Printable View
Palin is a good thing for the GOP. We need token draws for traditionally democratic voters - not as a fake ploy, but just to show people that the GOP isn't old, is looking towards the future and has a place for females and minorities in highest office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I've been critical of her at the VP nominee level, but I think that given a few more maturing years she will be an amazing national level figure.
I sincerely hope the GOP isn't pinning its hopes on token minorities and women.
Frankly I think that Palin was a frightful VP candidate. She's the primary reason I began to abandon McCain. Then the gutter-worthy campaign tactics which followed sealed the deal for me. But let's not drag that up again.
Palin could not begin to articulate why she should be in line for the highest office in the land. Ignoring the damaging scandals for a moment, she couldn't answer basic questions about the bailout, and intentionally and blatantly avoided any questions besides ones about energy and the Iraq war, and her position on energy is to simply drill away which doesn't solve any immediate or long term problems. Given how many years it would take to drill, pump, refine, and sell the oil involved, it has no short term benefit, and long term we will need an alternative to oil anyway. Given that Obama supported offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan which aimed to move away from oil in the long term, she offered no superior strategy on energy, which was her supposed area of expertise.
She did not understand the Bush doctrine, and supported a policy of endless engagement in Iraq, while Bush, Obama, and the Iraqi government all agreed on the idea of a timetable. We now have that timetable. Wrong on energy, wrong on Iraq. She couldn't articulate a position on any other issue, and made some really dumb decisions while out on campaign and afterward. Her "strong" point for the Republicans was to energize their crazy base with blame speeches and fear tactics.
Let us assume for the moment that Obama is full of hot air, will do nothing he promised, and waged a campaign based purely on optimism and false hope. That's a big assumption that is unwarranted, but let's assume a worst-case scenario for Obama purely for comparison purposes. Which is better for the country?
1. An empty windbag politician who makes promises he cannot keep and talks about uniting this country based on bipartisanship, hope, and a better future; or
2. An empty windbag politician who makes no promises and admits that s/he cannot win on the issues, so therefore attacks the credibility of his/her opponent, undermining confidence in our eventual potential leader, and spreading fear, partisanship and division purely for political gain.
Personally I prefer the classier choice, because people are happier, more cooperative, more confident, and productive when they live in a country where the tone is optimistic and inclusive. People engage in pointless bickering, stonewalling progress, and fear and hate one another under a leadership which encourages hatred and distrust in their political rivals, and when the focus is on personal character rather than the issues, the issues aren't being discussed, and therefore the issues aren't being resolved.
If someone fails on understanding the issues, fails on articulating the issues, fails on coming up with better solutions to the issues, avoids the issues, and attacks with unfounded smear tactics while openly defying anyone who questions him or her on the issues, that person is objectively a bad candidate for any office. That's not a political conclusion or a partisan conclusion; that's a fact.
Palin may be effective at energizing a desperate, hateful, and partisan Republican base, but on every other measure as a politician she is a miserable failure and an embarrassment to the nation as a whole. I am personally thankful that I live a good distance away from Alaska, and that she isn't coming to visit Florida anytime soon.
The GOP (or any party) would do better with an honest candidate with integrity who actually discusses the issues and proposes solutions. Mindless partisan hacks belong on Fox News and MSNBC.
and with this gentleman....my work here is done!Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
*exits, stage left*
The GOP can't be a party for white males only. Palin is a good administrator and a popular governor. I don't see her as some hateful xenophobic moron like you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I don't think that she should have been propelled that quickly onto the national stage, but I don't see why her not being ready to be in the White House this year means she will not be ready to be in the White House at some point.
I like her, but I didn't like that McCain didn't seem to do the background. That goes more toward me not liking McCain than Palin.
True, but Palin won't be able to fix that. She suffered from far lower approval ratings amongst women than you would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The SCOTUS has dismissed a stupid lawsuit claiming Obama isn't a 'natural born citizen'.
Good for them. We don't need a bunch of wing nuts (not necessarily right wing, but most are) to go on for years about how the election was stolen.
EDIT: In other news, "The World Famous Lawn Rangers from Amazing Arcola" will perform in the inaugural parade in January.
Here's a picture of Obama with the performance group back in 2003.
CR
:laugh4: @ The Lawn Mowers
Sah-weeeeeet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit's article
YouTube provides!Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Andrew Sullivan, after continuing to insist (Into December!) Palin wasn't really pregnant and Trig was really her daughter's child, gets smacked down on his own blog.
How appropriate for a spiteful man (What's that phrase Tuffstuff used?) who can't let go.
CR
By the same author, a few posts later:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I often select Dissents Of The Day for Andrew to keep him honest, and I make sure he links to bloggers who challenge him. LGF and Michelle Malkin are gleeful because I called Andrew out over the Palin baby rumors, but I can't imagine that either blog would ever allow this type of open debate.
Obama's Senate seat is up for sale!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Gotta love the Chicago machine. :2thumbsup:
makes me wonder if obama got in the senate through the same process...Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
He beat a lightweight, fair and square.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then..... :sad:
lol
then all the conspiracy theories are wrong, then.....
yes its the unfortunate thing about CT's they are glamorous and entertaining but when it comes to facts they seem to fail...
Besides considering the sucess of Obama i find it hard to believe he would need to cheat to win...
Uh, yeah, so what? I'm not talking about either of those sites. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sullivan has continued this relentless smear far beyond the time when there was actually any question about it. That's a red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
CR
You can't say something bad about a democrat without saying something bad about republican's as well, sorry CR those are the rules :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
reminds me of the Fairness Doctrine....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Obama played hardball to secure the Dem nomination (which in S Chicago was tantamount to election) for State Senate in 1996. The incumbent hand-picked him as her successor to try for a HoR seat, but after losing the nomination herself she wanted him to step aside and let her get her old seat back. Obama's team, supposedly, got her and his other nomination rivals knocked off the ballot by invalidating signatures supporting each of his opponent's candidacies. This is NOT cheating, by any means, but it is gaming the system to advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
He does not have a "cheater" reputation, but anyone who assumes he's above political rough and tumble hasn't looked at his record.
Spot on. He's a Chicago politician through-and-through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Anyways, I believe Lemur has referenced Andrew Sullivan as a conservative before.
CR
Possibly because that is what Sullivan calls himself:idea2:Quote:
Anyways, I believe Lemur has referenced Andrew Sullivan as a conservative before.
Sean Hannity is now the arbiter of who is and who is not a real conservative. :yes:
I'm sure I heard that somewhere, anyway. Now where did I put that memo.....:inquisitive:
:smartass2:
Sean Hannity is a......
I'm sorry. I would like to keep this civilized. :bow:
thinly-veneered GOP shill cheerleading anybody who'll bust on the Dems for any reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Was that the finish you were looking for?
I agree with a number of the concepts that he poorly copies and pastes, but I can't expect any well thought out objectivity from him, so there is nor purpose in watching him. Plus I'm pissed that Colmes is leaving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I would love a Hanity and Colmes that had a reasonable and intelligent conservative in Hannity's seat. This failed experiment of an illogical loudmouth in one seat and a temperate liberal in the other is a failed one and it makes me wish I was a liberal for 1 hour per day.
Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.
Yes you have , you have learned that you have never learned anything from Sean Hannity:2thumbsup:Quote:
Long story short, I have never learned anything from Sean Hannity.
ToucheQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That was always the problem. Colmes has never been aggressive enough at disputing Hannity and was always overshadowed. It makes you wonder if the board at Faux News set it up that way...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No Count. The problem is that Hannity has no respect for Colmes. Hannity's style should have always been more like Colmes'. I've just said that Hannity's closed-minded, loud-mouthiness was the cause of my disdain.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Your solution was to make his liberal opposition equally as closed-minded and loud mouthy? How about the other option?
The problem with all people is that they take a real problem, focus correctly on what caused it and then proceed to make it worse. Ex: women have traditionally had a problem with male infidelity. Clearly people with common sense believed that infidelity and inequality were the problems that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, the resolution was to make females feel "more equal" than males and increase the rate and tolerance of female infidelity. If females could go ahead and not cheat on their husbands it couldn't have been that hard to just not cheat on your wife out of egalitarian respect?
The exact wrong resolution. God forbid we deal sensibly with problems.
Either option would be fine by me. Think about someone like Keith Olbermann opposite Hannity. That would be awesome!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
That would be horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I'd rather have me opposing Colmes. Of course, ratings would suck since we'd actually discuss rather than froth at the mouth.
Why don't you just watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer?
Then you can watch Shields and Brooks.
Sir, that is a recipe for the end of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It'd be entertaining, though.
CR
I listen to Lehrer, but it is just him on the radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
Leonard Lopate has pretty good political discussions during underreported. He challenges the interviewee regardless of the agenda.
Just put O'Reilly and Olberman on the same show. They would have to shout to each other over a telephone, since having them both in the same building could lead to violence.
Another instance where you and I will agree, Tuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I for one like the bare-bones idea of a moderate liberal and a genuine conservative analyzing the day's news events, and discussing issues. I'd be more pleased with actual debates, moderated of course.
But what Hannity and Colmes does is it pits a rather toothless liberal against a pundit who will overtalk, interrupt, get loud, and doesn't debate with any kind of fairness or objectivity. It's a shame, because like Crossfire, it had potential.
I don't mind the enthusiasm, I don't mind the commitment to one point of view. I just mind the unprofessionalism in the program from Hannity and the overall Fox slant. Colmes is often silent on that program, and lobs decent but hardly inspired questions at conservatives, and tends to drop things when they get heated.
I think there's room for a real debate between intellectuals who are either conservative leaning or liberal leaning, maybe even wingers. But the debate has to be more than shouting, opining, and cherry-picked news articles which always favor one side of an argument. However, to be fair, it often degraded into that with the previous US election thread, so we've learned from the masters.
I believe that partisans can do an excellent job of really hashing ideas out. Moderates rely on the fringe for their identity. Without something to moderate they wouldn't be "moderates", would they? The factor that makes the show unbearable is the lack of respect between the two men - caused primarily by Hannity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Either way, I am a believer in fringe options. I consider myself a moderate, however, because I realize that it is usually more practical to just make a deal with the opposition since we have to share the planet. Not on everything, mind you.
Someone set fire to Palin's church up in Alaska.
How tolerant.
CR
Maybe they did it themselves trying to burn witches. :laugh2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
That's seriously bad. I hope it's a lone loon, and not anyone with any political axe to grind. Church burnings are horrible enough without a larger partisan element.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No that is her old church with the witchcraft thing , she left them a while back when she first ran for higher office .Quote:
Maybe they did it themselves trying to burn witches.
I begrudgingly tolerate the kind of religions which I disagree with but don't harm anyone. So I am distressed that a church was terrorized in such a despicable fashion.
I personally view the organized religions as flawed, and wish people would voluntarily choose something else, but I do not now nor have I ever condoned such violence and extremism.
Kind of like Republicans and Democrats, myself and religious people have different views. But as long as the church doesn't harm anyone, I don't condone an *expletive deleted* burning it down. And I value the people who have religious faith more than I value my own aversion to what I consider flawed thinking. People are more important than ideological disagreements.
So, I may joke, but I take this nonsense very seriously, and I wish justice to come down upon whomever did this.
And once again, parody speaks the truth like nobody else. From the world's finest news source:
Area Woman Becomes Republican Vice Presidential Candidate
December 17, 2008 | Issue 44•51
WASILLA, AK—In a dramatic capper to a year that already saw her son's hockey team go to district finals, a successful remodeling of the den, and her scoring of front-row tickets to a traveling production of the Broadway smash hit Les Misérables, Wasilla resident and former beauty queen Sarah Palin, 44, was chosen as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. The mother of five, who enjoys attending church potluck dinners with husband Todd, an unemployed commercial fisherman, reportedly "jumped at the chance" to become the second most powerful person in the country. "Oh, what a nice thing for [GOP running mate] Sarah [Palin]," said Debbie McInnes, who met Palin two years ago at an advanced step aerobics class at the Wasilla YMCA. "She's such a good person, and so pretty! I think she'd be super-enthusiastic to take on that job." Although Palin ultimately never got the chance to come within a heartbeat of ruling a global superpower and its 300 million citizens, she said she was happy enough to have beaten out the other potential Republican VP candidates, including a Nebraska receptionist and a congresswoman from Ohio with more than 20 years of political experience.
December 17, 2008?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
A wiki cite.....come on, take it up a level. You're responding to The Onion for heaven's sake. I recall someone (Xiahou?) had a great graphic of somebody pounding on a dead horse. Give us a little OOmph please!
btw, since people started musing about Palin for President in 2012, this parodic character attack is not at all late -- the 2012 race began a while ago (God Help us, please, though we deserve it not).
Now we're talking. World in focus is quite good too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910
Only channel I really care to watch unless I feel like going totally braindead (which happens about once every six month at the end of final exams :sweatdrop:)
Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Now that, my dear Fenrig, is a PROPER backroom response. :laugh4:
Sarah Palin's daughter is due to give birth soon.
No word yet if this will finally make Andrew Sullivan shut up.
Also, Caroline Kennedy is trying to get Hillary Clinton's old senate seat on the sole basis that her father was famous. :wall:
CR
What does Bristol's illegitimate child have to do with Sullivan's specious contention that Trig was Sarah's baby? (Yikes, I got dizzy typing that sentence.) Meanwhile, Bristol's mama-in-law-to-be is having some problems with Johnny Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No more Kennedys. No more Clintons.No more Bushes. Death to dynasties! Down with inherited position! A republic has no room for hereditary aristocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
She'll get it on the sole basis that the Kennedy "free speech" generating machine will help our current un-elected Governor, *he who got promoted because of Spitzer's resignation*, with collecting enough "free speech" for his re-election campaign. What's one more clueless Manhattan elite in a State, the most dysfunctional State government in the union, going to matter? Every major political office in New York is dominated by New York City area politicians. Not one represents my area, Western NY, or any place north of Albany. We have been lucky to get the crumbs that fall off the New York City plate for years and it's never going to change. Better to take our hydropower and secede from New York State and form our own state, but that won't happen either. Plan B: join the exodus of Western NYS residents to another state after our retirement. You can't vote the bums out so vote with your feet.~:wave: and ~:flirt: my :daisy:.Quote:
Also, Caroline Kennedy is trying to get Hillary Clinton's old senate seat on the sole basis that her father was famous. :wall:
CR
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Look on the bright side: at least she's not going to get it on the sole basis she's the highest bidder...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I know I shouldn't but I read polls every day anyway... as it turns out only 47% of Americans agree with you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
47% of Americans probably wish we had a queen. 47% of Americans most likely lie about being able to tie their own shoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I'm with Lemur - Down with dynasties. Does anyone here think Caroline as an appointed dynastic sucessor is a good idea? Let her run in 2 years like the rest of us, until then appoint someone who has put in the prerequesite work.
That's a nice idealistic sentiment, but the cold cruel reality of power politics, not to mention human nature, dictates that this Senate seat will also be bought. It won't be as crude as the Illinois Guv's ebay auction style of shake-down, but the result will be the same. The hardest part of being an adequate Senator is what? Generating campaign contributions for oneself & party? How hard will that be even for a rookie Democrat in a Democrat Dominated state like NY, especially with the Kennedy dynasty money generating political machine. For a Guv looking at his own re-election needs in 3 years it's a no brainer. He might be blind but he can see, and he certainly isn't stupid. Let the peasants eat cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Have you guys seen that SNL skit BTW? It is absolutely spot on and hilarious. Watch the whole thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
THis is a link to "black voices" blog with a full skit linked
Caroline Shlossberg (sp?) is qualified for the Senate -- U.S. citizen, resident of the state in question, 30+ years of age. She's been an active political operator for a couple of years now, with most of her experience on the important side (=$) of the political equation. She is also a Kennedy by birth, so it lets us maintain a connection with the glory that was Camelot even after her ailing uncle shuffles off this mortal coil.
We've had people in Congress before simply because they were a celebrity of sorts. Its not a guarantee that they'll be any good in the office, but it doesn't preclude the possibility either. After all, most of the British officers who "stood firm" at Waterloo had purchased their commissions -- some without much in the way of intervening experience.
Look, I know almost nothing about Caroline Kennedy, and I know full well that she meets the requirements for the Senate, such as they are.
It's just that I get all worked up about dynasties. It's just so ... so unamerican.
To change the subject a bit, what do you consider Obama II:s cabinet choise? And how is that compared on what you would guess McCain III would've ran with? :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Half a dozen threads are competing for this. It deals with Bush' legacy, with his War on the Environment, the War on Ordinary Americans, and the War on Political Decency. I'll put it here because it deals with the transition of power to Obama as much as with anything else.
Quote:
After spending eight years at the helm of one of the most ideologically driven administrations in American history, George W. Bush is ending his presidency in characteristically aggressive fashion, with a swath of controversial measures designed to reward supporters and enrage opponents.
By the time he vacates the White House, he will have issued a record number of so-called 'midnight regulations' - so called because of the stealthy way they appear on the rule books - to undermine the administration of Barack Obama, many of which could take years to undo.
Bush' parting gifts.Quote:
The regulations cover a vast policy area, ranging from healthcare to car safety to civil liberties. Many are focused on the environment and seek to ease regulations that limit pollution or restrict harmful industrial practices, such as dumping strip-mining waste. The Bush moves have outraged many watchdog groups. 'The regulations we have seen so far have been pretty bad,' said Matt Madia, a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch. 'The effects of all this are going to be severe.'
Bush can pass the rules because of a loophole in US law allowing him to put last-minute regulations into the Code of Federal Regulations, rules that have the same force as law. He can carry out many of his political aims without needing to force new laws through Congress. Outgoing presidents often use the loophole in their last weeks in office, but Bush has done this far more than Bill Clinton or his father, George Bush sr. He is on track to issue more 'midnight regulations' than any other previous president.
Many of these are radical and appear to pay off big business allies of the Republican party.
Thank you very much you bastard and if the world ever hears of you again after January 21st it will be a billion years too soon. :shame:
Ah, so classy. Throwing in "illegitimate" and referencing her fiance's mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
And Sullivan contended Trig was not Sarah's baby - that was the point behind this whole thing. Surely that is clear. You seemed to understand it when I posted earlier about this. And that is why Bristol giving birth some eight months after Trig was born should finally put Sullivan's "Trig was Bristol's baby" argument to rest. Why are you putting up such a stiff defense of Sullivan?
Calm down. That Guardian article is full of bull excrement.Quote:
Bush' parting gifts.
Thank you very much you bastard and if the world ever hears of you again after January 21st it will be a billion years too soon.
Take this one example:
That has nothing to do with Bush pushing through some last minute regulatory change. The Department of Parks (or whatever federal office controls the regulations on carrying guns in National Parks) opened up the possibility of a rule change earlier this year after years of activism by people trying to get rid of the stupid federal prohibition on loaded guns in national parks. The public comment period around summertime was extended beyond the usual time frame for people wanting to comment on the proposed change.Quote:
- Allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
After all that the agency decided to change the regulation to have the legality of carrying weapons decided by applicable state law - basically making the law in national parks equal to the law in the rest of the state the park is in. The agency also issued a lengthy report on the subject a while ago that you can look up, in which they addressed numerous concerns from gun-control pansies like Guardian writers.
So now, when I'm walking in a national forest with my legally carried gun, I no longer have to worry about being thrown in jail when I cross the imaginary line into a national park.
CR
Not quite right, friend. Sullivan wanted Palin to release her medical records, a step she never took, but said she would take if she became VP. Kinda odd, you'll have to admit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And yeah, Sully got suspicious about Trig's matrimony, a blind alley he spent a good deal of time barking at. I don't agree, although I understand why he was suspicious, seeing as Palin claims to have gone into labor in Texas and given birth in Alaska, taking an eight-hour flight while in labor. Probably just another BS story from her, but Sully took it to a strange and unexpected place. And to repeat, she never released any medical records, so he wasn't being completely bat-guano crazy.
"Understand" what? Did I not choose to engage you on one of your many anti-Sullivan rants? Does that mean I agree with you? Fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
You don't appear to even understand the arguments you're disagreeing with, seeing as you've been incapable of summarizing Sullivan's arguments so far. I don't argee with him, but at least I understand what he's written. All you've got is the Malkin summary.
-edit-
Ah, doing some digging it seems that the McCain/Palin campaign released a two-page letter from a physician on November 3rd, and then declared that it had released all relevant medical info about Palin. I suppose that should be enough to satisfy ardent partisans, but for normal people it raises more questions than it answers.
-edit of the edit-
Clearly, you're just trying to deistract yourself from your real issue: Uncontrollable attraction to our hot, black President-elect:
I'm not sure I want our President to be cut like that ...
He was definitely dog-**** crazy though, even if it didn't rise to the same exotic level as bat-guano crazy. Not a 9/11 truther style crazy, but far out there nevertheless. The point is that this story should finally kill his suspicions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
No, you said:Quote:
"Understand" what? Did I not choose to engage you on one of your many anti-Sullivan rants? Does that mean I agree with you? Fascinating.
You don't appear to even understand the arguments you're disagreeing with, seeing as you've been incapable of summarizing Sullivan's arguments so far. I don't argee with him, but at least I understand what he's written. All you've got is the Malkin summary.
That wasn't his contention. And I haven't read anything from Malkin since before the GOP convention. Also; one of my many "anti-sullivan rants"? At my last count, I've posted twice about Sullivan's strange obsession with Trig's mother.Quote:
Sullivan's specious contention that Trig was Sarah's baby?
I never really cared.Quote:
Ah, doing some digging it seems that the McCain/Palin campaign released a two-page letter from a physician on November 3rd, and then declared that it had released all relevant medical info about Palin. I suppose that should be enough to satisfy ardent partisans, but for normal people it raises more questions than it answers.
There's a poll going on at Drudge and Putin, oddly, is winning. I love the link name for the photo, by the way.Quote:
Clearly, you're just trying to deistract yourself from your real issue: Uncontrollable attraction to our hot, black President-elect:
I'm not sure I want our President to be cut like that ...
CR
Putin is "built" where Obama is "athletic".
Well I am delighted for you that you can take a walk in a park fully armed. My ire is more over the War on the Environment midnight legislation, none of them quite as sustainable and biodegradable as bull excrement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not to mention, a War on the Health and Safety of the American people:Quote:
There is a long list of other new regulations that have gone onto the books. One lengthens the number of hours that truck drivers can drive without rest. Another surrenders government control of rerouting the rail transport of hazardous materials around densely populated areas and gives it to the rail companies.
Al Franken has taken a VERY narrow lead in the Minnesota recount.
This could be THE cinderalla story of the election. From Coke-crazed comic to civic centerpiece in 3 decades!
My point is, if they are so very wrong on that issue, the Guardian is likely to be very wrong on the other issues as well. So they all they say withQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
a grainseveral pounds of salt.
CR
Obama has gyno. Who knew?
But you now have to worry about being thrown in jail if while carrying your legal gun in a national park you cross an imaginary line into another state that has different gun lawsQuote:
So now, when I'm walking in a national forest with my legally carried gun, I no longer have to worry about being thrown in jail when I cross the imaginary line into a national park.
Nah, you can't stumble across the Columbia River.
Anyway, here's a priceless quote from CarolineSchlossbergKennedy that shows she doesn't understand the basic concepts of mathematics:
"I came into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else," she said. "I am an unconventional choice."
Ooo, sorry Caroline, but the word you were looking for is half. You have to work half as hard as anybody else to get the appointment.
Can we please get anybody but her in the seat?
CR
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Nah, you can't stumble across the Columbia River.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How many national parks contain more than one State Rabbit ?
But hey for a better one how far north of boundary creek would you walk to still be in a national park but not even in the same country ? or even better what natural barrier east of the lake is there to mark the border ?
Crossing imaginary lines with your gun :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I see most of the same old crew is still haning out here. Happy New Year guys
As to the elections why do we even bother. Its a sad joke.
Happy New Year to you too, Gawain. You have been much missed - it would have been especially interesting to have had your input in this thread.
Gawain! An entire election passed without ye! Nice to see you back, pardner.
Happy new year, and welcome back!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
wow. over 13,000 posts.... :jawdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny