COUNTRY CLUBS
Incorrect source or offensive?
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Proof that chivalry really is dead. | In Soviet America… Next »
» 271 comments
-
Recent Comments
Jane St.Clair; also … on RAINBOWS Charles on MRE Default User on RAINBOWS Default User on RAINBOWS wickets ebil twin on GOD HATES FAGS Danbala on GOD HATES FAGS AngelicaDemone on GOD HATES FAGS viking gal, original… on RAINBOWS viking gal, original… on RAINBOWS viking gal, original… on RAINBOWS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Typical class warfare droll.
Your version of class warfare: $700 Billion for bankers. Our version: calling you on it.
And yours was the sperm that won the race to the egg ?
Your mother must be so proud !
Oh you silly, fat, white republicans!
Fat ?
Agreed. We have no evidence you’re fat. I have a laundry list of other insulting terms, but fat isn’t on it.
ROFLMAO
what with “Country Clubs First”??
I think the idea the captioner was trying to relate is that Republican politicians are all filthy rich and spend their time in country clubs grabbing waitresses on the ass, whereas Democrat politicians live in humble apartments with no luxuries and spend all their time working hard to better the country and avoid oppression by the right wing stormtroopers.
Of course, the truth is that politicians as a whole tend to put “country clubs first”
“Whereas, Democrat politicians live in humble apartments with no luxuries and spend all their time working hard to better the country and avoid oppression by the right wing stormtroopers.”
Ha! HA HA HA! LOL! ROFL ha ha ha ha HAA! That’s Great!
BEST JOKE THIS WEEK!
We can only hope that occasionally Democrats may feel guilty about it.
“Republican politicians are all filthy rich and spend their time in country clubs grabbing waitresses on the ass”
The known womanizers are Democrats. Ted Kennedy ring a bell?
Because the Repubs are too busy soliciting other guys.
Excuse me, where’s your bathroom?
ROFLcopter
David Vitter ring a bell?
politicians are all snobs, the only real thing is that which one’s less of a snob
No, the only real thing is which one is actually fit to lead the country.
It is because Sen McCain can’t remember how many country clubs that he belongs to.
So now we’re making up issues? Oh wait – the whole house thing was a non-issue too, so I guess we’ve been making it up for a while now.
Poor wittle Republicans have lost their sense of humor. Oh my.
When did they have it?
i think the implication is that McCain favors the rich, seeing as membership to a country club is hard to come by unless you make rather more than baseline income.
How’d that debate go, McCain?
From what I’ve gathered, and according to “the experts”, it was pretty much a toss-up. Democrats are going to say Obama “won”, Republicans are going to say McCain “won”. People in the know say nobody won, because neither person was able to bring anything new to the table.
Lets face it, neither candidate told us anything we didn’t already know.
The breakdown of the polls seems to say (quoting from memory, but correct within a point or two) that undecideds scored it 40% Obama, 22% Grampy McSame, and 38% still undecided. I’ll score that as an Obama win, but concede it’s a very narrow one. Certainly, this debate did little to decide the election.
I also have to concede that Grampy didn’t do as badly as I assumed he would.
Everything I’ve seen so far shows either a tie or Obama edging out McCain. Neither are good for McCain if he’s trailing in the polls.
Kerry and Gore were both up by 10-15 points at this point in the race, if memory serves. Pay attention to the polls less than a week out. The pollsters HAVE to get it right to ensure their jobs the next time around, so those will actually be pretty accurate.
Because polls are Truth!
Because elections are a war of opinions; right, wrong, or indifferent. The only opinions that matter are those that produce action. I will wager that polls are a relatively acurate estimator of probability if they are taken from a proportional cross sections of the voting population from varied walks of life.
Admittedly, the population samples that are usually targeted for polls are statistically left leaning such as college campuses and urban cities. I would argue, however, that these are the people most likely to turn an opinion into a vote.
Not college campuses. Historically, college kids are the most lazy voters. They tend not to vote.
Hah, screw you. Us college kids are going all-out this year. And we’re not only doing so because of Obama. I’m rather surprised myself with how many kids are walking around with McCain shirts on.
Well, what we learned through body language and eye contact is that McCain is a rude old son of a bitch with the graceless bearing of a bear with a boil on its butt. He never once acknowledged the human being standing across the stage from him. His descent into narcissism is complete – it’s all about him.
I see you typing but all I read is blah,blah, blah…
Were the words too big for you?
You’re reading too much into it, bordering on the paranoid.
Obama won on style, but McCain won on substance.
Obama kept harping on the old far-left liberal themes: universal healthcare, retreat from Iraq, everything is Bush’s fault.
McCain actually told us what he would do as President.
Obama looked good, but McCain sounded better.
Did you happen to catch the -live- debates? McCain’s inability to face his opponent was pretty damn telling. The number of times Obama needed to correct an echo chamber lie was astounding. Even after mentioning he wouldn’t sit down with Iran without having first sent others over, McCain *continued* to repeat that bit.
What echo chamber lie? Obama said that he would negotiate with rogue states WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS. He said that during the primaries. It’s not my fault he wants to flip-flop about that now.
And yes, I did watch the *live* debate.
I still say McCain won on substance. Obama said nothing more than the Pelosi/Reid line, proving that, if he’s elected, he’ll be their slave.
“Without preconditions” doesn’t mean he’d go there without having first sent advisers or the secstate first. He said that last night, and still McCain tried to imply otherwise.
Were you watching the same debate I was?
Yes, I was.
Then your hearing & mental capabilities must be on par with Grampa
McCain’s. He didn’t bring substance. He brought old war stories & tales
from around the campfire.
NORMANDY!!!
Something to be aware of on both sides: beware the fallacy of the halo/horn effect. Everyone has their set opinion of either candidate. Whether you see them sporting a halo or a pitchfork is going to initially color your opinion of what the candidate is saying. It will even make you hear things that the candidates are not really saying, while not hearing what you should be listening too. Just because you think a guy is of the devil doesn’t mean that everything he says is crap, nor vice versa. Not everything said by an assumed savior is truth. I’m not directing this at anyone. We should be listening with minds that want to know the truth of the situation. Listening with a mind looking for an opportunity to crush the other side makes for a sloppy argument.
eg: Look up any argument ever between EvilPundit and Jellybeans.
Unfortunately for your side, what you describe is mainstream, not far left. That’s how out of touch you are. McCain looked better to you because he said what you already believe. I have to call the debates a toss up, though. McCain did better on the economy than I thought he would, while Obama did better on foreign policy. McCain wouldn’t look at Obama, but Obama kept agreeing with McCain. They both got in a few good jabs. Neither one did well enough to sway anyone already decided, but as for the undecided, the economic situation simply favors Obama.
It was a political draw: both sides think their guy won.
I feel that on presentation, Obama didn’t commit any huge gaffes while McCain committed six — and a few people *swore* that McCain would pwn Obama when the latter didn’t have a TelePrompter.
The republicans were saying McCain won before the debate even happened
McCain had a banner up on his website that morning declaring himself winner … before he even told anyone he was actually going to show up.
I loved the part where he piped in “I have a bracelet too!!”. Then he had to look at it because he didn’t remember what it said. lol! He also agreed with McCain 6 or 7 times saying “That’s right John”. I hear those sound bites will be used in a campaign commerical. I think he made Obama look like a snot nose kid. But, I am biased.
The McCain camp has already spun Obama’s words and spat out a Rovian commercial barely after the debate lights were turned out. Stay classy guys!
Yay!! I bet Obama is wishing he toook those extra days McCain offered him to study up!!
You’re applauding TV smears from the McCain campaign? Wow. Get out those kneepads, I hear Karl Rove is coming to town!
I don’t see anything wrong with using Obama’s own screw ups in campaign commericals. Americans need to see what kind of baffoon they may vote into the presidency.
I understand, if you support McCain you pretty much have to become a smear apologist.
And if you support Obama you pretty much have to be a moron too.
Aw, Johnnie would be so proud of you!!
Could you be a bigger douchebag?
No, wait, that’s not a challenge. It’s not even a real question.
Hey, it takes a douchebag to know a douchebag. Personally,
I’d rather be a moron than a sexist pig-headed old coot.
Interesting that you consider “John is right” to be a screw-up. In many circles, that’s called consensus-building. You point out the places where you agree, so that you can stop worrying about those, and focus on the places where your plans/perspectives diverge.
You know, it’s a way to actually make progress rather than just fighting.
Sorry, don’t mean to pick on the Messiah, but the guy is wet behind the ears and the debate showed it. Kissinger has already spanked him on saying that he agrees with him on Iran.
The number of times Obama had to correct McCain about the meeting with Ackm– Ammedni– Achmedinijad was pretty funny. I doubt that’ll make it into his commercials.
Oh, I’m sure someone will make a pro-Obama ad with that in it.
SSSSHHHHHH!!!
First, you want to invoke the same Kissenger that said ”
“Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.”"
Second, you want to argue this point, of all points? Kissenger came out and agreed with McCain today. 7 days ago, he was singing a different tuen.
Sept. 20, at a forum of former secretaries of state, Kissinger:
“Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we — we know we’re dealing with authentic…
CNN’s Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. ”
Try a different lie next time.
That’s a lot different than a president sitting down with Achmadinejad with no preconditions, that would be at the presidential level. Obama was wrong.
Barack never said he would sit down without first having advisers or the secstate sit down first. Never. Did not say.
I know McCain repeated this lie, and that Barack tried to correct him, but Obama *never* said that he would meet Ahmadinejad before any others. He just said he would place preconditions on diplomacy.
NOT place preconditions on diplomacy. That’s what he actually said.
Not putting a condition on meeting with a terrorist is asking to be played. Then being surprised when you are attacked.
You do THIS, then we will meet and talk about THIS. That’s how a negotiation with a terrorist should go. And if the terrorist doesn’t go along with it, the next step is to limber up the trigger finger.
Shoot first, shoot second, shoot a few more times, and if anyone’s still moving, then try negotiating?
Obama: “I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my chosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe” – That is a very reckless, scary statement to me – that means no pre conditions if he should decide we don’t need any. It also seems a bit arrogant to me, he has no real idea what would keep America safe have absolutely no foreign policy experience.
I’m from the Dirty Harry school of negotiations. I’m not even really sure why we negotiate with people who intend to kill us.
At some point you have to realize that in certain circumstances negotiations just aren’t going to work. What kind of concession are we going to make to Iran? Ok, you can have a nuke, but please just blow up 1/2 of Israel, ok?
How much foreign policy experience did Shrub have? And what were you saying about the matter then? Of course, the fact that he has completely screwed up our entire foreign policy does tend to lend credence to your argument.
In my opinion the Shrub hasn’t screwed up our foreign pollicy, we are safe and have been safe for the last 8 years.
“At some point you have to realize that in certain circumstances negotiations just aren’t going to work. What kind of concession are we going to make to Iran? Ok, you can have a nuke, but please just blow up 1/2 of Israel, ok?” On the other hand, what can we do to stop them without incurring major losses of our own?
Last 8 years minus the 3,000 plus people who died on September 11, 2001 I assume.
You’re failing on your own argument. If you need foreign policy experience to be a good president, then you CANNOT vote for Obama. If it doesn’t matter what kind of foreign policy experience you have, then you MUST leave Palin alone about her supposed lack thereof.
“In my opinion the Shrub hasn’t screwed up our foreign pollicy, we are safe and have been safe for the last 8 years.” You keep dreaming that. First off, 911 was 7 years ago. Were we safe then? I know a few thousand people who would disagree with your assertion that we were. Further, if you think we are truly any safer now than we were then, you are deluded. There are numerous ways that a terrorist could strike you or your family tomorrow with no way to stop them. What if one of them decides to blow up the Grocery store while you are shopping? Safety from terrorism is an illusion that cannot be acheived.
Yes, of course Christine, he had just taken office at that point. You know what I mean. Hergie – what if there is nothing? Do you get a feeling from Ahmendinejob (whatever) that there is anything we can do to change his mind? I don’t but that’s just me. But if Obama sits down and tries to talk with someone like that, it cheapens the office of the presidency, he will look like a fool.
At what point did I mention Palin? At what point did I say you needed FP experience? I merely asked if all of the people attacking Obama for his lack thereof did the same to Bush 8 years ago. I made no argument. THe only argument I made was that Bush has failed at Foreign Policy, and I will stand by that one. I have been overseas enough to see how their views of us have changed.
My point on Iran was that they would be wiling to incur more losses than us in a confrontation, and we can’t just bully them around with our military like some people think.
As for cheapening the office and looking like a fool, its far too late for that. Like I said, I’ve been overseas enough and deal with enough people overseas to see that much of the rest of the world already considers the offiice a joke.
I don’t count how people on the street feel about us as a fail for Bush in foreign policy. I count how safe we are because he took the battle to the terrorists and out of our country. Face it, terrorists hated us long before Bush took office it has nothing to do with him but he did a good job at shutting them down.
“Face it, terrorists hated us long before Bush took office it has nothing to do with him but he did a good job at shutting them down.” Based on what convoluted logic? There have been far more Americans killed during Bush’s term of office , both on and after 9/11 by terrorism, than there were for decases prior to that, if not ever. If you buy into the war in Iraq being about terrorism, thne you must count the casualties as terrorist attacks. If you don’t, then we still created the terrorists there by invading their country. In no way has he effectively shut them down. Like I said, by definition, safety from terrorism is an illusion.
They may have hated us long before Bush took office, but they took action after he was sworn in. Rove stopped flying commercial flights in May because of the threats that the government was receiving.
In what way did he take the battle to the terrorists? How many of them were in Iraq? The 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi, not Iraqi. We have done nothing against countries that are KNOWN to sponsor terrorism such as N. Korea and Iran, and Libya, and a host of others. Instead we decided that an Oil rich country that does hate us, but more importantly has no chance of fighting back is the root of all terrorism. Yeah, that makes sense.
They are shut down illustrated by the fact we have had no new terror attacks in the US. You cannot blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks. I’m not sure about the Iraq war, it may have been a mistake and it was definetly botched. I’ve heard lots of reasons why they went in, there were WMD’s, there weren’t… They should have done something like the recent surge years before and finished it quickly and saved lives, I can say that.
Terror attacks happen abroad too. In our allies’ countries none the less. July 7th, anyone? If anything the documented cases of terrorist attacks has grown after 9/11. They may not be here, but they are happening abroad against the countries that support us and our citizens that are abroad.
“They are shut down illustrated by the fact we have had no new terror attacks in the US.” Wow, how isolationist and misguided. So no Americans go outside the US? Thousands of Americans have been injured or killed in terrorist attacks over the past few years. Just because they are outside the US, does that make them less important? At least two Americans were killed in a TERRORIST ATTACKS barely more than a week ago in Pakistan. How safe were they? Or is it that because it doesn’t directly affect you, you don’t care and you feel cozy and safe in your little bubble? If anything, Bush’s foreign policy has created more terrorists and people that hate us world-wide. But you just go on feeling safe in you rlittle world.
By the way “Iran strongly condemned terrorist attack on a Pakistani hotel that left at least 60 innocents dead and many more injured. “
Which is why we should do what Eisenhower did and make a show of force that will be followed through with if They mess with us or an ally. I’m not saying wipe out a city or two, we can just as easily drop a bomb on an unpopulated area. They just need to know we will. One of the main reasons the Soviet Union never did anything to us is because Reagan was known to have an itchy trigger finger and was waiting for a reason to ‘push the red button’. The best way to show a country that you will not be trifled with is to have no compunction about using whatever is necessary to stop them. In Iraq, we screwed up by not turning it into a parking lot. Same with Afganistan. If other countries think we will wipe them out, they will be less likelyto harm us or our allies.
No, Bush’s policies do not create terrorists. Wahabist madrassa schools create terrorists and spread hatred of westerners. Yes, it is pretty scary to go abroad these days, but the same was true in certain places before Bush became president. That is also NOT Bush’s fault.
“If other countries think we will wipe them out, they will be less likelyto harm us or our allies.” – I totally agree with this. The terrorists actually respect strength and decisiveness.
Invading Iraq, thus causing many Iraqis and other middle-easterners to hate us even more, and perform terrorist attacks such as roadside bombings doesn’t create terrorists? Nice try, I am not buying it. Let me ask you this. What do YOU think creates terrorists? And please don’t say religion because its a LOT more involved than that.
“One of the main reasons the Soviet Union never did anything to us is because Reagan was known to have an itchy trigger finger and was waiting for a reason to ‘push the red button’.” While this is true, the fact that the vaunted Soviet war machine was so poorly maintained that it was highly unlikely they COULD have done anything short of an all out Nuclear war that nobody wanted also contributed greatly to that.
No, I seriously believe Saudis are exporting an extreme form of Islam, wahabi style. They are and have been spending millions on madrassas abroad with oil money. That is what is causing terror, their goal is a world wide caliphate, at least that’s what they are saying. I guess you could not believe them if you want to…
And it was the threat of retaliation that kept the Soviets in line. What worked against them in the 80’s would work against the terrorists now. Screwed the pooch or not about going into Iraq in the first place (I’m keeping my opinion of that to myself
), we should finish it and finish it right. Do what we said we would do. Shock and awe them into a nasty, bloody finish that is so definitive that no one in their right mind would ever question the superiority of the United States. Creating terrorists or not, we need to show them that we aren’t afraid, and that we won’t pander. Otherwise it gives them a reason to keep doing what they’ve been doing. We’ve already cost enough in this war, and if we keep going like we’re going it will cost that much more in human lives and money. So let’s go finish it. Screw pulling out (that’s never fun, hehe), FINISH IT. Then we can all go back to our respective playgrounds, hating each other but too scared to mess with the big kid in the sandbox.
“No, I seriously believe Saudis are exporting an extreme form of Islam, wahabi style. They are and have been spending millions on madrassas abroad with oil money. That is what is causing terror, their goal is a world wide caliphate, at least that’s what they are saying. I guess you could not believe them if you want to…” That is part of it, I even said earlier that the Saudi’s had more links to 9/11 than Iraq. But a lot of it is also the things we do overseas. We have the ability to do a lot of good there. Instead we do things like support the Afghanis in their fight against the Soviets in the 80’s, and then, once the battle is won, totally abandoning them to their ravaged country, rather than making an attempt to help them rebuild and making a long term ally. There are many examples of things such as that that make them resent us and the fact that we go through our entire lives having adequate sources of water and food for the most part, and don’t have to worry about being blown up by an unexploded mine.
“And it was the threat of retaliation that kept the Soviets in line. What worked against them in the 80’s would work against the terrorists now.” I am not sure it WOULD work against the terrorists. See, most terrorists are willing to sacrifice everything for their cause, including their lives and the lives of others. That did not apply to the Soviets. That being said, I think its way to late to consider pulling out, and that a long term solution needs to be found to that situation.
“There are many examples of things such as that that make them resent us and the fact that we go through our entire lives having adequate sources of water and food for the most part, and don’t have to worry about being blown up by an unexploded mine.” – The day to day people would generally forget about these things, (and we do make mistakes), and go on with their lives. But, they aren’t allowed to forget because of the Islam movement and well funded politically motivated leaders (like Saddam Hussein who would give money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel) keep them stirred up. They are used as pawns unfortunately. I am sure if we went over to these countries bearing gifts and begged their forgiveness for anything we may have ever done it would do no good.
In bed
You are correct. But those things are the fuel for the fire. Religious fervor is used in conjunction with all of these things. Say you have a man that you are trying to convince to perform a suicide attack for religious reasons. It becomes much easier to convince him if his parents or siblings were killed or wronged by what he sees as an American injustice. Of Course they aren’t allowed to foget those things, its furthers the agenda of the leaders you mentioned. On another note, I am sure that if we went over to those countries, and worked to provide basic services such as clean water, adequate food, and basic health care and education, all things that are more or less within our means, it would be next to impossible to foment that same terrorism. Of course, I also think its now a bit too late for that in most cases.
Well, I will concede on that a little bit, but mostly cause I’m tired!!
The religious fervor may take hold a little stronger because of some circumtances. But I am convinced the leaders that want the caliphate are using the people as drones for their cause. I know we would be over there helping to rebuild if it was at all possible at this point in Afghanistan and we have made great strides in Iraq. But look at how the women of that country are now compared to before. They now go to work, school etc when before they were not allowed to leave the house.
that country = Afghanistan (I am sleeeepy)
I completely agree with you on Afghanistan. My problem is that we HAD that opportunity in the late 80’s (which could have averted a LOT of bloodhsed) and we squandered it. As far as using the people as drones, of course they are, thats what leaders do, for good or bad.
Also, “consensus-building” is a tool better used somewhere else besides a Presidential debate where the object is for one side to win.
“I’m proud of that work, again, bipartisan, reaching across the aisle, working together, Democrat and Republican alike.”
Oh wait, but I’m going to mock my opponent if he agrees with me. Yeah.
Again, time and place…
Go easy on McCain, he flip flops because he can’t remember what he said two hours ago.
Because Obama has less than no record (can you have a negative record?) of actually trying to work with the other side. McCain at least votes against his party some of the time. McCain is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If he “crosses the aisle” and votes with the Dems, he is viewed as less of a conservative or less of a Republican. But if he doesn’t vote with the Dems, now he’s a party drone. Apparently it’s ok to say you’ll reach across the aisle when you have no intention of doing so and no voting record to back up that claim.
He may be damned either way, but only by one side each time.
like the last two times huh?
I took the agreement more as a sign of courtesy and proof that Obama will be the one willing to work with others. McCain’s smirking and muttered comments and yes, outright lies were immature and petty, 2 characteristics I really don’t want in the white house … again
Actually the new ad was out almost 30 minutes before the debate is over. Say what you want, but McCain’s ad people are incredible.
Incredibly desperate!
And incredibly smart too!
Gotta sway those gullible voters who take campaign ads at face value!
Hell, McCain had ads broadcast his great epic winning of the debates before he even decided to recommit!
I saw that. Another epic lie from the McCain ad group!
It’s not a lie if you are saying what you believe to be true. Don’t you watch Seinfeld?
The ads didn’t say McCain would win, but that he did win. If the promotions people believed it to be true at the time (before John decided to participate), then I really wonder about their grips on reality.
Hope and optimism springs eternal
Again: predicting a win (“Obama will be elected President”) and projecting a win (“Obama has been elected President”) are two completely different beasts.
(Oh, what the hell. With a nod to DeathWyrmNexus:)
In bed.
LOL
I love you guys.
I would love you back, but I’m married and having trouble walking today. (referencing a previous thread
) So I LUV you!!!!
Lol, yay!!!
That’s right uh Jim, er John.
Quiet!! Maybe they’ll forget about that one too.
Don’t worry: one stammer vs. the many epic fails of McCain still puts style in your category.
Did you watch the whole thing, Ema? I agree that Obama’s agreement with McCain played against him. My wife said it the first time he did it, “Stop agreeing with him, you dolt, that’s what killed Kerry!” But McCain wouldn’t look at Obama, which played into his ‘grumpy old man’ image. And Obama got in a few good, direct shots calling McCain on his mistakes. All in all, McCain did better than I hoped he would, and Obama didn’t do as well. But the polls of people who saw the debate call it a toss up, or slight edge to Obama. I’d say both men gave a good showing, and neither embarrassed themselves or looked unpresidential.
1) Ted Kennedy’s health condition
2) Eisenhower’s letter of resignation
3) Pronunciation of “Ahmadinejad”
4) President of Pakistan
5) Calling an allied nation “a failed state”
6) Admission of US torture of Gitmo detainees
McCain wasn’t wearing a flag pin OH MY GOD!!!111!!!
ha! and Obama wore his. Who’s not wearing their flag pin now?
McCain is for the vets! What GI bill?
That made me almost physically ill. “The vets know me, they know I love them, they know I will take care of them.” Show me ONE FREAKING THING he has done to help veterans. ONE!
McCain is one of the lowest scoring senators when it comes to Veteran’s affairs. Republican pols are always ready to throw away American lives but the ones that come home get nothing from them.
People say Dems are wishy washy on war. At least we care for the soldiers when they come back – and not just in photo ops. Veteran’s groups have rated the senate based on their votes helping soldiers and veterans. The lowest scoring Democrat is rated higher than the HIGHEST scoring republicans. Republicans send our soldiers out, Democrats take care of them when they come home.
My dad was in the Korean war – lied about his age and signed up for submarine service. When he got home he had a free ride to college as long as he maintained his grades. There weren’t any other criteria back then. Now though there are so many ways our soldiers are disqualified for educational assistance and even healthcare. It is all about saving a dime and not about helping the people who fought for us.
The lowest Democrat better than the best Republican in Veteran’s affairs … But hey, McCain loves ya! That will help out with medical bills right?
This should have been a reply way up there somewhere …
ooooo-k it moved …
I wore a bracelet too!
Yeah, I guess he must hate america. I bet he’s a secret muslim too.
Infidel!
Actually he is a secret Muslin … much scarier
Can we please stay away from lame-ass one-liners that just go for blatant stereotypes? How about a picture of Obama with a caption that reads, “Democrats waste money.” LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Come on.
Except that government spending (and especially deficit spending) increase dramatically under Republican control. Of our 10.5 trillion dollar debt, 9.something of it occured under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Under Clinton, we started paying down that debt, and as soon as the Republicans controlled the legislature and white house again, they started their borrow and spend policies all over again.
Thank you, PortlandMark — exactly what I was thinking.
Hence why you should never listen to stereotypes.
Except when they are right.
I think that was his point Mark. It being a stereotype, not a truth.
That’s bullets vs beans economics. Clinton dismanteled a third of the military, and Republicans rebuilt and expanded it. That’s what happens in times of war. Doesn’t matter how you feel about that situation, or who you feal is in the right, or whether we should have gone to war or not. The war time military expenditures of the last decade (including the massive transfer of wealth to other countries for oil, and the rebuilding of forces) have a large part in why we are 10.5 trillion in the red. Whether it is the fault of Republican spending policies, or the current world situation depends entirely on your own opinion on foreign policy.
You miss the point: Republicans believe we can pay for these things by *not* paying for them, essentially taking out larger and larger loans that cheapen the value of the dollar until finally, we find ourselves bailing out wealthy bankers because no one really wants our money anymore.
If you can remember back 8 years ago, our dollar used to be worth 1.25 canadian dollars and traded one for one with the Euro. Now, a canadian dollar is worth $1.09 american, and the euro is worth $1.47 american.
When the Democrats suggest that we might have to actually *pay* for our expenditures, the Republicans start rolling their eyes and scream “There they go again, tax and spend, tax and spend!”
I submit that if we taxed enough to pay for our expenditures instead of putting it on our kids’ credit cards, we would all be a lot poorer for about twenty years, and then we’d find we were richer than ever.
Just a thought.
If you put 100 economists in a room and asked them all the same question, you would get 101 opinions. Had we taxed, who, how and what the overall effects may have been would make a great final paper for an economics major (not me). I would also like to know what the plan was (if there was a plan). However, I think you would have a hard time validating the claim that we would be “richer than ever” is 20 years. My “point” was relatively unrelated to your post. I was simply musing on where 10.5 trillion went.
“If you put 100 economists in a room and asked them all the same question, you would get 101 opinions”
I bet if you asked them whether a dollar worth one euro was worth more or less than a dollar worth .68 euro they could all agree. See, you can’t hear the facts and then just say “oh well, sometimes people disagree”. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
You are so busy putting things in my mouth, you are not hearing my post. You have attacked on a point I did not disagree on. Reread it. I can tell you got lost while looking for things that were not there. I would not have presumed to argue the numbers. I would, however, suggest that your image of what the hypothetical present and future might have been like had we taken your economic course is presumptuous. Your non-point on how things ’should’ have gone is not fact. It is theory (not provable). Yeah, American dollar tanked. Yes, we are 10.5 trillion under. Yes, it all really sucks. But, how things could have, would have gone had you been king of the world at the time is up for debate. I’m sure you will agree “you are not entitled to your own facts.”
*snicker* … putting stuff in your mouth …
*snicker*
Sorry, couldn’t help it
Wow…that was low and disgusting even for you.
This is actually pretty funny if you pretend the captioner wasn’t trying to be an uneducated partisan hack, and substitute a politician of your choice. They are all quite fond of country clubs!
Fair enough.
Well, not really. They are perverting the McCain campaign slogan and using it against him. So, it is pretty specific and that’s why it is funny and clever, I will say that. It’s just based on assumptions that are false.
At least they didn’t steal his slogan and try to pretend it was their’s all along … More of the same came out of McCain’s mouth at the debate … LOL
McCain – candidate of change? Roflmao!
McCain even had signs eerily similar to Obama’s at a few of his appearances.
Wow. I wish they would put up some funny derogatory ones about Obama….but judging from the ads on the page, they don’t care about the laughs, just about the candidate they can push forward.
Disappointing.
There used to be a good number of McCain ads on the site too. Of course, I don’t see the ads anymore because I blocked all ads while browsing punditkitchen. I usually don’t block ads but I really don’t much care for rewarding political candidates for their misleading ads.
Rule number one of Pundit Kitchen- Though shalt not EVER make fun of Obama, Biden or their families with LOL’s. All else is open season.
The exception to that rule, you CAN make fun of Obama’s ears apparently. But, that’s about all.
No. It’s actually an open site. Instead of whining about the lack of Obama lols, go make some yourself.
I would, if there were any good Obama pictures in the LOLbuilder, but none of the ones there lend themselves to anything.
Of course, then we have to wade through the (seemingly) liberal bias of the voting, which tend give Obama lolz negative ratings and McCain-bashing positive ones.
The number of rating is based on the number of votes. Apparently the majority of ICHC affiliate sites lean to the left.
There’s not a good picture of Obama to LOL? Upload one.
Can we all agree that PK has a left leaning slant? Hell, at this point I’d agree that there is some vast conspiracy being carried out by the site admin that is censoring anti-Obama lols and I will happily admit to that fact if it means we NEVER have to have this argument again. Please.
I wouldn’t call one guy being unable to see past his party affiliation to see humor a “vast” conspiracy. Just one sad little individual.
<3 Jane
You really make my day sometimes Jane.
You have got to be kidding! I see in addition to whining about the “liberal media” and the “liberal PK” conservatives are now whining about the “liberal advertisments.” Come on guys, you’ve got to do better than that, why don’t you just make up some stuff, like Obama’s a closet-muslim, THE muslims are all terrorists, or Obama’s an elitist… oh wait, you’ve already done that.
They’re just mad that, absent input from the conservative echo machine, most people really are liberal at heart. They just don’t think they are when they listen to conservative spinmeisters: “What! You’re a liberal?!? Why do you hate America?!?!?”
If most people are Liberals at heart, why did both Bush and Reagan get re-elected ?
“most people are liberals at heart”-Wishful thinking or outright delusions ?
Both.
Voter Caging.
If most people are liberals at heart, why, in the entire history of this nation, have more conservatives than liberals been elected President. From George Washington himself (the Federalists were the conservative party at the time) through George W., this nation has been and continues to be, like it or not, center-right.
You’ll also note that the most-remembered liberals tended to have very conservative foreign policies. FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, for example, were quite aggressive when it came to the military and foreign policy.
“FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, for example, were quite aggressive when it came to the military and foreign policy.”
Contrary to the ’60s stereotypes, liberals are not, by definition, wimps. We are quite willing and capable of defending our country when necessary. Your side just thinks we’re weak because we don’t treat international politics as a barfight. “You looking at me?! YOU LOOKING AT ME?!? We’re gonna come over and burn every village in your nation you stupid little yellow/brown/red-skinned moron!”
“If most people are liberals at heart, why, in the entire history of this nation, have more conservatives than liberals been elected President.”
If you total up ALL elected offices, do you come up with the same imbalance? I don’t think so. That’s why the Democrats pretty much ran the national legislature from the 1960’s till 1994.
Washington was not part of any political party, and I’m sure the argument was made a few lols ago that the act of declaring independence was inherently liberal (it was used to say that the slave owning south were liberal).
As PiMan states, GW (the original — w/out the Bush) not only wasn’t affiliated with a party, he warned against them. All of the founding fathers were liberal, in fact they were sownright left-wing extremests challenging monacharies, what were they thinking? The conservatives of the times were the torries, who left for England or Canada.
Reading skills FTW. I was stating that I would like to see more geared towards Obama. I simply said that based on the Obama ads, I didn’t think that would happen, and that it was too bad. You also have no clue which direction I lean, so assume away. I have no problem whatsoever with the ads, I just know how money guides what sites post. Anything else?
Yeah, quit whining, fire up those creativity neurons, and make some ObamaLOLs yourself. Damn.
Not whining, discussing. And I have. TYVM. Damn.
Pundit kitchen is about as conservative as Barbara Streisand and Al Franken put together.
( Frankensand ?)
shuddderrr!!!
Too…..much…..liberalism……head……going to……explode……..must…..warn…..others!!!!! *HACK GASP*
I’m an independent and I’ve seen a few Anti-Liberal lols on the voting page that I found amusing, but they all get voted way down, even if they are really funny. There’s really a huge liberal slant to this site (and all the ICHC sites). But that’s to be expected. I’ve said it before, the Internet as a whole is left-leaning, and these sort of trendy “Web 2.0″ sites are even more so. There’s really nothing that can be done about it.
If you want to see lols about liberal politicians you will have to make your own site. The mechanics of this site will not allow for there to ever really be that many. Very few make it to the voting page to begin with (im not sure how this is determined), at which point most voters do not look for “funny”, they look for which political statements they agree with, and vote 1 or 5 depending.
The problem then is how they are chosen to go to the front page. Since we have seen many Anti-Conservative lols that are either not funny, or horribly inaccurate, we can only assume that the people in charge of moving them up to the front page are left leaning as well (and apparently not very knowledgable with regards to politics). Occasionally you will see a seemingly Anti-Liberal lol appear, but typically it’s an ambiguous lol that could be interpreted easily as Anti-Conservative.
Even if the moderators do not have a left-leaning slant, and truly do go by pure votes, then it’s even more hopeless since the hordes of braindead morons who contribute nothing will vote it down just because it is against their candidate of choice, regardless of humor value.
Scientific polls typically show our country as pretty evenly split between the liberal and conservative leaning folks, yet your typical web poll is something like 75-80% liberal. I imagine if we had polls here on PK it’d be more like 90-95% liberal.
Basically, your only choices are to get over it, or go elsewhere. This is a liberal site, end of story.
“Basically, your only choices are to get over it, or go elsewhere. This is a liberal site, end of story.”
THIS.
I have entirely accepted this, but I reserve the right to bitch and complain!!
Never mind that, why isn’t there more Coke in Pepsi machines? And how come Burger King doesn’t serve Big Macs?
I’ve done probably dozens of funny pics about Obama. But they never make it to the top.
Look at the profile for “michaelf” and see them for yourself.
Maybe there’s a reason they didn’t make it to the top. Me and my friends have made a number of dem-friendly LOLs that never made it to the voting page.
Define “funny”…
http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/pictures-by-michaelf/lolz
Cause I’m not seeing funny…
A few of them weren’t that bad (the “lipstick on a pig” one, for example). And I do remember a few of those up on the voting page. The uber-liberal site moderators must’ve missed them.
I loved the one with Biden’s mouth duck tapped shut! Funny!
duct?
LOL! Fail me.
I was wondering how they would make tape out of ducks…
Not only that, how could ducks tap someones mouth shut?
Would you settle for a sound spanking?
Instead of the waterboarding?!
Whichever. The safeword is “banana”
http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=2033538
I liked this one – voted for it … and I am as liberal as they come.
I’m glad they finally got rid of the “Drill baby drill” tshirt ad, that was just obnoxious. I know, I know, get the ad blocker thing…
LEGENDARY.
Maccy is so not going to get this presidency.
I disagree. At the end of the day on November 4, I think McCain will be the President-elect. Obama just isn’t ready for it, and (race aside), I don’t think America is ready for another leftist President so soon after Clinton.
God forbid there should be any economic prosperity. America couldn’t stand it.
I can only speak for where I live, but the most prosperous times have ALWAYS been during Republican administrations. The worst times in my lifetime were during the Carter years, and I do NOT ever want to see another Carter in the White House… which is why I oppose Obama, since nearly all of his policies are directly from Carter’s playbook.
I thought the talk-down point was how all of Barack’s plans coe from “The Communist Manifesto”?
Well, all I can say is, as an Army Brat Carter gave my family (and the rest of the military) a 14% pay raise, the highest percent any president has given the military the entire 20+ years my dad was in so…. yeah.
I must have missed that one when I was in because we had no fuel for aircraft or training, no pay raise at all, and since they were out of practice from not training, the Iranian hostage rescue failed when the helicopter crashed and killed a friend of mine. Then we got to see US soldiers bodies dragged thru the streets of Iran.
Yeah, real top notch president, that Jimmy Carter !
Not true, on two counts. First, Pres Carter pushed for and got the Congress (Art I and all that) to pass a 14 % pay raise, in either 1979, or 1980, can’t recall the year, but I think that it was 79 — maybe one of you energetic googlers can check that out. Second, during the late 70’s early 80″s there were shortages of fuel, among other things, but there are always some units that get what they need, that was one. The problem with Desert One was a combination of many factors, including poor planning, mismatched inter-service equipment, bad weather and other factors. While the buck does indeed stop at the top, something recent GOP Presidents tend to forget, including Pres Reagan, Blaming Desert One on Pres Carter is a stretch.
We can always count on Charlie for military clarification, thanks!
More like obfuscation.
Carter cancelled a visit to our base in 1978 because the Secret Service was afraid of what the troops would do to that idiot. The only military who liked him were career desk jockeys sucking up to him hoping for appointments and promotions.
And you teach kids this crap ?
Bob, while I respect you service, you are full of shit and you are lying. Now, you want to draw down and sling shit? Go ahead… there you were, up to your armpits in handgrenade pins…fill in the blanks, tell us what a hero you are. Because when it comes right down to it, you have nothing to offer but Bullshit. Your statements are pure fabrications from someone with an agenda, and you don’t care how much you lie, as long as you advance your agenda. You are a swift boat wannabe.
hmmm, pk ate my response. it was long and in depth and full of adjectives, so i wonder why? Suffice it to say, Bob, you are a liar. You want to draw down? tell us … there you were, up to your armpits in hand grenade pins… tell us what a hero you are. you are full of it, everything you say, every piece of “evidence” is entirely fabricated. You are in fact, without integrity.
And I suppose Reagan gets the credit for ending the hostage situation 6 MINUTES after he was sworn in (especially because the Algiers Accords were signed the day before, when Reagan had NO official powers)?
Do not blaspheme the name of the Great Lord Reagan, for his followers are mighty and loud.
Similar to the followers of Obamessiah. At least Reaganites have a leader to back them up
Nancy? Being that Reagan likely had Alzheimer’s and was busy falling asleep during important meetings?
I meant to say likely already had Alheimers during his second term.
Nacy backed Kerry in the last election, mind.
Likely isn’t good enough. There is no evidence that he had Alzheimers at the time of his presidency. And if Nancy was the power behind the ‘throne’, then more power to her. At least she didn’t hate the country.
Didn’t we already have the discussion about hating the country? And who again that is involved in the presidential race hates the country?
Michelle doesn’t hate the country either. That’s only neocon propaganda and you know it.
No Evidence? Were you ALIVE during that time? There were signs of it in many of his later public appearances. Are they proof? No, of course not. DO they negate that he tended to act like a doddering fool and his presidency was far from the Golden Age that many Republicans pretend it was? Of Course not.
Gah! I meant does your point negate my latter point. Its bed time…
If Michelle doesn’t hate the country she certainly seems to blame the country for certain things.
What, in your expert opinion, does she blame the country for?
Ema! (waves hand) Obama is God- Reagan was the devil. Carter was wonderful as was Clinton. Drink the Koolaid of liberalism ! Do not belive the false evidence otherwise !
Ema, a lot of people blame the country for certain things. Just because she is married to a man who is running for president doesn’t make her opinion any different.
I don’t think she has anything to complain about, she has a wonderful job, education, she has it all. But instead she wants to put forth the impression that something is wrong.
You also haven’t lived her life or know what kind of struggles she had to overcome to get that wonderful job, education, and “it all.” She is entitled to her opinion no matter what her socio-economic status is, whether that something is wrong or that everything is peachy.
“But instead she wants to put forth the impression that something is wrong.” Have you watched the news or looked around lately? Something IS wrong. At least a few things are wrong.
Yes, but plenty of things are right. Way more things are right than wrong, have you looked at other countries lately? I know you have, happen to have gone to Mexico lately by any chance? What kind of opportunities do you think you would have there? Not squat. If you are going to run for president and win the hearts of all the voters (and not just the complainers) you dam well better put forward a positive message or you are going to make a bad impression.
“Ema! (waves hand) Obama is God- Reagan was the devil. Carter was wonderful as was Clinton. Drink the Koolaid of liberalism ! Do not belive the false evidence otherwise !” Nobody said that. If you read, I’ve not said anything positive about Obama. I did say Reagan sucked, and I still think that. I never said Carter was great, and definitely never mentioned Clinton. Apparently though, since I disagree with you, I must automatically be an ultra-liberal holds the views that you just stated?” Whatever happened to intelligent debate?
Christine – we ALL have difficulties to overcome in life – the truly admirable people handle them and don’t complain. If something needs to change, change it.
Ema, I don’t disagree with that at all. I’d still rather live here than anywhere else. But, I think we do ourselves a disservice by pretending everything is fine. I think we do ourselves more of a disservice when we discourage public figures from mentioning those problems.
It’s not about encouraging or disscouraging public figures from mentioning problems, I’m talking about what is more attractive to the public. Someone that complains about their problems is not very attractive and can seem narcisistic (sp? it’s late..) That will not draw the most people to any cause. But concentrating on the positive and putting forth a positive and strong image is very attractive to the public and would have been a better strategy for MO.
Obama – ENOUGH!!
“It’s not about encouraging or disscouraging public figures from mentioning problems, I’m talking about what is more attractive to the public. Someone that complains about their problems is not very attractive and can seem narcisistic (sp? it’s late..) That will not draw the most people to any cause. But concentrating on the positive and putting forth a positive and strong image is very attractive to the public and would have been a better strategy for MO.”
See, I disagree with that philosophy. Yes, it would probably be a better strategy, but I hate when issues are sugar-coated because people are worred about what it would do to their public image. A matter of opinion, I guess.
“…I hate it when issues are sugar-coated…”
It’s not sugar-coating. A basic difference between a Conservative and a Liberal is that Conservatives try to look for the good in a situation and a Liberal sees only the bad. That’s a blanket generalization that isn’t true every time, but is true enough times to make it real.
Ema, I never heard her complain, only point out what she was dissatisfied with. And as far as changing what you think needs to be changed, she is supporting her husband, who I think she believes will change what she wants to be changed. I also think it’s pretty clear that she did handle the obstacles because again, she has the wonderful job, education and “it all.”
I am not sure I agree with that. I have seen very few conservatives willing to look for the good in situations like Welfare, SS, Unemployment, national health care, etc. All I see are cons talking about the rampant abuses of the systems. Yes there are abuses, but the services also provide a lot of good to people that are struggling. Like you said its a blanket generalization…
In bed, hehe
You are going to have to give up the obama as messiah shtick – Evangelicals are claiming it for Palin. They like the fact that she claims Dinosaurs and humans coexisted and they were gung ho for the witch hunter anointing.
Government spending is higher under Republicans.
The federal deficit is higher under Republicans.
National debt grows faster under Republicans.
GDP rises by less under Republicans.
Inflation is higher under Republicans.
Unemployment is higher under Republicans.
And your sources are ?
Out by Pluto and Neptune?
Uranus ?
My original source (theage.com.au) wants to make pay for the article, so I can’t show you that. But I can show you a similar, yet less moderate, article from the LA Times (click name). Remember, just because it is ultra left wing, doesn’t mean it is wrong (at least not in this case).
Democrats should have picked a stronger candidate, this was their election to lose. Obama would have made an excellent VP candidate.
If Obama does indeed lose, the people organizing his campaign should never be able to work again. All the Anti-Republican sentiment, and President Bush’s rockbottom approval ratings, and Obama is still only ahead of McCain by a slim margin. This should be an easy win for them. Why is it such a slim margin?
He should be much further ahead than he is, in my opinion.
Corporate media likes close races.
Tighter races = more viewers/readers = PROFIT!!!
*taps tip of nose*
Again – Voter Caging.
The fraud machines are already revving the engines and preparing to contest votes.
Florida: Anyone with the same name as a “black sounding” criminal will be challenged. Hispanic names left alone.
Ohio/Michigan: Anyone who received a foreclosure notice in SELECT counties.
If McCain wins it won’t be a fair win
McCain really should have been slaughtered in those POW camps. Why do people think that because he was a POW that somehow he is qualified to lead the country? My mother survived polio, breast cancer, a near broken back, and now suffers from post-polio disease. That is in no way a reason that she should be a political leader. McCain is useless as tits on a bull. If there are any other reasons he should be president, than his committee should talk about those points. Other wise, any one who gets in a really bad bar fight should be elected mayor.
Have you met April? I think your brand of stupid would go really well with hers.
I think the only brand of stupid comes from people that think McSatan will be a good president. He is just another Bush. Bush is pure evil. Bush is that guy who uses religion as cover up for his very un-godlike actions. Very similar to catholic priests and baptists that beat their children.
No, he is not like Bush, not anymore than Obumer is a communist.
So all Catholic priests are un-Godlike, and all baptists beat their children? Way to ruin all chance at credibility.
DId you see the word “all” in 42’s statement? No? STFU then.
Well he certainly didn’t say “some”, so “all” is implied.
He didn’t say all so some is inferred
I certainly did not mean “all”. Coming from a background that involved the baptist faith and a father that beat and molested members of my family (tmi?), I’d say I have a first hand experience at how an evil person can disguise themself as bible-thumping, god-fearing christian. I know many familys like mine where the parents have hidden behind a veil of religion. Does this happen to all religious folk? Of course not. I did not mean to imply that. As far as the “McCain being slaughtered” comment, pure shock value. Don’t take people too seriously. However I still stand by my comment that he is evil and the people who are blinded by his bullshit and his turkey neck are sad individuals.
The word all is not needed in the English language in imply and all-encompassing statement. If you want me to get more detailed, his hyperbole (that means exaggerations) ALSO makes him lose credibility. For the record, I actually agree with his underlying message. The more I look into McCain, the less I like him. Nice attempt at being clever with the iterative name though.
We are at least two people you know.
One can never tell in the absence of IP addresses (and not really even then).
I did try to phrase my statement in such a way that it could encompass more than one person, but for all I know, you are one person with multiple personalities. 
I certainly did not mean “all”. Coming from a background that involved the baptist faith and a father that beat and molested members of my family (tmi?), I’d say I have a first hand experience at how an evil person can disguise themself as bible-thumping, god-fearing christian. I know many familys like mine where the parents have hidden behind a veil of religion. Does this happen to all religious folk? Of course not. I did not mean to imply that. As far as the “McCain being slaughtered” comment, pure shock value. Don’t take people too seriously. However I still stand by my comment that he is evil and the people who are blinded by his bullshit and his turkey neck are sad individuals. Thanks for the great responses.
I was referring to your statement that anyone should have been slaughtered in a POW camp. How dare you say something so cruel and evil?
Do you think the US has never been guilty of that in the past? Though I do disagree with his statement.
I wasn’t qualifying my statement by saying we have never been guilty of it. That certainly doesn’t make his statement any less evil and sick. A person who thinks that needs mental help. Maybe shock treatments. Maybe a few years in a POW camp in Southeast Asia himself.
Like I said, I disagree with what he said as well. I just get tired of people who decry things like that as if this nation is so pure and righteous. It seems you are not on of those people, however, I had to check…
Just because your country may or may not be guilty of something, doesn’t take away your right to not like it, or criticize anyone for it. Especially if you aren’t in charge of whether or not it happens. We don’t elect our military personnel in the US, they are volunteers.
Wow, I’d never expect THIS of all things to garner wank.
Thanks guys, you’re right, there are absolutely NO wealthy, out of touch liberals!
AinOk, you win an internet.