bhodilee wrote:That reads like Mad libs:

The _______, not playing by the ______? Not ______ up to their name?

I'm ______, just _______.

This is true of both parties. They both suck, just in different ways. One is a Hoover, the other a Dyson.

You need to create a Bowtie Book of Mad Libs!!!!

PetiteSirah wrote:The Democrats, not playing by the rules? Not living up to their name?

I'm SHOCKED, just SHOCKED.

The boos at the announcement will write Republican TV and radio ads for years.

I wouldn't have voted for it, either. It was just stupid. Who cares if there's one silly mention of God in there or not? Changing it just gives Romney's ridiculous argument legitimacy.

MarkDaSpark wrote:What you smoking there?

Except what Slick Willie failed to mention, is that he had a change in Congress midway during his 1st term. And by changing from his initial Far Left (Hilary Care, etc.) to a more middle of the road stance, he was able to work with the Republicans.

Unlike Obama, who stayed Far Left in his stance, failed to work with the Republicans, and will fail to get a 2nd term because of that.

Plus you know the missing items on the Dem Platform had to be due to him. Which is going to lose him the Pro-Israeli vote.


And I think there will be many who disagree with you about the "failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country". Especially with the failed, miserable policies of the current admin. How does that saying go? "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

New saying ... "It's a poor President who blames everyone else, year after year, instead of working to make it better." Obama hasn't been working to make it better, only worse.

And you know that Carter is going to be going on and thanking Obama for taking over the title of Worst President ever.

For the record, I'm JUST FINE with them taking God out of my politics. He has no place there and I kindly thank him to mind his own business.

Insofar as Jerusalem (I honestly had no idea most of the world didn't recognize this as the capitol), Obama is down for it being the capitol, it's other brainiacs in his party that want to stick with the "international" community.

Really, who the flunk is any other country to tell another what it's capitol is. That pisses me off. I wish Israel would say, you know what, flunk you USA, we say Omaha is your capitol.

bhodilee wrote:For the record, I'm JUST FINE with them taking God out of my politics. He has no place there and I kindly thank him to mind his own business.

Insofar as Jerusalem (I honestly had no idea most of the world didn't recognize this as the capitol), Obama is down for it being the capitol, it's other brainiacs in his party that want to stick with the "international" community.

Really, who the flunk is any other country to tell another what it's capitol is. That pisses me off. I wish Israel would say, you know what, flunk you USA, we say Omaha is your capitol.

I like this comment a lot.

More fun with facebook. Today I learned that Obama is bad because someone's distant acquaintance has lost some of her disability check under Obama. At least he didn't complain about socialism in the same breath.

chemvictim wrote:More fun with facebook. Today I learned that Obama is bad because someone's distant acquaintance has lost some of her disability check under Obama. At least he didn't complain about socialism in the same breath.

You have some interesting facebook friends!

inkycatz wrote:You have some interesting facebook friends!

I sure do. I grew up in a very red state and most people hate Obama, for reasons ranging from reasonable to bizarre.

chemvictim wrote:I sure do. I grew up in a very red state and most people hate Obama, for reasons ranging from reasonable to bizarre.

But, your given example sounds like a red state win. I'm now confused. It's because he cheered for Tiger Woods isn't it.

bhodilee wrote:I'll get told I'm wrong, but I've always seen the presidency like football. We seem to do best when we have stability. Look at the Steelers, great team, have been for roughly ever. Three coaches over god knows how many years. Now look at Detroit, they suck almost always. Coach after coach, after coach, no stability. If Barack gets reelected (and I would be shocked if he didn't), I think things will start to turn around a little quicker than they have. Always seems to work that way. People, including those living, breathing organisms, corporations, will know what to expect and adapt to fit. Kind of like how when I was a freshman in college I did homework because I didn't know what to expect. Sophomore year I learned and did better and by Junior year I could have slept walked through the courses (and basically did).

Edit: the filter for homework, makes that sentence totally homework

How does this theory account for the turn-around and improvement in the economy during Clinton's first term, given that he replaced a 1-term president in Bush?

jawlz wrote:How does this theory account for the turn-around and improvement in the economy during Clinton's first term, given that he replaced a 1-term president in Bush?

It was a Bush he replaced.

Seems pretty simple

MarkDaSpark wrote:What you smoking there?

Except what Slick Willie failed to mention, is that he had a change in Congress midway during his 1st term. And by changing from his initial Far Left (Hilary Care, etc.) to a more middle of the road stance, he was able to work with the Republicans.

Unlike Obama, who stayed Far Left in his stance, failed to work with the Republicans, and will fail to get a 2nd term because of that.

Plus you know the missing items on the Dem Platform had to be due to him. Which is going to lose him the Pro-Israeli vote.


And I think there will be many who disagree with you about the "failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country". Especially with the failed, miserable policies of the current admin. How does that saying go? "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

New saying ... "It's a poor President who blames everyone else, year after year, instead of working to make it better." Obama hasn't been working to make it better, only worse.

And you know that Carter is going to be going on and thanking Obama for taking over the title of Worst President ever.

I smoke Marlboro Lights and an occasional Cohiba cigar, thank you. I refuse to divulge any other information about my inhalation habits.

I don't believe Obama has failed to work with the Republicans as much as the Republicans have failed to work with Obama, after all it was Mitch McConnell who said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That hardly speaks well for bi-partisan cooperation I would think.

I stand by my view, shared by many that Bush II was by far one of the worst presidents ever, even worse than Jimmy Carter, at least Carter didn't start any wars and only did 4 years of damage, not 8. I think it is telling that Bush II didn't make a speech at the RNC, and he was only mentioned obliquely (and negatively by his own party) whereas the second president ever to be impeached gave one of the best political speeches ever at the DNC. Of course the Republicans had Clint Eastwood for whatever that was worth.

edlada wrote:I smoke Marlboro Lights and an occasional Cohiba cigar, thank you. I refuse to divulge any other information about my inhalation habits.

I don't believe Obama has failed to work with the Republicans as much as the Republicans have failed to work with Obama, after all it was Mitch McConnell who said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That hardly speaks well for bi-partisan cooperation I would think.

I stand by my view, shared by many that Bush II was by far one of the worst presidents ever, even worse than Jimmy Carter, at least Carter didn't start any wars and only did 4 years of damage, not 8. I think it is telling that Bush II didn't make a speech at the RNC, and he was only mentioned obliquely (and negatively by his own party) whereas the second president ever to be impeached gave one of the best political speeches ever at the DNC. Of course the Republicans had Clint Eastwood for whatever that was worth.

Obama's excuses wear thin. He had larger majorities in both houses of Congress than any Republican has ever had. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as well (thanks to felons voting in Minnesota and Arlen Specter's senility), which he would have kept if he didn't tack so far to the left that the voters of MASSACHUSETTS elected a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.

Obama could have done and did whatever he wanted during his first 2 years. But rather than do anything to actually fix the economy or create jobs (which of course, he knows nothing about, never having been involved in anything remotely approaching job creation), he wasted a ton of money on a pork-filled stimulus bill and decided to ram through Obamacare after letting Pelosi and Reid write it.

So yeah, the Republicans were intransigent -- but that was worthless for 2 years.

And, unlike Clinton, Obama refused adjust to the new political realities following his first 2 radical years. More of that famous "leading from behind", I guess.

Clinton compromised with the Republicans on a number of issues, which took a lot of the wind out of their sails. Obama's second-half featured a gutting of that same Clintonian welfare reform accomplishment.

Clinton still had political contacts on the Republicans and still played ball. He invited Republicans to Camp David and socialized with them. Obama, when pressed to compromise during his first 2 years, or include some republican ideas in the stimulus package, would have none of it, simply stating "I won."

But right, it was republican intransigence that's to blame for all of this. Silly me.

We clearly aren't good enough for a president like Obama!

PetiteSirah wrote:Obama's excuses wear thin. He had larger majorities in both houses of Congress than any Republican has ever had. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as well (thanks to felons voting in Minnesota and Arlen Specter's senility), which he would have kept if he didn't tack so far to the left that the voters of MASSACHUSETTS elected a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy's seat.

Obama could have done and did whatever he wanted during his first 2 years. But rather than do anything to actually fix the economy or create jobs (which of course, he knows nothing about, never having been involved in anything remotely approaching job creation), he wasted a ton of money on a pork-filled stimulus bill and decided to ram through Obamacare after letting Pelosi and Reid write it.

So yeah, the Republicans were intransigent -- but that was worthless for 2 years.

And, unlike Clinton, Obama refused adjust to the new political realities following his first 2 radical years. More of that famous "leading from behind", I guess.

Clinton compromised with the Republicans on a number of issues, which took a lot of the wind out of their sails. Obama's second-half featured a gutting of that same Clintonian welfare reform accomplishment.

Clinton still had political contacts on the Republicans and still played ball. He invited Republicans to Camp David and socialized with them. Obama, when pressed to compromise during his first 2 years, or include some republican ideas in the stimulus package, would have none of it, simply stating "I won."

But right, it was republican intransigence that's to blame for all of this. Silly me.

We clearly aren't good enough for a president like Obama!

I pretty much agree with all of this. The only thing I will say is that the pubs are now playing childish by saying you didn't work with us at first so we won't work with you now. Two wrongs and all that. I really disliked Obama's stimulus packages, I hate Obabacare (and Pelosi entirely), and I don't think he's done much to help anything. I am not sure, however, that anyone really could. That's not the point l, though. Obama screwed up. Yeah. But we need someone in Washington who will act like an adult. And right now, neither side will do so.

PetiteSirah wrote:
...it was republican intransigence that's to blame for all of this.

Sorry, just borrowing from the Romney/Ryan play book.

Amazing how things look when quoted out of context.

jawlz wrote:How does this theory account for the turn-around and improvement in the economy during Clinton's first term, given that he replaced a 1-term president in Bush?

Because there was a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

How quickly the "Contract with America" is forgotten.

edlada wrote:I smoke Marlboro Lights and an occasional Cohiba cigar, thank you. I refuse to divulge any other information about my inhalation habits.

I don't believe Obama has failed to work with the Republicans as much as the Republicans have failed to work with Obama, after all it was Mitch McConnell who said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That hardly speaks well for bi-partisan cooperation I would think.

I stand by my view, shared by many that Bush II was by far one of the worst presidents ever, even worse than Jimmy Carter, at least Carter didn't start any wars and only did 4 years of damage, not 8. I think it is telling that Bush II didn't make a speech at the RNC, and he was only mentioned obliquely (and negatively by his own party) whereas the second president ever to be impeached gave one of the best political speeches ever at the DNC. Of course the Republicans had Clint Eastwood for whatever that was worth.

And the fact that it's been reported that the White House doesn't have the Speaker of the House's phone number shows that Obama wants to work with them?


Clinton moved to the Center when the Republicans took the House & Senate. And worked with them. Obama needed to move to the Center, and has failed to do so.


Oh, and by the way, Carter caused the mess that is Iran, among other foreign policy disasters.

kylemittskus wrote:I pretty much agree with all of this. The only thing I will say is that the pubs are now playing childish by saying you didn't work with us at first so we won't work with you now. Two wrongs and all that. I really disliked Obama's stimulus packages, I hate Obabacare (and Pelosi entirely), and I don't think he's done much to help anything. I am not sure, however, that anyone really could. That's not the point l, though. Obama screwed up. Yeah. But we need someone in Washington who will act like an adult. And right now, neither side will do so.

Hate on Obama all you want but I haven't heard anything from Romney or Ryan that is any different from what we suffered under Bush II for 8 years. Lets see, cut taxes for the wealthy, check. Increase defense spending, check. Gut social programs, check. They might actually have a platform but all I have heard so far is gloom, doom, failure to lead, we will create millions of jobs (not any plan, just a statement) and no abortion under any circumstances. Oh yeah, a lot of vague stuff about the Constitution too, thank god the conservatives have recently read the Constitution since apparently no one else did for the past 200 years. Yeah, there is a fine pair for you.

Both choices may be lousy but I am fare more comfortable with Obama than letting Romney have the reins. I am in the wrong income bracket for R&R to be my friends.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Because there was a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

How quickly the "Contract with America" is forgotten.

Not forgotten, and wasn't my point (which was that the theory of 'stability,' as represented by a two-term president, always being better for the country isn't very persuasive).

edlada wrote:Hate on Obama all you want but I haven't heard anything from Romney or Ryan that is any different from what we suffered under Bush II for 8 years. Lets see, cut taxes for the wealthy, check. Increase defense spending, check. Gut social programs, check. They might actually have a platform but all I have heard so far is gloom, doom, failure to lead, we will create millions of jobs (not any plan, just a statement) and no abortion under any circumstances. Oh yeah, a lot of vague stuff about the Constitution too, thank god the conservatives have recently read the Constitution since apparently no one else did for the past 200 years. Yeah, there is a fine pair for you.

Both choices may be lousy but I am fare more comfortable with Obama than letting Romney have the reins. I am in the wrong income bracket for R&R to be my friends.

Don't get me wrong. I am not happy with Romney. All of the Jesus stuff won't actually matter, though, because he's not going to change supreme court decisions. And since I fall on the fiscally conservative side, I'm voting republican. I fall on the socially liberal side at the same time. But I think Obama has done what he can on that front (no more don't ask don't tell) and did it well. The next big one is marriage for homosexuals, but I don't think obama can do anything there. And Romney can't make it any worse. Things suck. Let's try a change. Things will likely still suck, but we know they'll continue to suck if we stay the same.

edlada wrote:Hate on Obama all you want but I haven't heard anything from Romney or Ryan that is any different from what we suffered under Bush II for 8 years. Lets see, cut taxes for the wealthy, check. Increase defense spending, check. Gut social programs, check. They might actually have a platform but all I have heard so far is gloom, doom, failure to lead, we will create millions of jobs (not any plan, just a statement) and no abortion under any circumstances. Oh yeah, a lot of vague stuff about the Constitution too, thank god the conservatives have recently read the Constitution since apparently no one else did for the past 200 years. Yeah, there is a fine pair for you.

Both choices may be lousy but I am fare more comfortable with Obama than letting Romney have the reins. I am in the wrong income bracket for R&R to be my friends.

Where/when have you heard this from the Romney/Ryan campaign?

Honestly, the whole abortion as a major issue canard seems disingenuous to me - abortion is not going to be made wholly illegal, no matter how loudly the super-religious squawk about it.

jawlz wrote:Where/when have you heard this from the Romney/Ryan campaign?

Honestly, the whole abortion as a major issue canard seems disingenuous to me - abortion is not going to be made wholly illegal, no matter how loudly the super-religious squawk about it.

I think the 'no abortion under any circumstances' bit belonged to Ryan, but he said he was okay with Mitt's position of 'no abortion unless terrible act or incest.' I'm not sure about Ryan's position on abortion when the mother's health is threatened, but just as in cases of terrible act, the Republican politician feels that he's the proper one to decide whether the terrible act was rapey enough or whether the health is threatened enough.

I also don't think they'll succeed in making abortion wholly illegal, but I would not be surprised if they succeed in placing more and more restrictions on it. Although that nonsense has been happening in the states more than on a federal level.

However, the fact that they're trying to do this is deeply offensive. They're telling me that I'm less than an embryo. In a balance of my interest vs. embryo interest, embryo wins. On the other hand, if I use contraception I'm a elective and if my insurance pays for it I'm a prostitute (Limbaugh). If my insurance pays for it and someone, somewhere connected to my plan is a religious fanatic, then I've violated his constitutional right to be a total chalk. Just like the embryo, the religious fanatic's rights supercede mine. It's insulting and stupid.

MarkDaSpark wrote:What you smoking there?

And I think there will be many who disagree with you about the "failed, miserable policies of 8 years of one of the worst presidential administrations in the history of the country". Especially with the failed, miserable policies of the current admin. How does that saying go? "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."

New saying ... "It's a poor President who blames everyone else, year after year, instead of working to make it better." Obama hasn't been working to make it better, only worse.

The current administration has presented and passed a budget,

how many times now...?

jawlz wrote:Not forgotten, and wasn't my point (which was that the theory of 'stability,' as represented by a two-term president, always being better for the country isn't very persuasive).

Its a generalization, and I could well be proven horribly wrong, but I'll stand by it. Also, didn't Willie say last night it wasn't til his second term that the economy started roaring?

I feel bad for Joe Bidden, he's just not that great an orator. He's probably a lot smarter than we give him credit for, he's just not good at speaking.

Hate him all you want, that motherflunker can speak. I'd feel much better for the Republican ticket if Ryan could take him in the debates and Romney hit Bidden.

Hey, auto correct, I truly do mean Biden.

bhodilee wrote:Hate him all you want, that motherflunker can speak. I'd feel much better for the Republican ticket if Ryan could take him in the debates and Romney hit Bidden.

Hey, auto correct, I truly do mean Biden.

Ha! Yeah, that would be fun.

chemvictim wrote:Ha! Yeah, that would be fun.

It's almost like they should flop the ticket. Ryan has charisma. I'm still not entirely sure Romney isn't The Terminator.

bhodilee wrote:It's almost like they should flop the ticket. Ryan has charisma. I'm still not entirely sure Romney isn't The Terminator.

Yeah, I think Romney is being eclipsed by his VP. Romney is not-Obama but nothing more. Ryan has substance. Substance I don't like, but substance nonetheless.

So much epic win

Look, I don't care your stance on Gay Marriage. If you can read that and not laugh, hard, then I pity you.

bhodilee wrote:So much epic win

Look, I don't care your stance on Gay Marriage. If you can read that and not laugh, hard, then I pity you.

Actually, I didn't laugh at the insults leveled at all. The punter showed how close-minded he is by using insults instead of educating the gov't official.

He went way over the line, period.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, I didn't laugh at the insults leveled at all. The punter showed how close-minded he is by using insults instead of educating the gov't official.

He went way over the line, period.

The insults were there to draw attention to the inanity of what said elected official said. He knew he wasn't going to change jackaninny's mind so he colorfully expressed himself to get other people to be amused, then think about the subject at hand. This is what Carlin did best, say outrageous homework, then when you got done laughing, or being offended, maybe you thought a little deeper about the subject. Family Guy is also really good at this.

Edit: Also, I hope you're not implying that said tattle tale politician WASN'T over the line by basically threatening the Ravens and insisting they put a gag order on their players. Because that's super douchey. That guy has every bit as much right to support gay marriage then douchey politician du jour has to bitterly oppose it.

Basically, I don't care what politidummy's stance is on gay marriage. I DO care that he was trying to forcibly impinge upon the players free speech rights. And I don't wanna hear, well employers can fire people for their "free speech" right, because that dude isn't the employer. He can merrily go flunk himself.

All insults towards said politician are my opinion and are meant to offend him. Sadly, he'll most likely never read it.

bhodilee wrote:The insults were there to draw attention to the inanity of what said elected official said. He knew he wasn't going to change jackaninny's mind so he colorfully expressed himself to get other people to be amused, then think about the subject at hand. This is what Carlin did best, say outrageous homework, then when you got done laughing, or being offended, maybe you thought a little deeper about the subject. Family Guy is also really good at this.

Edit: Also, I hope you're not implying that said tattle tale politician WASN'T over the line by basically threatening the Ravens and insisting they put a gag order on their players. Because that's super douchey. That guy has every bit as much right to support gay marriage then douchey politician du jour has to bitterly oppose it.

Basically, I don't care what politidummy's stance is on gay marriage. I DO care that he was trying to forcibly impinge upon the players free speech rights. And I don't wanna hear, well employers can fire people for their "free speech" right, because that dude isn't the employer. He can merrily go flunk himself.

All insults towards said politician are my opinion and are meant to offend him. Sadly, he'll most likely never read it.

No, I wasn't implying that at all. The politician was wrong IF he was threatening. But Kluwe was clueless in his overwhelming insults. Because as many fans as he "won", he just lost a whole bunch more.


And don't forget the brainiac who videotaped himself insulting the poor person at Chick-Fil-a. He got fired from his job. Not because of any 1st Amendment violation, but because as an officer of his company, he is held to a higher standard.

As should Kluwe.


Edit: And I found Carlin hit or miss. He had some good stuff, but he also had some bad stuff.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Because as many fans as he "won", he just lost a whole bunch more.

The dude's a punter. He probably didn't have any fans to lose, if you exclude direct family members.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, I wasn't implying that at all. The politician was wrong IF he was threatening. But Kluwe was clueless in his overwhelming insults. Because as many fans as he "won", he just lost a whole bunch more.


And don't forget the brainiac who videotaped himself insulting the poor person at Chick-Fil-a. He got fired from his job. Not because of any 1st Amendment violation, but because as an officer of his company, he is held to a higher standard.

As should Kluwe.


Edit: And I found Carlin hit or miss. He had some good stuff, but he also had some bad stuff.

but he made you think!

Kluwe, and Ayanbedjo (or whatever), are athletes. It's nice when athletes take a stand. They also operate under contract, so there's very little ownership can do. They can always resign them, or cut them and pay them X amount, but if they contribute they aren't being cut. I'd much rather an athlete take a stand on this kind of issue than do nothing. I much prefer the Jim Brown method than the MJ "Republicans buy sneakers too" method.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, I wasn't implying that at all. The politician was wrong IF he was threatening. But Kluwe was clueless in his overwhelming insults. Because as many fans as he "won", he just lost a whole bunch more.


And don't forget the brainiac who videotaped himself insulting the poor person at Chick-Fil-a. He got fired from his job. Not because of any 1st Amendment violation, but because as an officer of his company, he is held to a higher standard.

As should Kluwe.


Edit: And I found Carlin hit or miss. He had some good stuff, but he also had some bad stuff.

Kluwe refutes you

Plus, his name is Chris, thereby lending anything he has to say the weight of gold.

coynedj wrote:The dude's a punter. He probably didn't have any fans to lose, if you exclude direct family members.

I dunno, I've always had a soft spot for Punters, ever since I was highly amused that Jeff Feagles punted for the Eagles (then every other team in the league over 30 years). That cat from San Fran can single handedly turn a game. Did you see the way he consistently screwed the Packers with field position? Awesome. Kluwe's a pretty good one also.

bhodilee wrote: Kluwe's a pretty good one also.

Playing for the Vikings, he's had a lot of practice.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually, I didn't laugh at the insults leveled at all. The punter showed how close-minded he is by using insults instead of educating the gov't official.

He went way over the line, period.

Taking into consideration that I don't get offended by anything, ever, why was this so far over the line? Because he insulted someone? Is that really such a big deal? You insult political figures on here all the time.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, I wasn't implying that at all. The politician was wrong IF he was threatening. But Kluwe was clueless in his overwhelming insults. Because as many fans as he "won", he just lost a whole bunch more.


And don't forget the brainiac who videotaped himself insulting the poor person at Chick-Fil-a. He got fired from his job. Not because of any 1st Amendment violation, but because as an officer of his company, he is held to a higher standard.

As should Kluwe.


Edit: And I found Carlin hit or miss. He had some good stuff, but he also had some bad stuff.

Kluwe's letter was disrespectful, as it was meant to be. On one hand, I think ideally we should respect the office. But on the other hand, our politicians have gone so far out of their way to be unbelievable teacher's pets, again and again, that any semblance of respectability is gone.

I don't know the CFA story, but there's a difference between insulting a random employee at a company you don't like and insulting the specific person whom you don't like. I don't hold football players to a high standard, but that's just me. I guess it will up to his team to decide whether writing a disrespectful letter to a politician is a fireable offense.

coynedj wrote:Playing for the Vikings, he's had a lot of practice.

*zing*