NAFTA only covers 3 countries - US, Canada, Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Printable View
NAFTA only covers 3 countries - US, Canada, Mexico.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yup, I know that. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
They accused her of not being able to name all the countries in North America- did you watch the clip? Incidentally, I guess that was a big swing and a miss by Stewart- apparently he's as dumb as Palin. :oops:
Here is the entire segment from FNC- they mention NAFTA there, but I was responding to the Daily Show clip.
I haven't had a chance to watch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
We don't even need to get into the anonymous-sourced stories circulating around the net about how poorly informed she showed herself behind the scenes to McCain preppers and vetters. If she can't answer multiple questions from naming a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade to what the Bush doctrine is, that a 29 year old with a bachelor's degree (not in history or polysci) who does not serve in any public office can answer, she has no business being vice president of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Maybe surviving a round of "Are you smarter than a Fifth Grader" should be a prerequisite before selection for VP.
if you give a link you should read it completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
on "Usage":
"In English, North America is often used to refer to the United States and Canada exclusively.[21] Alternatively, usage may include Mexico[22] (as with North American Free Trade Agreement) and other entities.[23]"
we can settle this and agree that it's kind of a trick question....because there is no real 100% correct answer.
but come on.....is Africa a continent? and the correct powers of the US VP shouldn't be big questions for someone running for the job.
she might be the nº1 reason McCain lost this election....and it's easy to understand why.....she makes Dubya look like he's got it together.
Mrs. Corleone informed me this morning that she had Jillian's video baby monitor fed through the VCR, actually recording my reaction to the results coming in Tuesday night.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
:bow:
In the spirit of "let's all move beyond the divide and try to come together" spirit that President-elect Obama has called for and I have tried to embrace, Senator Harry Reid took Senator Joseph Lieberman out to the woodshed yesterday.
Now, before Koga gets frothing at the mouth, yes, the Republicans treated Jim Jeffords very similarly. I do not argue that this is how politics is conducted, and there is always a price to be paid down the road for betraying your party. That being said, in light of the current economic situation, if you were Harry Reid, would YOU have made this your FIRST order of business? Committee chairmanships are going to get redistributed in 2 months anyway. Wouldn't it have been better to quietly let Joe ride the last 2 months out, tell him quietly he was out in the desert, and then publicly claim a bipartisan, mature attitude?
This just strikes me as incredibly petty, an indication that Reid is putting party loyalty ahead of all other issues, and not what I personally am signed on for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFEQuote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'm sorry, I forgot that I am one of those moronic Conservatives that will try to make the party worse. I don't think that our opinions are all that different. I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt on everything EXCEPT the abortion issue. If gay marriage proponents win in a legitimate way through legislation, I will be frustrated, but I'll move on. I will never move on from the abortion issue until there is a tremendous change in opinion and the level of callousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
British are stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
French
Germans
KILL THE HUMAN FOOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
ROTFLMAO!!! :laugh4::clown::beam::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Theres incrediblely stupid people everywhere!!
The only problem is when one of them is a potentially powerful person, and people warm to that based on similar intellectual skills....
I have to say the british one seemed a little unfair, pounds and euros are irish currency, depending which bit you mean, the place in a race question does trick a lot of people, i like to think myself clever but i fell for it first time i heard it... (in fairness i was about 12-14) he seems to pick young and old people... not that i am defending british intelligence... there are plenty as bad as in the video sasaki posted... just he seemed to use trick questions and young people rather than making the effort to find stupidity..
Did anyone else struggle to name a british car maker, i now theres some uk company that makes kit cars, don't now thier name, whatever company makes noble m 12's (noble possibly ?) and ford's a common misconception... i used to think it was british...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No, I did not say that of you -- nor imply it. You suggested you might like to take a leadership role now, since there were no competent hands at the helm. I was commenting that I would not want a leadership role -- at least as currently formulated -- because the current thrust and framework of things is off base. I do not think you part of the problem and do not reject your support for the GOP. If I caused you to believe that there was ANY personal aspersion attached to my comment, then I apologize for the lack of clarity in what I wrote. Any anger I feel is towards the poor performance of a political party that should have, collectively, known better.
You and I are, most probably, fairly closely aligned in social viewpoints. You are, perhaps, a tad more ready to legislate same. That's about it.
Okay, sorry I got the wrong idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That made my brain hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Hehe those guys are great. Here's another one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SpK6RipZkMs
It's official, Darcy Burner has lost, by more votes than last time.
Aww, she's a bit grumpy:
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by First Link
CR
This article from the BBC amused me, less for the coverage of Obama's news conference (which I watched and agree that it went well) but for the acronym.
The president-elect's first news conference since his powerful victory speech contained no major new message on the economy - indeed you got the impression that the event had been called not because Mr Obama had anything new to say, but because there was such hunger to hear him say something.
Mr Obama was ringed by his 17-strong Transition Economic Advisory Team, and he underlined the core messages of his campaign - about the depth of the economic crisis, the pain facing families losing jobs and homes, and his determination to put together a stimulus package to help.
So, DevDave has been right all along. There really will be a government TEAT. :bounce:
:wall::wall::wall:
Those "_________ are not stupid" videos made me want to break my computer screen, and track down those people, so i could beat the dookie out of them while screaming the answers.
Americans
"*BAM!* We LOST the Vietnam war! *BAM!* They use POUNDS in England!
British
"*WHAM!* Ford is made in AMERICA! *WHAM!* Peugeots are made in FRANCE *WHAM!* JAGUAR is a british car!
:furious3::furious3: :wall::wall::wall:
Well, many Fords have been assembled in the UK (and other places than the States) since 1911. Jaguar was recently owned by Ford, who sold it to Tata, so Jaguar is really Indian.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
Not quite so easy, is it?
Bill Ayers, the centerpiece of the McCain campaign, speaks. For the most part he sounds like any hippie professor, but this one bit stands out:
Obama has continually been asked to defend something that ought to be at democracy’s heart: the importance of talking to as many people as possible in this complicated and wildly diverse society, of listening with the possibility of learning something new, and of speaking with the possibility of persuading or influencing others.
The McCain-Palin attacks not only involved guilt by association, they also assumed that one must apply a political litmus test to begin a conversation.
She didn't comment to the Seattle Times because they were the ones who looked at her degree (I didn't see the Article, so I'm not going to argue about the veracity of their claims). She did, however, Email her supporters/donators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Wow, I guess calling for Obama's impeachment before he has even served a day in office wasn't sufficient. Now the recession is his fault too. I'm struggling to find the logic that makes that possible, but maybe I shouldn't try too hard.
"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."
Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.
But maybe that shouldn't be so surprising, because radio's Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.
"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."
A slight problem with Limbaugh's report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.
The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.
The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)
To broadcast such a report -- so drained of context as to constitute a lie -- would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall -- making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal.
McCain said that he made some mistakes. I'm sure we all know at least one of his mistakes.
man, limbaugh isnt waht he used to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
i classify him as one of those "drink the kool-aid" GOP'ers.
meh.
EDIT: so is hannity.
Running?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
true, very true.
Now, I do take offense at the seemingly political spin the reporter puts on Rush Limbaugh. The "stirs the caldron" makes him sound like he's Hecate, planning to destroy Democracy and Freedom, which I doubt he is. Besides, it's not like another hour of news reports will sway Limbaugh's supporters. Aren't they the most educated in current affairs of all media listeners?Quote:
But maybe that shouldn't be so surprising, because radio's Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes "economic chaos" because it gives him "greater opportunity for expanded government." In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.
"They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."
Rush Limbaugh is, however, making a point about...
Replacing the tax credit on 401(k)s
Source 2
I would also like to point out that the economy runs on perceptions and it also runs in cycles. Bush caught the downside of the wave. The executive and legislative branches failed to act effectively, failing to respond to the recession we are currently going through. So when the 'change' candidate fails to effectively rectify it (even though he really can't change it) and the economy slumps after he is elected, it can't be Bush's fault. I think it's pretty ridiculous for anything swift to happen. Obama and Bush both recognize that the stimulus will work in the long-term, we just have to wait until it kicks in. I just want to see how the media treats Obama's "wait it out" versus Bush's "wait it out".Quote:
Originally Posted by Source 2