’s leap to socialism
By Dick Morris
Quote:
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.

Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.

Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial “stress test.” Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But don’t believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.

The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.



Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obama...009-04-21.html

TheMercenary 04-23-2009 03:42 PM
On this note Obama should be applauded.

Quote:
Obama is doing what he said he would do to put science back in business. In response to a Federal court decision, his administration is allowing 17-year-olds to obtain the morning after pill without a prescription or parental consent.
George Bush had refused to approve the use of morning after pills for young women, so this new decision has consequences politically for the Obama administration and at the same time fulfilling a promise to overturn the previous administration’s policies on matters of birth control. While some people will react this encourages promiscuity, others believe that this will in effect reduce the risk of teenage pregnancies. That’s particularly true if the teenager has been a victim of date rape, incest or one of these issues of consequence to young women. Still it is controversial.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271391

sugarpop 04-23-2009 04:31 PM
I would think moving from preferred stock to common stock would raise more eyebrows because it means taxpayers are less protected, which is bad.

As far as nationalizing the banks, they might should have done that from the beginning, at least until everything is under control. If they have common stock, they have a big say in what is going on, and since the banks aren't doing what they were supposed to be doing with all the stimulus money they received, then I say good for Obama for making a tough choice. Someone needs to be protecting our interests, and if that is the only way to do it then bankers only have themselves to blame, right? After all, all those highfalutin wall streeters brought this hell down on the rest of us.

Undertoad 04-23-2009 05:03 PM
Quote:
George Bush had refused to approve the use of morning after pills for young women
Because righty knee-jerkers confused it with RU-486, the "abortion pill"...

...thus more actual abortions happened amongst young women who could not get the Plan B pill.

In the culture war, I guess we call that friendly fire. Shooting off your fetus to save your face, or something...

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 02:13 PM
Not sure if this is the kind of publicity that they should be proud of at the moment.

First Lady Michelle Obama steps out in Lanvin sneakers and they're only $540!

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...as_lanvin.html

xoxoxoBruce 05-02-2009 02:29 PM
Why not, they're millionaires spending their own money.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 02:33 PM
I guess I just thought they should be a little more sensitive to the millionis being laid off from work this week. But hey, that's just me. :footpyth:

TGRR 05-02-2009 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562250)
I guess I just thought they should be a little more sensitive to the millionis being laid off from work this week. But hey, that's just me. :footpyth:
Because rich people NOT spending money is going to fix the economy.

No, really.

Why do you hate the rich just for having more than you do?

xoxoxoBruce 05-02-2009 02:39 PM
Oh, you're so sensitive. :rolleyes:
She was volunteering at the food bank and spending money to get the economy rolling. :p

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 02:45 PM
I found some shoes for her! She can order them and shouldn't have to pay the VAT.

http://www.zazzle.co.uk/obama_world_...55166347623860

xoxoxoBruce 05-02-2009 02:46 PM
That's what UG wears.

TGRR 05-02-2009 02:49 PM
This is why Obama should simply forget that the right exists. They're going to hate him no matter what, so he should allow them precisely zero say in his policies.

Congressional Dems should, too, especially with Specter's defection. If I was in their shoes, I'd be booting republicans off of committees so fast they'd leave skidmarks in the cloakroom.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 02:49 PM
Quote:
xoxoxoBruce

That's what UG wears.
Heh. I doubt it.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 02:57 PM
Shoes for Bush:

http://classicfun.ws/animated-gif-pi...him/2008/12/15

xoxoxoBruce 05-02-2009 02:58 PM
You're right, they'd probably clash with his My Little Warhorse outfit.

TheMercenary 05-03-2009 07:36 AM
I was thinking more like some such as these:

http://www.crazyhorsewest.com/detail.aspx?ID=951

Urbane Guerrilla 05-05-2009 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 562262)
That's what UG wears.
Oh I do not! :D Really, I don't.

And c'mon, have you ever tried to make a barded warhorse giddyup by thumping at his flanks with sneakered feet? It's a real study in no go.

sugarpop 05-06-2009 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 562241)
Not sure if this is the kind of publicity that they should be proud of at the moment.

First Lady Michelle Obama steps out in Lanvin sneakers and they're only $540!

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...as_lanvin.html
Oh good grief! Most of the time she wears stuff like J. Crew, which is a store I could actually afford to shop in. So you're going to condemn her for having a pair of shoes, which she bought with her own money, that are expensive? Where oh where was the outrage when Sarah Palin was donning clothes costing many thousands of dollars and paid for with campaign funds, hmmmm?

TheMercenary 05-06-2009 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 563345)
Oh good grief! Most of the time she wears stuff like J. Crew, which is a store I could actually afford to shop in. So you're going to condemn her for having a pair of shoes, which she bought with her own money, that are expensive? Where oh where was the outrage when Sarah Palin was donning clothes costing many thousands of dollars and paid for with campaign funds, hmmmm?
When is the last time you could afford $550+ shoes and felt like you could flaunt it as thousands and thousands of Americans were laid off from their jobs? Get the point?

TGRR 05-06-2009 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 563386)
When is the last time you could afford $550+ shoes and felt like you could flaunt it as thousands and thousands of Americans were laid off from their jobs? Get the point?
No.

Unless your point is that you want the first lady to dress like a WalMart yahoo.

Is that your goal? Or are you just truly desperate for something to snivel about?

Urbane Guerrilla 05-06-2009 11:50 PM
Personally, in low-quarter shoes I mostly top out at about $150. I once got some custom-built mocs for roughly $260.

classicman 05-07-2009 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 563386)
$550+ shoes Get the point?
I get you're point, but I have to say I disagree.
They are millionaires and she is the FIRST LADY - She better be wearing the best there is.

TheMercenary 05-07-2009 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 563511)
I get you're point, but I have to say I disagree.
They are millionaires and she is the FIRST LADY - She better be wearing the best there is.
Not while people can't feed their families, she better be keeping quite about it and setting the example with some Keds.

classicman 05-07-2009 09:04 PM
Again, I still disagree. What I do find more than irritating is the press coverage over every article of clothing she has and wears.... Who gives a shit? Geez, get a life people!

TheMercenary 05-07-2009 09:40 PM
I want to know if she is a thong gurl or a panties gurl. Now that would be news.

classicman 05-08-2009 10:17 AM
Quote:
WASHINGTON—After nearly four months of frank, honest, and open dialogue about the failing economy, a weary U.S. populace announced this week that it is once again ready to be lied to about the current state of the financial system.

Tired of hearing the grim truth about their economic future, Americans demand that the bald-faced lies resume immediately, particularly whenever politicians feel the need to divulge another terrifying problem with Wall Street, the housing market, or any one of a hundred other ticking time bombs everyone was better off not knowing about.

"I thought I wanted a new era of transparency and accountability, but honestly, I just can't handle it," Ohio resident Nathan Pletcher said. "All I ever hear about now is how my retirement has been pushed back 15 years and how I won't be able to afford my daughter's tuition when she grows up."

The national call for decreased candor began last month, after the Department of Labor released another soul-crushing report that most Americans agreed "wasn't helping anything" and "didn't need to be so specific."
I guess they've had enough of the transparency. :rolleyes:

Shawnee123 05-08-2009 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 563675)
Again, I still disagree. What I do find more than irritating is the press coverage over every article of clothing she has and wears.... Who gives a shit? Geez, get a life people!
I wonder if all this crap surrounded Jackie? Seriously.

You're right, c-man...she is the first freaking lady for christ's sake. She is also a beautiful and intelligent woman. Leave her the hell alone.

Quote:
I want to know if she is a thong gurl or a panties gurl. Now that would be news
Nice.

TheMercenary 05-08-2009 10:47 AM
Hey, I was just piling on. :D

Shawnee123 05-08-2009 10:52 AM
I know. ;)

classicman 05-08-2009 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 563813)
Hey, I was just piling on.
But you are all alone in that pile. :eyebrow:

TheMercenary 05-08-2009 12:38 PM
I say put them all on a bus and send them to Washington D. C. and drop them off in front of the White House en mass.

Quote:
Obama budget nixes aid for jailing illegal immigrants
By Ian Swanson and Walter Alarkon
Posted: 05/08/09 09:24 AM [ET]
President Obama voted in the Senate to provide additional funding for a program targeted for elimination by his budget that provides states a federal subsidy to offset the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.

Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) would save $400 million, according to Obama's budget for fiscal 2010 released Thursday. It's one of the largest non-defense discretionary cuts proposed in the president's budget.



The program is popular with border-state politicians on Capitol Hill, however, making its elimination a tough sell to lawmakers, particularly from California.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has repeatedly pushed for additional funding for the program, and lawmakers from other states that have costs associated with illegal aliens have also offered support.

A bipartisan trio of House members from California have drafted a letter urging the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to restore funding for the SCAAP program. The three members, Reps. Mike Honda (D), Adam Schiff (D) and Jerry Lewis, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, are also asking the rest of the California House delegation to sign the letter, Honda's office said.

As an Illinois senator, Obama co-sponsored an amendment offered by then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), now Obama's secretary of state, that would have provided additional funding for the program. It also would have established a grant program to defray local government healthcare and education costs for non-citizens.

"Each year, the SCAAP program is underfunded," Clinton said in 2006 comments urging support for her amendment. She cited a 2005 Government Accountability Office study that found local governments get only 25 percent of their costs reimbursed through the program.

"Throughout our country and in my state, there are counties and municipalities that are covering the costs of dealing with education, healthcare, and law enforcement without adequate or any federal reimbursement," Clinton said. "So we have left our local and state governments to fend for themselves. They should not be left to bear these costs alone because it is not they who are making federal immigration policy."

Another Obama Cabinet member, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado, was also a co-sponsor.

Obama voted for the amendment, but it was defeated 43-52.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that has called for tougher border security, predicted it is "very unlikely" that Obama's proposal to cut the program will be accepted by Congress. He noted that the Bush administration repeatedly tried to zero out the program, but always ran into opposition in Congress.

"It's hard to justify getting rid of it honestly," Krikorian said. "It's a necessary program because the federal government is reimbursing states and localities for the federal government's own mistakes."

Krikorian, like Clinton in 2006, argued immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and if state and local jails are incarcerating illegal immigrants, it is because of failed federal policies.

According to the fiscal 2010 budget, Obama's administration thinks resources used for the program could be better used to enhance federal efforts to curb illegal immigration.

"In place of SCAAP, the administration proposes a comprehensive border enforcement strategy that supports resources for a comprehensive approach to enforcement along the nation's borders that combines law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts to investigate arrest, detail, and prosecute illegal immigrants and other criminals," the budget states.

It emphasizes that the budget will provide funding for an additional 20,000
Border Patrol agents, and an additional $1.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs to support the quick identification and removal of illegal aliens who commit crimes in the U.S.

The Office of Management and Budget did not respond when contacted about this story.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-05-08.html

TheMercenary 05-08-2009 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 563838)
But you are all alone in that pile. :eyebrow:
Use to it. No surprise there. Nor do I care much anymore.

classicman 05-08-2009 12:49 PM
Well, that was a poor attempt at humor on my part - you really can't have a one-man pile now can you?

TheMercenary 05-08-2009 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 563855)
you really can't have a one-man pile now can you?
I wouldn't think so but I am sure someone here will debate that with you. :D

Tiki 05-08-2009 05:53 PM
http://www.superpoop.com/050509/frowny-face.jpg

:(

TheMercenary 05-11-2009 10:16 AM
Quote:
CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player who grew up in Northern Ireland, has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and he created a foundation to help wounded soldiers.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...llas-magazine/

Quote:
Not funny: Barack Obama laughs at Wanda Sykes "joke" about wanting Rush Limbaugh dead

What was Wanda Sykes thinking? Perhaps more to the point, what was President Barack Obama thinking when he laughed and smiled as the comedienne wished Rush Limbaugh dead?

Although the Left is reporting her White House Correspondents' Dinner speech as "taking shots" at Limbaugh and mocking everyone, that's a gross misrepresentation of what turned into a hateful and disgusting diatribe.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha..._limbaugh_dead

classicman 05-11-2009 10:55 AM
Saying she wished him dead is a serious stretch, but hey if thats all they got to go with... I wish them luck.

tw 05-11-2009 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 564784)
Saying she wished him dead is a serious stretch,
Death of Limbaugh could only be good for Republicans. The party could then stop infighting - have leadership - stop self-destructing as extremists such as Limbaugh drive smarter (moderate) Republicans from the party.

Some need Limbaugh to lead a charge forward into political destruction. This Republican Party self-destruction means more harm to America.

sugarpop 05-12-2009 11:37 AM
So it's OK for people on the right to wish Ted Kennedy dead, but it isn't OK for a comedian to wish Rush Limbaugh dead? Ok, got it.

classicman 05-12-2009 11:45 AM
Cite some examples of that sugar.

Shawnee123 05-12-2009 11:53 AM
It's OK...the universe balances out: Cheney singing Limbaugh's praises to Bob Schieffer (who couldn't contain a grin) as the evil forces continue to blow each other.

Wanda Sykes is a comedienne: she also ripped on Michelle "look at you pattin' the queen on the back like you just slid into home."

I don't think poor Mr Limbaugh really gives a shit, and if he does he can just pop another oxy.

And a dead Limbaugh isn't such a bothersome thought. So sue me.

Pie 05-12-2009 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 565143)
And a dead Limbaugh isn't such a bothersome thought. So sue me.
Yes, but they smell. :turd:

Shawnee123 05-12-2009 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pie (Post 565147)
Yes, but they smell. :turd:
LIM-baugh, LIM-burger...coincidence? I think not.

:lol:

TheMercenary 05-30-2009 01:51 AM
If these guys were white the press would have hung them.

Quote:
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:46 AM.
Page 6 of 28 12345 6 7891011121316 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.