Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.
 

« Previous | Next »

Still beating.



donald rumsfeld, george w. bush and dick cheney

Still beating. Still beating. Uh-oh…

(Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney)

Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: dunno source via Advanced Lol Builder

» Recaption This

» See All Captions

Incorrect source or offensive?

Add this to your blog:
(Copy & paste code)

You May Like:

» 499 comments

  1. HairySexyTroll says:

    That was my exact thought when I first saw this picture *I do believe* on CNN.com.

    Either that, or “what the hell are those guys feeling for, anyway?”

  2. PortlandMark says:

    Full of funny. I lolled.

  3. Raven on Neptune says:

    This one is quite funny.
    A break from the usual I suppose.

  4. judson says:

    I am thinking ‘O.K., one down – two to go’

  5. FMyVirgin says:

    Honestly, although it’s still an “loldumbrepublicans” caption.
    It made me laugh out loud.
    Yeah, I had to actually emphasize, no acronyms for me funnyman!
    *Heroic pose*

  6. haha says:

    well that or being shot in the face with a shotgun

  7. Droid4 says:

    Okay yes this is funny, but I am getting tired of people making fun of Cheney every day. He is the only one standing up and telling it to Obama, I’m(if the only one) happy about that.

    • Seth says:

      Funny thing, Cheney still gets airtime. Did any Democrats get a similar amount of airtime on the majors to point out Bush’s failings, or the Democrats’ plans? Nope, not really.

      • eddiepscetti says:

        Seth, are you serious? The Democrats were all over networks to point out Bush’s failings.

        • froofrou says:

          Case in point: the dude who looks like a snake, James Carville. He’s only one of many many many.

          • Jane St.Clair says:

            Ew, I hate that guy. Soooo creepy.

            • froofrou says:

              It’s because he’s married to a Conservative, right? You Conservo-Hater!!!!

              • PortlandMark says:

                I’ve hated him ever since what he said about (which one?) of the women that brought suit against Clinton in the ’90s:

                “It’s amazing what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park”.

              • pcflamingo says:

                No, it’s because he has a skeleton-face and spits when he talks. Ever notice how people lean awaaaaaay from him when he’s talking? I’m fairly liberal and I don’t like to listen to him, let alone watch him. Ick.

    • m00finsan says:

      Telling it to Obama? He’s on the air to cover his ass for those war crimes he committed.

  8. Droid4 says:

    What failings, Bush kept us safe for over 7 years. If Obama had been president when the Terrorists(yes the Terrorists) attacked we would have tried to be nice and try and sit down with Bin Laden, have a cup of tea and what not. America would have been attacked a bunch more times and there is no way Obama would have let them find anything out from the Terrorists we caught(cause that would be cruel…cry me a river).

    Basically it’s like this,

    Obama, Democrats, Liberalism = Destruction of Capitalism, American Deaths, Good will to all Terrorists.

    Bush, Republicans, Conservatism = America was safe, the Terrorists were in retreat, Capitalism flourished(until the Democrats took over Congress)

    • If by safe you mean bankrupt, undereducated, unemployed, and disliked by a growing segment of the world’s population, then good stuff, well done! Love your use of Terrorism with a capital T, it makes it much scarier.

      • bad fairie says:

        and don’t forget the anthrax that was sent vie us postal service

      • Squid says:

        and getting rid of habeus corpus was a good move too, right along with warrentless wiretaps, which I’m sure were never used to spy on political opposition. Don’t forget about all the great pics from Abu Graib (sp?) that went all around the world. I’m sure that made the terrorisit’s numbers shrink and didn’t aid in their recruiting at all. Of course that was all the soldiers’ own ideas of what to do while bored and not ordered from Rumsfeld and approved of by W. (wink)

    • mothergoose says:

      “Bush kept us safe for over 7 years”

      So, by your estimation an 88% “safety rating” is good…hmmm…interesting…

    • PortlandMark says:

      Well sure, they kept us safe. If you don’t count the worst attack on American soil in history, bankrupting the country for a war of choice, and causing the deaths of 5475 soldiers (so far).

      That’s not counting Arab deaths. Of course, you wouldn’t, would you?

    • slan agat says:

      Basically it’s like this:

      Our people caught terrorists and used methods to question them sanctioned by the FBI and the Army Field Manual, and got a load of good solid actionable intelligence. But none of it linked Saddam to al-Qaeda, so the interrogators who were getting the good intel were replaced with CIA subcontractors who used the illegal shit the communist regimes have been using to extract false confessions for decades. The illegal shit, alas, caused the prisoners to clam up or start spouting whatever false garbage they could come up with to make it stop.

      Meanwhile, the regulations that couldn’t be dismantled were neutered by hiring regulators who at best would sit on their hands, and at worst would snort coke and have sex with the industry reps they were meant to regulate. With effectively no controls on the system, the markets overheated, leading to a crash that was absolutely inevitable regardless of who held Congress.

      Shorter basically it’s like this: You’re full of it, friend.

    • The Steve says:

      I love the wild speculation.

      I also love the partisan blaming.

      Everyone knows that standing aside, pointing at the other person screaming “He did it!” is the best way to solve problems…when you’re 5 years old and you broke Mom’s vase.

      In the grown up world it doesn’t matter who’s fault it is, the only thing that matters is the solution to the problem.

    • dropping in says:

      NO we would have gone after Osama Bin Laden instead of using it as an excuse to go after Saddam—and Bin Laden would not have been on TV this morning. Terrorism was definitely not in retreat- recruitment for Al Qaida (sp fail- sorry) and other terrorist groups were found to increase, starting election day 2000. Military sources and the FBI/CIA have reported that terrorist groups have increased and infiltrated into areas they were not in previously in the middle east in the course of the Bush administration- perhaps this would have occurred anyway- however, one cannot say terrorism was “in retreat” under Bush. At best it maintains a growth trajectory- at worst it developed one.

  9. Droid4 says:

    I’m not saying Bush’s administration was perfect, no president has had a perfect admoinastreantion. I would love for Obama to save the economy, but he’s not cause he is doing everything wrong. Does anybody really want to pay all these new taxes for plans that are running us down a ditch? Don’t think so, instead of growing government and raising taxes, we should lower taxes and stop spending. It was spending that got us into this mess(yes Bush helped with that, but Obama is spending way more then him) spending won’t get us out.

    • Sorry if I don’t take your word for it that “Obama is doing everything wrong” with regard to the economy. At least Obama is spending on our country, vs pouring nearly nine hundred billion dollars into the occupation of Iraq.

      • Anniee451 says:

        Hehe – you should try asking an economist sometime. And I don’t mean Paul the fraud Krugman.

        • PortlandMark says:

          I had no idea you were more educated than the entire Nobel committee. Where does one get such an education? What kind of a job does one get with that education?

          • rellakan says:

            As occupation, I’d list Internet(s). Also, one gets such an education studying under Chuck Norris (I apologize deeply, I couldn’t think of another place.)

            • Anniee451 says:

              I have little to no desire to be a college professor, which is largely what one can do with an economics degree. Unless one decides instead to write political opinion pieces like Krugman and gets a job in the lamestream media as a darling of the left. I could never pander to the left, so that ain’t me.

            • Anniee451 says:

              Not surprising you couldn’t name any real economists, though (Chuck Norris? LOL.) Thank you for making my point for me.

              • rellakan says:

                I was not trying to name an economist. I was trying to think of a place that would make you more intelligent than all of the Nobel committee. I neither agreed or disagreed with Mark, merely tried to lighten the conversation.

              • PortlandMark says:

                Sure, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically unqualified. Any information that contradicts your tiny worldview is automatically a product of a worldwide conspiracy.

                Seen it.

                Bored with it.

                Look up “intellectual integrity” and get back to us.

            • Anniee451 says:

              At my expense, thank you for the mood lightener.

              • tyler says:

                Sorry about the accidental name change, by the way. Wasn’t trying to troll (deliberately, at least. O.O) but i accidentally logged into gravatar, which makes the name i type in the box invalid and automatically goes to the nickname >.<

                • PortlandMark says:

                  (Don’t bother using humor when talking to Annie; her level of humor is “Then the Democrat fell on a rusty knife and died a horribly painful death over a period of weeks”)

                  • froofrou says:

                    I know I’m laughing…..did he die of ptomaine poisoning, or simply bled out?

                  • Anniee451 says:

                    Care to back that up with a citation please?

                    • PortlandMark says:

                      OMG it’s a joke! WHO ARE YOU AND WHY ARE YOU HACKING ANNIE’S ACCOUNT!!!!

                      • Anniee451 says:

                        Most people don’t find jokes about rusty knives killing people to be too funny, Anniee included. Nor do most people like to be accused of finding them funny, even as a “joke.” So we are retracting that statement then? It was “just a joke” and was not indeed accurate, correct?

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          No, I truly believe that’s your level of humor.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Then again I ask you could you please bring up a citation to back this statement? Because it’s highly inflammatory.

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Just don’t care, Annie. I’ve never received anything but abuse from you when I treated you with respect. Never got a response from you that even indicated you understood a word I said in the past. I’ve never heard you say to anybody, “well, we disagree, but we’re all Americans and we need to stick together”.

                          Choke on it.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          So, you made the accusation without a shred of proof, a scintilla of evidence, and you expect it to stick even though I’ve never come close to making or laughing at a “joke” of that sort? I guess it’s par for the course. I do hope you at least read the economics article I linked you to – kinda blows that Krugman stuff hollow like blowing out an egg, eh?

                          There you go, Seth – if I turn the other cheek, I’m told to “choke on it” and accused of the most vile kinds of sentiments that I’ve never expressed. Go figure, huh?

                        • froofrou says:

                          Telling someone out of the blue to kiss your ass is turning the other cheek? DAMMIT. I’ve been doing it wrong this whole time……….

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Don’t worry, I can predict with 99% accuracy exactly what froo will do to provide the ‘proof’ you didn’t. And I don’t believe it’s the same thing at all; only that she’ll do it to say “Harumph! Anniee you suck!” In 3…2…1…

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          (Nesting fail, froo. This was turning the other cheek; that was a goof. You should have put this there. However, you’re missing a golden one…)

                        • froofrou says:

                          Tell you what, Anniee, in the spirit of Glasnost, I’ll do as you’ve asked and kiss your ass, but you’re going to have to point out which zip code you want me to start in. It’s a big area, and I’m a little lost as to where to begin. Perhaps if you removed your head you might could offer some help as to where on your spacious ass you’d like me to kiss?

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          OH! NO, YOU DI’NT!

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Nesting fail, froo. Different conversation altogether. Bigotry noted.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          And since you wasted your opportunity – a huge Bzzzt! Wrong answer. You could have bested me and failed miserably; too bad. I need more worthy opponents. Mark can’t back up his accusations; froo is forced to bring up entirely different conversations and resort to bigotry (though I’ve never mentioned what I do or don’t weigh – hint, one can be a teetotaller and be against the drug war, for example) – and that’s just all you guys have to bring. I’ve been wasting my efforts insulting you. You do just fine looking bad without my help.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Mark, did you think her implication that I might be fat would hurt? I know and love too many fat people for that ploy to work. Better try another tack, hon. The rusty knife ploy fell flat too – what will it be next?

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          I’ve already said, Annie, I’m done trying to invite you into the community of humans we are trying to develop here. You can only get along with someone who agrees with you 99% of the time. Dhoti is the ONLY person you’ve ever had anything nice to say to. (no, wait, there was a driveby wingnut a few lols back that you agreed with too, my bad.)

                          I’m glad you realize insulting us is a waste of time. Personally, I consider the source, and I can only laugh.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          True to form, Markie. Make an unfounded assertion, then when asked for a citation, turn around and say “Neiner, you don’t DESERVE one!” By the way, you’re wrong – my first few posts to Froo were very highly complimentary – she turned around and snapped like a rabid dog because I’d crossed the likes of Fisty and other hard leftist jackas*es.

                          So we’ve established that you lied about me – can you PERHAPS stop doing that much, Mr. More Human Than I?

                          Seth – this is why I don’t turn the other cheek in an online discussion forum – it’s not even applicable. Though I do admit it only served to make Mark look far worse than usual; the fact is it’s very boring to me and it should be to you too. How about letting me do what I like and conversing with you and whoever is willing to converse on the occasions that happens, eh?

                        • froofrou says:

                          In Anniee’s defense, she has been nice to me in the past. This has been recently, and in a series of paragraphs on a single LOL. I thought we had reached a consensus that would allow she and I to get along, as we both agreed that the few Conservatives here shouldn’t fight. We were in agreement on that LOL about several subjects, and I had hoped that our days of fighting were over.
                          -
                          Then on the next LOL that she commented on she was back to her old ways, and nullified the entire conversation the night before. I’m not sure if she was drunk when she was nice, or if she’s drunk the other times, or if she’s drunk at all. I’d rather think that she drunk posts more often than not, because someone with her potential and formidable strengths in debate should not be wasted on petty insults and trying to win all the time. If she’s drunk when she’s being mean then she has an excuse. Otherwise, she’s just an ass, and I don’t want to think that she is, considering that there have been times that she’s been nice to people who don’t always agree with her.
                          -
                          There is a time to fight, and a time to listen to the other side respectfully, regardless of how they treat you. I’m not sure she’s figured that out yet.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          For Droid, who was being warned not to speak with me lest he be tainted by the taint of taintness (because apparently I make jokes about people being killed by rusty knives – not) here’s an example of something I DO actually find funny. Of course, I always commend the Lols I think are funny, none of which are about rusty knives, but hey – never let facts get in the way, right markie? (Link – don’t worry, everyone will like it.)

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          No dice, froo – I was nice when I met you, but I genuinely don’t like you, and you know why. Mostly your bigotry. We did not agree on that thing – you merely asked it and I did not reply – silence does not imply consent. The vast majority of my posts are from work – voila! Not drunk, not that that is ANY of your concern.

                          Now shoo! Some of us grownups are trying to talk.

                        • froofrou says:

                          Where were you nice to me today, Anniee? When you told me to kiss your ass out of the blue when I hadn’t said anything to you? Or was that another time?

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          As to the kiss my back cheek comment; the full context is available right on THIS thread ffs – how do you think you can lie about it here and now? It WAS a joke with a very specific meaning, and it was not in reply to some nice, friendly comment you made, but in reply to your mocking my tongue-in-cheek post about Cheney by calling him Rasputin, as though there is anything comparable. Froo, you are the weaseliest little sh*t I’ve EVER met anywhere. Seriously; I’ve never met a more mealy-mouthed outright weasel such as you behave as.

                        • froofrou says:

                          It truly pains my soul that you don’t like me. In fact, I think I will go home and write in my diary about it tonight. I might even write a letter to my congressman and ask him how to be less mealy mouthed and less weasely so that you will like me.
                          -
                          Anniee, the reason you don’t like me is because I don’t fit your ideal of a Christian Conservative Woman. Sorry. We’re all different, and that’s ok.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          “I’ve never heard you say to anybody, “well, we disagree, but we’re all Americans and we need to stick together”.

                          Just remembered this one. LOL

                          That’s because I don’t feel that way. Not after the last 8 years – unless you can point me to how accommodating the left was towards that point of view, even in light of the fact that we were at freaking WAR with people who wanted to kill us all. No, no, Mark – 9/11 radicalized me and 8 years of bashing (without a SINGLE peep of “We have to stick together) solidified it. Now you choke on it, friend. Choke on every word the left has put out for the last decade – in fact, the last 30 or 40 years I’ve been alive, considering it’s never really begun or ended. Tsk tsk – how soon you forget. Do you have like brain damage or something? Temporal lobe affected?

                        • froofrou says:

                          And FTR, I didn’t call Cheney Rasputin. I rather like Cheney. You might want to go back and see the actual source of that post.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Froo, you don’t fit my idea of a human being, at least if message boards are any indicator (which really they aren’t.) You’re the nastiest kind of bigot and instigator and have been from my first days here. The way you follow behind the vilest kind of abusers sniffing turds and lapping them up only makes it that much worse.

                          I almost NEVER bring up Christianity – unless you’re talking about me calling you a Froodenrat, which I happen to believe is absolutely true. That has nothing to do with Christianity either. Whatever you are or play in real life, I don’t want to know you here.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          You’ve done your work, though, distracting from the lie Mark told about me, which was your real goal.

                          How about backing up what he said or shutting the F up yourself, huh? If you share his sentiment, PROVE IT.

                        • froofrou says:

                          What amazes me is that you think that my feelings hinge on your view of me. You call me terrible names, accuse me of things that simply aren’t true, make LOL pictures that are so disgusting that they are taken down by the moderators, and then accuse me of being a bigot.
                          -
                          Ok, I’m a bigot, and you don’t like me. Now why are you still bothering to respond instead of moving on to greener pastures over at your feminist site?

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Because I’m an anti-feminist and don’t run or post at feminist sites? So why are you continuing to cover for Mark’s lie, exactly? Why the big distraction to cover that he has no citation whatever for his lie about me? What IS that about? One of those cases where a dear friend has had his widdwe feewings hurt and you have to stick up for him or what?

                        • froofrou says:

                          Mark is a big boy and can fight his own battles. He’s already said that his statement comes from his overall view of you. If you’re so set on him citing something, then ask him, not me.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Nope, froo. You jumped into the middle of it to cover for him with something from an ENTIRELY unrelated nest at the bottom of the page, where it belonged. What is your angle in protecting him here? He lied. That’s the long and short of it. He can not back it up. And you threw away the opportunity to do so (I’m surprised, since it would have been so easy.) I have asked him, how about you get YOUR big butt out of the way so I can keep asking him, eh?

                        • froofrou says:

                          Now who’s calling who fat? I guess that makes you the bigot, especially since you’re throwing racially and anti-Semitic epithets at me…….

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Hey, since fat is apparently some kind of insult to you, I figured you wouldn’t like it. Despite the fact that at least half your “dear friends” here are fat themselves, you seem to see it as a negative thing, though I can’t imagine why. Gotcha, eh?

                        • froofrou says:

                          Nice broad brush there as you manage to insult half (in your words) of the people here. You’re making assumptions that you can’t possibly know, and are most likely wrong about. As far as the Antisemitism of your words, that’s cut and dried; want to prove who the bigot is now?

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Again, very telling, bigot, that you see “fat” as an insult, when all it is is a body type, or a description of adipose tissue. Thanks for playing and rising to the bait!

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Oh, antisemitism because I called you Judenrat? If the jackboot fits, honey, wear it. You gave me a thorough description of your judenrat behavior against fellow (insert whatever you claim to be here) and exactly WHY you do it. Sorry, no go. No anti-Semitism to see here. But it is fascinating how you view fat as some type of horrible thing…you an anorexic perhaps? Some kind of weird aversion to adipose tissue, rooted in past abuse, or what?

                        • froofrou says:

                          And yet, casually throwing about names like “froodenrat”, “bigot”, and “not a human being” are ok. Gotcha, I’ll go ahead and write that down in my “How To Be A Good Bigot” Handbook.
                          -
                          Now, shall we move on to when you’re actually going to stop rising to my level and responding, when you don’t, in fact, consider us to be contemporaries?

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Yes, I was just told I wasn’t a human being above, by your dear friend. PAY ATTENTION, froo.

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Actually, it’s kind of cute that you just couldn’t bear to leave Mark hanging here with egg on his face. Cute like purple AIDS sores.

                        • froofrou says:

                          It’s funny that you tell me to pay attention when you clearly didn’t notice who started the “blank/blank 2012″ thread. Perhaps you should also go back and read exactly what Mark said about the “community of humans”, as he’s not calling you non-human, but rather an outsider to a group.

                        • froofrou says:

                          I’d like cites on all of those accusations, since you’re the one making the claim. I’ll hold my breath until you find them.

                        • I am remembering that little thread about Liberal hunting permits and how liberals need to take a joke, even one painfully at their own expense.

                          Hypocrite much?

                        • dropping in says:

                          It was an opinion- that PM has. The first amendment allows us opinions. It was not a nice opinion of you- he does not think you are nice- do I need to cite that PM thinks you are not nice- or will the above comments work? PM can you please please please publish a 3-5 page paper in the Journal of Behavioral Neurosciences proving that you do not think this person is nice so I can cite it? thanks!

                        • tyler says:

                          … I’m kind of amazed that after I stopped posting last night, me joking around and accidentally insulting Anniee caused this. I’m proud in a sick way and disgusted with myself at the same time O.o.
                          And Anniee, taking being called “fat” as an insult doesn’t prove that you hate fat people. It proves that you don’t want and/or don’t find that body type desirable, that’s all.

                    • AC says:

                      Umm… The “Liberal hunting permit” that you thought was so hilarious, maybe?

          • Anniee451 says:

            First, link to a real economist. Second, Arafat and Algore both won Nobels – not exactly a commendation there. Third, can you name the very narrow area in which Krugman DID win that prize, and do you know how little it means in the scheme of economics as a whole? Didn’t think so. His columns are not even economics columns but political screeds. Genuine economists facepalm at your lack of knowledge and how easily hoodwinked the adoring public really is.

            • Anniee451 says:

              And do notice that in all the above posturing, Mark still can’t argue with a real economist. LOL

              Ohhhhh the sting – first an uncitable lie, then froo having to defend him, then the inability to argue a subject he seems to think he knows something about. God, that’s got to smart.

    • Seth says:

      Bush screwed up the economy, but Obama will fix it. Even with the bailout (Thanks, Bush!) Obama hasn’t spent nearly as much as Bush, who took the Clinton surplus and booming economy and ran them into the ground.

      Over the last hundred years, if y had invested money in stocks only during Democratic presidents’ terms, you would have averaged 8.9% return on your investment. If you had only invested only during Republican presidents’ terms, you would have averaged 0.4%.

      {http:// http://www.tradersnarrative.com/does-wall-street-prefer-a-democrat-or-republican-president-2047.html}

      The Republicans keep on ruining the economy, while the Democrats keep on fixing it. You’re welcome.

      • Droid4 says:

        Every time a Republican gets voted in recently, he does good, but the media says he does bad. All the people run to the Democrats, they screw up, the people realize, hay we made a bad choice, then they run back to the Republicans to fix it.

        • Seth says:

          You’ve got it backwards. The media loves Republicans, look how much press Cheney and company are getting. We Democrats got almost no coverage during Bush’s terms.

          Republicans screw up the economy, and Democrats fix it. Look at the link I provided. Look how badly the economy has always done under Republicans. But never fear, the Democrats will always be there to clean up after you guys break things.

          You need to provide more proof for your assertions. Without proof, all you have are uninformed opinions. For instance, I proved that Republicans screw up the economy, and Democrats fix it with that link up above. You’ve just stated your opinion.

          • wanderama says:

            But after the Democrats are voted out of office there is always a Republican and visa versa. Maybe they are cleaning up after the mess the Democrats made, how can you tell? And, if the Democrats do so well, why do Republicans ever get voted back in?

            • The same way the Democrats get in. They find an angle and work it like a drunken Chinese hooker.

              • ubr says:

                dwn strikes again.
                .
                and sorry seth, but ANY assertions that the economy is either helped or hurt by a specific political party is completely groundless. if you look at the data, when there is a dem in the white house there is usually a repub congress and vice versa. the checks and balances are at work and no one party can control everything… the only thing i will agree to on this economic issue is that ALL politicians screw it up.

                • Seth says:

                  Read the linked article above. The trend is crystal clear.

                  • froofrou says:

                    There is a trend, but is it taking into account the “four year rule of thumb” when dealing with the economy? (I haven’t followed your link yet….no time…..but I have seen graphs in the past). For roughly 2-4 years the economy can be blamed on the last guy there, after that, it’s squarely in the lap of the sitting guy. In other words, rule of thumb-wise, Reagan fixed Carter, Bush 41 skated on coattails, Clinton rode Bush and created his own good vibes, Bush skated on Clinton and then started the slide. You can’t look at what’s going on RIGHT NOW or yesterday to see what caused it, or what party caused it. A lot depends on the Congressional make-up, the international market at the time, and whether or not the guy before you screwed the pooch royally. Now, in about a year and a half, Obama has no more excuses if the economy hasn’t at least stopped the slide back.
                    -
                    Remember, this is all from a non-economist who knows only the rule of thumb, but that the rule of thumb has held basically true over her lifetime ;-)

                    • ubr says:

                      sorry seth, but the article uses statistics and draws conclusions from those statistics with blinders on… there are A LOT more trends than just who the president is… here’s a great example of what they’ve done though…
                      did you know that when ice cream sales increase so do the number of drownings?

                      • tyler says:

                        ……………………………………
                        That was possibly the best way to end a post. Ever.

                      • Seth says:

                        They show causation by showing the conditions are both necessary and sufficient. That’s how you prove a correlation is a causation, FYI.

                      • wallFly says:

                        i actually read a statistic once that showed, unequivocally, anyone who has ever eaten at mcdonalds has eventually died. it’s true.

                      • James the Conquerer says:

                        That’s because it’s summer. Duh. :roll:

                        :lol:

                • PortlandMark says:

                  “when there is a dem in the white house there is usually a repub congress and vice versa”

                  Except from 2001 to 2006, of course.

              • Droid4 says:

                Okay thats a weird way to put it, but thats a good explantation. so really we don’t no who does better, because we keep going back and forth(it would help if the Republicans would stop trying to act like the Democrats though).

              • tyler says:

                WIN. h/o a few death, i need to stitch my ass back on.

            • Seth says:

              Read the article behind the link above. It lays out the proof in clear and unambiguous terms.

  10. Droid4 says:

    Hard to come up with a rebuttal to facts, and only one attack on American soil(witch could have been stopped by Clinton).

    • HairySexyTroll says:

      Or by his witches. Either or. :evil:

    • or Bush when he got the documentation…

    • slan agat says:

      Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S. – Presidential daily briefing, August 6, 2001. Bush’s response? “OK, you’ve covered your ass.”

      WHO could have stopped what, now?

    • dropping in says:

      Can we all be fair to Clinton for just a second? Clinton could NEVER have gone after Bin Laden, because no one would have supported dong so! Not the US, not the Congress, not the Senate, not the UN, or NATO- no one. Because he was not seem as that big of a deal- an problem, yes- but nothing on a scale to justify basically invading Afghanistan and Pakistan to go after him (and they would NEVER have given permission). The fact is that like the recent planned attack on Sears Tower we had enough info to thwart 9/11. However, we did not, until AFTER 9/11 to go directly after Bin Laden- with or without the support of the country(s) he was hiding in. NO ONE would have said- sure, go ahead and assassinate a world (stretching the term- but you get my point) leader- in fact we have laws against the CIA doing that. Without the massive horror of 9/11 no one thought Bin Laden was worth going after directly.

  11. When you get ready to post some facts, let me know, I’m super excited!

  12. Droid4 says:

    Well if we just said, all right Iraq your on your own, so long. Al Qaeda would have come back and the war on terror would have been a heck of a lot harder.

    • Seth says:

      Al Qaeda had no connection to Iraq before we invaded. Iraq had no connection to 9/11. All invading Iraq did was piss everyone off, and make even more Muslims hate us. Bush destroyed our reputation, our morals, and our security.

      • eddiepscetti says:

        Besides, Iraq was already sewn up, what was the point of invading? Saddam couldn’t really move left or right without the coalition being on his ass. I’m with you Seth, all it did was piss people off.

        • Droid4 says:

          Oh, and what do you think would have happened if we didn’t invade? Answer, lots of more American deaths. Course you won’t get that info from Obama he only releases the information that hurts us.

          • Seth says:

            So, you admit to not having any information, you are just guessing that invading a country that had no way of harming us somehow made us safer. Care to explain how that works?

          • eddiepscetti says:

            Oh bullsh*t! Iraq had as much to do with 9/11 as you did. What American deaths are you referring to that Saddam had a hand in? Tell me, please, because by MY estimation, American deaths in that country didn’t occur until AFTER we invaded, not before.

            • ubr says:

              the whole problem with iraq is that we should never have left saddam in power in 92… the decade that he had to oppress his people left us with practically no allies in iraq…

              • purple switch says:

                Uh… what? Seriously?
                Didn’t we have the whole conversation about imperialism just a minute ago, on another thread? How it doesn’t tend to end well for anyone?

                • ubr says:

                  we should have bolstered the support for the indigenous groups who wanted saddam removed. instead we talked them up and left them to be slaughtered. i’m not a fan of imperialism, but i do believe that there are certain aspects of it that if implemented correctly would have led to a better future than we are headed towards now… if the iraqis had revolted and thrown out saddam and then set up elections and trade negotiations with the west then there would not have been a place for al queda in iraq to pop up and… you get the gist.

                  • purple switch says:

                    Oh, fair comment. I read in right-wing talking points where there was a legitmate opinion, sorry.

                    Helping out oppressed people who ask is OK in my book. Though the line between legitimate aid and regime change is a mighty fine one that must be walked carefully. When it’s done right, though, the kind of homegrown evolution you’re talking about can happen.

                  • PortlandMark says:

                    Fair call UBR.

                  • Seth says:

                    UBR, I agree 100%.

              • Eric-in-STL says:

                I’m with ubr on this one. We went into Iraq to stop a madman, but didn’t finish the job. We could’ve easily avoided this whole mess back in ‘92.

              • eddiepscetti says:

                You can thank Colin Powell who convinced Bush Sr. not to roll on through to Bagdhad. His rational was that it would have hurt our standing in the Middle East.

                • dropping in says:

                  Wait- I think that was the right decision- that would be blatant imperialism, and would have resulted in what we have now—-I thought UBR and others (you) were saying we should have done more to support the Ira’s in overthrowing Saddam….that makes sense- and we should have…but then again we inevitably support the wrong person(s)…after all isn’t that what we DID with Saddam originally?

          • Jane St.Clair says:

            Is that info from the super secret Alternate Future department? I believe it’s housed in the Pentagon.

          • Eric-in-STL says:

            You actually think that horrific war helped us? You think we are any safer because Saddam is out? Saddam wasn’t a threat to us. It gave the Middle East a bigger reason to hate us, and likely inspired many would-be terrorists on the fence to take up against us (I don’t have numbers handy to support that, but I think it’s true).

          • The Steve says:

            Twice as many American’s have died in the Iraq war than were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack.

            Death toll for the war is over 5,000 (Americans)
            Death toll for 9/11 was 2,752

            Invading Iraq had nothing to do with keeping us safe. Iraq did not attack us, terrorists did. If anything kept us safe, it was increased security, not occupying a nation that had nothing to do with the attack.

            • froofrou says:

              Yes, and the CAFE standards on new cars passed in 1975 have killed more people due to lighter cars on the road than the war in Iraq. So there ;-)

              • Seth says:

                I don’t see how it’s even possible to make that claim. In 1975, cars didn’t have crumple zones, advanced composite materials, or airbags. Cars are MUCH safer these days, so are you comparing real cars, or imaginary cars, to those of 1975?

                • froofrou says:

                  Hang on, let me get the article……..

                  • froofrou says:

                    Ok, this is on CNBC, but it’s a blog, so do with it what you will. I have another cite, but I’m searching for it :-)

                    • viking gal says:

                      Here is a cite on the effect of air pollution on illness and death rates due to lung disease–rates were controlled to eliminate the effect of smoking. Same study also points out that the death rate from automobile accidents has increased significantly since the 1970’s due to the increased number of miles driven per person per year since then. –a physics research society, not a political think group, by the way.

                      • froofrou says:

                        I’m not debating the necessity of emission standards. I’m debating the safety of a tin can with a motor. The only way to get better gas mileage at this point is to make the cars even lighter, making them even more dangerous. I’ll not have it, I say! Not. Have. It. :-)

                        • viking gal says:

                          The lower mass wouldn’t be a problem if everyone drove lightweight vehicles. Or we put speed limiters on all of the heavier vehicles, like they do to equalize things on Nascar races… (I used to room with racing geeks)
                          Would I want a speed limiter on my car? No. But then again, I drive a hatchback, and I don’t live on a ranch! Given the lack of working ranches in the Northeast, I have a ‘thing’ about the SUVs that bully their way around on our roads. But I don’t feel that way about farmers. Anyone who owns a Hummer should have mud on their vehicle at regular intervals!

                        • That’s not true, my Prius has a 5 star safety rating, side curtain airbags and gets about 50 mpg and weighs 2900 lbs.

                        • Also if so many Americans didn’t drive around in land yachts you wouldn’t have to worry so much about being hit by one.

                        • froofrou says:

                          My land yacht is a necessity, and one I can’t get away from. Personally, I think it’s a subtle form of population control.

                        • viking gal says:

                          Folks with farms have a need for land yachts. I know that from my father’s tales of his farm hand days.
                          Folks without farms, but with multiple rugrats can drive minivans–which could be made to get better mpg!

                        • But most people don’t really need a land yacht. Also, my car can fit five people comfortably (really!). I have put a 7 foot christmas tree inside the vehicle and closed the hatch back (and the tree wasn’t bundled!). Also an 8 foot folding party table. It’s so roomy, I’m considering using it to smuggle Mexicans over the border. Or, drugs.

                        • viking gal says:

                          My hatchback can fit two tall adults, their luggage, plus 3 cats (each in its own carrier). And that doesn’t count if I put the rack on top. So no, most people don’t need a land yacht.
                          Farmers on the other hand often haul pigs, tools, etc. over open land and/or muddy dirt roads. So…

                        • froofrou says:

                          A minivan won’t pull either a trailer or a boat with ease. Not enough horses under the hood. I’m sorry, I’ll never feel that it’s necessary to make everyone drive tin cans just because. Some people have large families that won’t fit into a 5 passenger car *raises hand* Some people have outdoor needs that require more than what is contained in a minivan *raises hand* And some people don’t want to tangle with a semi truck in said tin can :-) Semi trucks we will have with us always, and as we don’t have the money, time, or manpower necessary to build separate roads for them to drive on, people need to be safe on the road.
                          -
                          Blonde, how will that 5-star rating hold up against a semi? :-)

                        • The Steve says:

                          There’s not a commercial vehicle on the planet that will hold up against a semi. You’re talking about 80,000 lbs. fully loaded.

                          Get real Froo. That kind of weight would put a serious hurt on an M1-Abrams battle tank, a semi is going to kill everyone in your precious “land yacht” in a highway speed collision.

                          I understand the horsepower and off-road arguments, as well as cargo/passenger space. Safety is not a valid argument for driving a large vehicle.

                        • Yeah, I’ll take this over a tin can anyday. Love my gas hog.

                          I put a link in my name.

                        • Exactly The Steve. Crash test ratings aren’t based on getting hit by a semi.

                          Also, as an aside, many larger vehicles have a higher risk of rolling over in an accident than a compact vehicle.

                        • froofrou says:

                          Higher rollover rating, but you are still more likely to survive the crash. Rolling over in a Volkswagen Beetle, for instance, isn’t pretty. Especially since the damn thing spins like a top.
                          -
                          And I was going for the shock of exaggeration with the semi truck. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear. :-(
                          -
                          My initial point is that some people need bigger vehicles for daily life, whether they live on a farm, or simply have a big family, or for whatever reason. I don’t like the fact that there is a danger (however small) of my choices to drive a big vehicle with low gas mileage being taken away from me. I also don’t like the fact that because they are going to grandfather in bigger cars, trucks, and SUVs already on the road as far as stricter CAFE standards are concerned, those people who do have to buy a smaller car due to that being the only thing available aren’t as safe as someone who is able to drive a bigger car, truck, or SUV. The numbers as far as fuel economy and overall effect on climate change are so small and tenuous as to be silly to base the life of an entire industry on.

                        • I agree that some people need bigger vehicles than others, and I don’t know of any risk of big vehicles being “taken away” from anyone. The American people were marketed into believing that they needed larger vehicles to keep their families safe to begin with; just like we are marketed into most of the things we don’t really need until we are convinced otherwise, like a new car every five years, or a larger house, or name brand tennis shoes. And fear is one of the best excellent marketing tool – remember when tire commercials started featuring little babies sitting in the tires? And yet, most of our parents didn’t drive SUVs and we all got along just fine.

                          With regard to fuel economy and the overall effect on climate change, I’m not sure what data you’ve read that indicates that American vehicle emissions aren’t a major part of the problem, but it’s definitely different data than I have seen. Another kind of effective fear-mongering is when industries claim that we’ll suffer some kind of economic collapse if we start attending to environmental issues. It’s a fallacy that has been disproven time and time again, particularly in countries which pay for the healthcare of their citizens. Oh, and to go back to my initial point, conservatives freaking out that there stuff is going to get “taken away” is all part of the same fear-mongering cycle: “don’t allow progress or they’ll take away your guns! They’ll take away your cars! They’ll take away the sanctity of your marriage!” Please.

                        • froofrou says:

                          It’s not that American emissions aren’t a problem, it’s that compared to the entire problem, they are something like 1% of the total. If you factor in everything that contributes that we have control over. I’ll have to see if I can find the article I read. The numbers we’re being fed are just numbers, and they aren’t really given in context. The problem is, there isn’t a real context.
                          -
                          Climate change is a serious issue, but it’s the baby on the tire at this point :-)

                        • According to worldviewofclimatechange.org, vehicle exhaust accounts for 30% of US carbon emissions.

                    • Seth says:

                      That’s good enough. I mean, I’d like to see the methodology of the studies, but he cites more than one. I understand why its true, with more mass, a car slows down less quickly, and thus a person has more time to decelerate, creating less force on internal organs and such.

                      But basically, those are still imaginary numbers because they don’t account for the lives saved by other technologies. The studies are saying “All other things being equal, X more people will die per pound less vehicle weight.” Which is true, but all other things are not equal.

                      • froofrou says:

                        I had the reports he cited all ready to go, and I have no idea what troll got into my bookmark file and ate them. I’ll keep looking. I actually went and found the National Highway Safety Administration report and it tracked, but where the link is……I dunno.
                        -
                        I’m a bad, bad researcher *goes and punishes self*

              • viking gal says:

                Maybe, but they have also saved a lot of lives, given that air pollution causes heart and lung diseases to progress much more rapidly. In fact, I wish we would put into law that any car, truck or bus putting out black soot would get a serious fine, since particulate air pollution also contributes to such deaths.
                I’m old enough to remember when there was always a layer of brown smog over Los Angeles , and when on a crystal blue day in NYC, you could look up and see the brown crud over your head! (mid-1970’s, when smog alerts were as common as rain predictions). And I have absolutely NO desire to go back to the stink that you would smell driving through certain parts of the country back in those days!! UGH!!

        • Don’t be such pessimist. That’s not all we did! Nearly 200,000 people have also died!

          • Droid4 says:

            Okay then tell me, what would have happened if we didn’t invade?

            • eddiepscetti says:

              Nothing.. we would have kept flying the north and south no-fly zones. Since you seem to have all the answers, how was Saddam involved?

            • Jane St.Clair says:

              We would have been able to give Afghanistan the attention it deserves and maybe had a little left over energy to fight the Taliban in Pakistan?

              • Droid4 says:

                Wow, there is like no Conservatives around here to back me up… If we didn’t invade, Al Qaeda would have grown much stronger and who knows what they could have done. You want Bin Laden to have possibly gotten Nukes?(not like North Korea is helping matters…)

                • Jane St.Clair says:

                  *facepalm* Let me rehash what we’ve covered so far.
                  1. Bin Laden is not now, nor has he ever been (since 9/11) in Iraq.
                  2. There is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to our invasion. The only reason they are there now is because WE are.

                  • Jane St.Clair says:

                    Oh and I almost forgot:
                    3. Eddie is a conservative and he’s disagreeing with you.

                    • viking gal says:

                      The only proven connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism is this–SH would give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So he WAS supporting terrorism in Israel. He had no connection to Osama Bin Laden, whatsoever. Al Qaeda in Iraq was formed after the ‘Shock and Awe” invasion was over.

                  • 1. Bin Laden is not now, nor has he ever been (since 9/11) in Iraq.

                    To be perfectly correct, we don’t have any information to suggest that Bin Laden was or has been in Iraq since 9/11. Because we don’t actually, you know, know where he is, it’s impossible to completely eliminate an entire country. I’m fairly sure he’s not in my office, but I can’t eliminate the possibility that he’s in the US (unlikely as it may be).

                • HairySexyTroll says:

                  So are the moderates, dude.

                • eddiepscetti says:

                  LMAO!!! Dude, I’m very much a moderate/conservative and even I can see that what you said is untrue. There are some conservatives around here that ‘may’ support you, but I seriously doubt it since your whole line of reasoning is invalid.

                • I just believe in choosing and/or timing your battles. We were already knee-deep in Afghanistan; there was either no or minimal Al Qaeda presence in Iraq at that point; and as Eddie pointed out we had Saddam pretty much penned in. Diluting an already somewhat bare-bones military to the point where it’s stretched and stressed to the max as far as combat capability, when there’s no exigent circumstances, is not a good move from a strategic standpoint.

                  I’m not saying that there would not be a time to invade Iraq; I’m saying that the time we did it, wasn’t the right time. The end result has been deleterious to our ultimate objectives in the region. (My opinion).

                  • dropping in says:

                    I work with a bunch of mid level officers across the services about every 3 mo or so and they would agree with you as well…no love lost in the military for old Rummy….if you are going to invade a country and start a war then make sure your guys have body armor and you are willing to get enough boots on the ground to get the job done. Even a lefty like me can agree with that.

                • Seth says:

                  There are conservatives here. Dhoti and Anniee451 (or McPhee, she can’t keep it straight, lol) will back you up. So will eddiepscetti and froofrou, as long as you aren’t too ignorant and inflammatory. (they’re our pet conservatives, according to Dhoti and Anniee.) There are also plenty of moderates you can sway with a good argument.

                  Just don’t think you can get by repeating stuff you heard on Fox News, because we will tear that apart. Think for yourself, find good evidence, and you’ll do fine here, whatever your views.

                • You want Bin Laden to have possibly gotten Nukes?

                  I think preventing Bin Ladin from getting nukes is an excellent goal, which would best be attained by, oh, maybe, actually FINDING him. :roll: Far more likely to get them from Pakistan than anywhere else if you ask me, anyway.

                  • wanderama says:

                    Scary thing, he is not the only one looking for nukes, finding and dealing with Bin Ladin would not completely solve the radical islamic terror problem although it would be nice, I suspect he is dead. If we did find him we would have to put him up at tax payer expense and he would get good lawyers and hollywood would race to learn his story and he would write a novel and get on Larry King. If he’s not dead and we find him, I would hope he would meet with a fatal accident.

                    • FaileV says:

                      actually, i’m decently sure that while the hollywood stuff might be true he would probably be tried over there, and more than likely would be put to death. So, no real worries about your taxes or books coming out, and hollywood probably does know better than to make a movie with bin laden as the protagonist.

                  • ubr says:

                    i still think that we shouldn’t have let the following coutries have nukes:
                    israel
                    pakistan
                    india
                    iran
                    north korea

                  • dropping in says:

                    Oh I don’t know I think N Korea is looking like an excellent option these past 2 weeks….

                • Eric-in-STL says:

                  Look, Droid4, you sound exactly like all the sheep who float through here from time to time drinking the Fox News kool-aid. You bought all the crap that Bush & Cheney told you that they made everything safe for you. Your statements are inciting annoyance because we’ve heard it all before, and it’s all a load of BS. Try expanding your horizons past Sean Hannity and you might learn something.

                  • Droid4 says:

                    And you sound just like every other Liberal extremist who wants to here everything they want to her and not get the truth. Look around we haven’t been attacked by Al Qaeda since 9/11, so don’t go saying we weren’t safe. You need to try and debate your case instead of immediately saying that your right, it will get you nowhere. I’m fine with you stating your case, but don’t say mine is just wrong.

                    • HairySexyTroll says:

                      Okay, man, I totally called strawman before when peeps were bashing your grammar, but this is just too much lose in one fell swoop.

                      Dude. Check your work, already!

                      • Droid4 says:

                        Okay this is a text window, I’m not going for a grammar award.

                        • HairySexyTroll says:

                          It’s hard to take someone seriously who won’t take the time to put together a coherent argument. Your words above detracted from your sentiment in a very fundamental way.

                          Neatness counts, man. Get used to it.

                        • Jane St.Clair says:

                          No one expect perfect spelling and grammar, they’d never be able to produce it themselves 100% of the time! I think what HST is saying is to try and keep it to a minimum. I think we all get into the heat of the debate sometimes and fire off responses without looking at them (I’m so guilty of this) so looking over your stuff is always a good thing.

                        • HairySexyTroll says:

                          ^^^^
                          THAT!

                      • pittypat says:

                        But what’s wrong with saying the Liberal extremities want a hearing but they don’t want her to get false teeth?

                    • bad fairie says:

                      droid4 — hate to break it to you, but the liberals here are pretty close to centerists, with a few exceptions, and even those are fairly tame. same for most of the conservatives, with a few exceptions (but they’re more troll-wrapped-in-sheets than anything). the real far right don’t tend to stick around when they discover they can’t bluster the sane into worshiping at the altar of limbaugh & coulter ;)

                      • Jane St.Clair says:

                        New avatar bad fairie! What is it?

                        • bad fairie says:

                          thanks for noticing, it’s stonehenge – had to trim off the part that showed the lunar eclipse :( but still cool. even matches the pic on my ‘dashboard’ here ;)

                        • Jane St.Clair says:

                          I thought it was Stonehenge, but I wasn’t sure.

              • *ding ding ding* We have a winner…

            • Seth says:

              Nothing. Saddam would have gone on being a bastard, but there are plenty more bastards out there whose countries we don’t invade. He was hamstrung, his military a joke, with no possibility of creating or using WMDs because of the embargo. He would probably have died soon anyway, the guy was pretty old.

              But that’s beside the point. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. We had no rational reason to invade him, he had done nothing to us.

              • eddiepscetti says:

                Except try to take out Bush Sr. Everyone can see that invading Iraq was simply vendetta and nothing more. Now look what we have. Instead of sending planes up to patrol two lines of demarcation and expending some fuel, we’re now trying to prop up a country and spending billions. Yeah Droid, that was fscking brilliant move to invade.
                -
                Personally I suggest you go back under the bridge. You’re out of you’re depth.

                • Droid4 says:

                  Fine then lets just say this, I have my views you have yours. We don’t have to agree, I’m just stating what I believe.

                  • eddiepscetti says:

                    Ok, but let me add this, it’s fine to believe in something but when the facts are laid out and you still hold onto that belief, you will end up looking foolish. A prime example if the Flat Earth Society.

                    • Droid4 says:

                      Okay then,
                      1. We should have planned the invasion better waited and figured out what was going on, I get that.
                      2. But we had just been attacked on our own soil, we had to find the culprits, and bring them to justice.
                      3. Invading Iraq probably could have gone better, but we had to do something.
                      (my opinion)

                      • eddiepscetti says:

                        If someone breaks into your house and kills your wife, you could run around the neighborhood killing everyone in sight and then declare “I had to do something!” That defense isn’t going to wash in a court of law.

                        • Exactly. We had just been attacked on our own soil by someone other than Iraq, or anyone associated with Iraq, or anyone living in Iraq. The only real justification for invading Iraq was that it was run by a crazy tinpot dictator who might be dangerous to others and probably shouldn’t be allowed scissors, much less control of a nation. BUT, to be fair, that probably applies to several other countries as well, and we didn’t invade them.

                        • Droid4 says:

                          That is correct we should have been more decisive, we would have had an easier time if we had been.

                        • Eric-in-STL says:

                          What we should have done, Droid, is go after those responsible for the attack. Even your hardcore liberal is in favor of bringing the Al Queda to justice. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It was a war on Iraq. End of story. Now we’re stuck here with buyer’s remorse on that money pit of a country.

                        • Droid4 says:

                          Eric, you need to stop going through all these and simply bashing me. I didn’t do anything to you, so why don’t you just state YOUR case.

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Pakistan offered to give Bin Laden to a neutral country where he could have been tried and executed properly. No country would have dared tried him and let him go, with the sentiment of the world on our side, and the “soft power” we could have brought to bear on them. Instead, we used the deaths of 3000 people to justify starting a war that’s killed (depending on your source) between 100,591 (iraqbodycount.org) and 655,000 (as of June 2006, according to the Lancet) civilians. Kind of hard to maintain the moral high ground under those circumstances.

                        • Droid4 says:

                          See Eric, PortlandMark made his case and didn’t say that we were wrong. I don’t totally agree with his statement, but he said it decently.

                        • wanderama says:

                          It would have been better if we had finished it quickly, if we had done something like the surge at the end sooner it would have spared lives. We were too wishy washy about it, if we were going to be wishy washy we should not have gone in.

                      • Seth says:

                        Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Bush himself has admitted that.

  13. Droid4 says:

    I really don’t care if you think Bush didn’t do his job, come back in a few months when the next recession hits(better known as Obama’s recession) an well see what you think.

    • markmier says:

      And you make sure to come back in a few months when the pink unicorns descend from the heavens and eat all our mashmallows.

    • eddiepscetti says:

      You need to expand your time frame. If anything, it will probably take at bit longer for any changes Obama makes to become noticable. And let me add, that I don’t swoon over Obama everytime I see his face, in fact I didn’t vote for him. It sounds like you’re almost hoping he fails.

      • Droid4 says:

        I don’t hope he fail, I just no he is going to. I wish the best to my President, but if keeps this track record were going down.

        • I just no you can learn to spell better.

          • eddiepscetti says:

            And use his grammar better too!

          • HairySexyTroll says:

            *grabs sb’s bic*

            Scarecrow: I haven’t got a brain… only straw.
            Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven’t got a brain?
            Scarecrow: I don’t know… But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking… don’t they?
            Dorothy: Yes, I guess you’re right.

          • Droid4 says:

            I have to fight more Liberals on here than you’ll ever have to fight Conservative, so don’t get onto me for a few misspells

            • HairySexyTroll says:

              Technically, you don’t have to fight at all…

              Just throwin’ it out there.

              • Droid4 says:

                If I don’t say something there isn’t anything to stop all this Bush battering, or at least oppose it

                • eddiepscetti says:

                  So by your estimation Bush is being treated unfairly? And you don’t think he deserves any of it?
                  -
                  Wow.. I mean, just wow..

                • Eric-in-STL says:

                  Why do you have to stop the Bush battering? We’re entitled to our opinions too you know. Are you gonna storm into the Democratic National Convention to stop all the Republican bashing next time around too? And like I said, we’ve dealt with your kind before. Being a Republican is okay. Being a sheep isn’t.

                  • Droid4 says:

                    I don’t mind other people’s opinions, I just wish you would quit singling me out to attack! I said that we need to stop battering him like an old dead horse, not that people shouldn’t have there opinions.(dooo yuooo unndderstandd meeee???)

                    • eddiepscetti says:

                      Droid, in all honesty I don’t see any attacks by Eric. In fact, I have probably been more harsh than him. If you go back through some of the other discussions, you will see where Eric really has gone on the attack. This one isn’t it, he’s just trying to engage you in a discussion and stating his view.

                      • Eric-in-STL says:

                        ::puts down the brass knuckles::
                        Uh, yeah, exactly. Hell, I even apologized for being this aggressive further down somewhere.

                    • Bush deserves more battering than he’ll ever get. Him and his little dog, too!

                  • PortlandMark says:

                    ARGH! I can’t read past this post one more time without correcting:

                    It’s “Bush bashing”!!! Not “Bush Battering”!!!

                    One is what I do, the other is what Chang and Kang do! GET IT RIGHT ALREADY!!! ;)

            • Seth says:

              We aren’t fighting. We aren’t enemies. We are not on opposite teams. We are discussing politics. You could simply try to put your ideas out there rather than trying to win some imaginary game.

              Remember, winning an argument on the Internet is like winning a race at the Special Olympics.

            • Jane St.Clair says:

              Here’s a novel idea, how about you don’t go to left leaning political websites? I don’t go to right leaning political websites, it’s bad for my blood pressure.

  14. Droid4 says:

    Wow, if I came looking for the “We hate Bush” and “Obama is the chosen one” fan clubs, I found them

    • purple switch says:

      This is so much funnier than anything else here, it’s tragic that it’s unintentional. I want to laugh with him, I’m not a cruel man, but not laughing is just not an option.

    • Yes, welcome to America!

      • Droid4 says:

        Yes, Land of the Taxed and Home of the Socialists!

        • You must make a pretty good salary if you’re complaining about higher taxes, since the majority of Americans got a tax break. That extra 3% you’re paying now must be tough. We all have our cross to bear, I suppose.

          • froofrou says:

            Three words: Value Added Tax. That is all.

            • PortlandMark says:

              I don’t understand it thoroughly yet, but it makes me nervous.

              Kind of like my last date…

              • froofrou says:

                It should make you very nervous, along with cap and trade. It’s an income tax without calling it such.

                • PortlandMark says:

                  I think it’s worse than that. I think it’s a tax on every time Labor improves the value of an object, thereby ensuring that US companies outsource even more labor to third world countries.

                  I admit, though, I might have my facts all screwed up.

                  • froofrou says:

                    The end result will be the jacking up of prices, punishing the consumer and the employee, and causing the poorer people to suffer even more as prices on retail items and energy skyrocket.
                    -
                    But I’m just a conspiracy-minded Conservo-Bot :-)

                    • froofrou says:

                      Mark, a link for you: {http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/charlie-brooker-women-men-power}

                      • Anniee451 says:

                        Oh I dare anyone to post that at Shakesville. The feminists would be FURIOUS. (I could almost write their reply, but they’d be a lot nastier than I could be.)

                        • viking gal says:

                          I don’t know your reference to Shakesville, but this feminist found that article hilarious!

                      • PortlandMark says:

                        O! M! F! G!

                        I am on the floor laughing right now! (Good thing the keyboard is on a long cord!)

                        “In truth your suspicions are correct: we’re very, very simple. We’re lazy and we like blowjobs. That’s all there is to us.”

                        Reminds me of a lady I once worked with who peppered me with questions for a week about what she should get her husband for his birthday.

                        “Well”, sez I, “he should wake up already in your mouth.”

                        “How about a watch with a radio in it?”

                        “Umm. Sure. If that’s really what you think he wants.” (sigh)

                        I also loved:

                        “The only mistake women make is crediting men with far more mystery than they’re capable of. We’re impulsive yet thuddingly predictable, and you’d better learn to love us for it because that’s just about all we can muster. That’s why we bollocksed the planet up. We didn’t mean to. We’re men, that’s all.”

                        Boy, you know my sense of humor, Froo!

                        • froofrou says:

                          Here’s another one for you. I’m still giggling over the line “…we have to find a snappier way to describe people’s ethnic heritage or Twitter will turn into a ghastly WASPy golf club and die of whiteness.”
                          -
                          {http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article6389710.ece

                        • HairySexyTroll says:

                          Afamerimix.

                          HEH.

                        • tyler says:

                          I know, I love that article. It’s wonderful. (Although disturbingly correct.)

      • Droid4 says:

        Brought to you by President Obama and his devoted zombi…sorry follower suicide_blonde.

    • PortlandMark says:

      Enjoy the experience. I know I did for eight years when all things Democratic were considered ludicrous.

  15. Droid4 says:

    The caption is funny, I don’t necessarily like it, but it is funny. BTW if we want to find out how many Left wingers are on this thread, who here hates Sean Hannity?(wait for the stamped….

    • Jane St.Clair says:

      Ummm, this convo would be a lot easier to follow if you used the reply button in the bottom right hand corner of the box.

    • eddiepscetti says:

      I would say nearly everyone from both sides. What’s your point? How about this one:
      -
      How many people here hate Nancy Pelosi?
      -
      I do! And I’ve been hating on that b*tch since she was in local government in California (along with Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.)

    • Seth says:

      Who? Never heard of him. Is he some sort of terrorist? Sean… sounds Irish, is he with the IRA?

      • You know, given the financial situation lately, I wonder if many of us would have been better off investing in that IRA than Individual Retirement Accounts.

      • PortlandMark says:

        Speaking of terrorists, who here thinks that if we find someone who commits a murder, belongs to groups that promote violence in opposition to the US government, and has bomb making supplies at his house, we should waterboard them to find out what other attacks are being planned?

        • froofrou says:

          *snerk* Obvious trap is obvious ;-)

        • If all is fair, sure.

          • froofrou says:

            Perspective is everything in a case like this. Out of curiosity, how many of you guys would waterboard Goebbels if you knew you’d get Hitler? (as a hypothetical. I’m comparing neither a homegrown terrorist nor a Middle Eastern one to Hitler, rather performing a mental stretching exercise to show the other side)

            • Well as a Prophet of the all seeing but not so forgiving Wang, sure. We torture one terrorist, let’s do another. I here if you send into enough Jihadist skin belts, you get a free decoder ring.

            • PortlandMark says:

              Personally, I’d turn him over to the FBI, where they’d subject him to some good cop/bad cop, and get the information without compromising our principles.

              Once we had him, though, I’d gladly perform the execution for you. I’m not squeamish about killing people who need it, I just believe in things like “due process” and “proven beyond reasonable doubt”. That’s me, just another whacko who thinks the US Constitution is a pretty good document.

              • froofrou says:

                I agree. Here’s the kicker though: A lot of people don’t. In the case that I think you’re trying to bait me with (the abortion doctor, right?), the feelings of the guy decrying the killer while not feeling sorry for the death can be explained as such:
                -
                If you were a Jew from the Nazi prison camps, or if your family had died there, would you feel any type of remorse had Hitler been dragged through the streets behind a truck by some rednecks?
                -
                Extreme example, sure. But here’s the kicker: People on the right (not everyone, but a large number) consider the abortion movement to be mass genocide, and equate those who perform abortions to Hitler, Stalin, and other mass murderers. Now, I’m not saying that they are correct in their feelings of no remorse for the doctor’s death, far from it. But, I’m saying that I understand where they’re coming from based on the perspective of their arguments.
                -
                The logical side of my brain is pissed that an innocent man who was following the law was shot for no good reason.
                The emotional side of my brain has trouble feeling sorry for him on behalf of the children who weren’t given a chance at life.
                It’s an extremely difficult struggle. And not one that is easy to identify for those on the “other side”.

                • PortlandMark says:

                  I’m really not all that fussed about Doctor Tiller’s death, to be honest; there are too many undeserved murders out there daily to be worried about him in particular. I’m more upset by PVT. Thomas E. Lee, III, of Dalton, GA, killed on May 29 in Mosul, Iraq. At least I’m unconflicted about what he was doing with his life.

                  I’m very upset that a brown person, of Islamic faith, would be treated differently. I don’t want this one Christian ***hole tortured, I want *certain people* to realize that that there should only be one standard of behavior for captured criminals. Scott Roeder’s treatment is the treatment all criminals should receive: arrest, indictment, trial, and punishment. Not a rush to assume guilt and summary judgement.

                  • Anniee451 says:

                    I assume you feel the same about Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad who murdered an innocent recruiter the other day and wounded another, for political and religious reasons? He was a Muslim, so I know it’s hard.

                    • PortlandMark says:

                      Try him, find him guilty, and sentence him appropriately. If you need someone to pull the switch, you can reach me here.

                      (SOB kills our soldiers, he deserves whatever the law says.)

                    • froofrou says:

                      Why should he be treated any differently than someone who murders in cold blood who *isn’t* Muslim? He murdered two people, it was on American soil, try and convict and put him to death.

                      • Anniee451 says:

                        Yet the president and the DOJ remain silent on it, despite that Muslim jihadists are up to 628 deaths in jihadi attacks THIS MONTH alone. Link Meanwhile, one single abortion doctor dead in over 10 years is cause the smear the entire pro-life movement, most conservatives, and most conservative commentators.

                        Yes, both should be tried and fried. Yet only one leads to national outrage. Go figure.

                    • PortlandMark says:

                      Although, to be accurate, he did even worse. I would sentence all recruiters to be used car salesmen following their enlistments; the men he attacked were innocent infantrymen volunteering for extra duty while on leave. Gods grant their families peace and happiness.

                  • froofrou says:

                    I have a comic for you. {http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/06/02/tomo/index.html?source=rss&aim=/comics/tomo}

                    • PortlandMark says:

                      No way! That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in weeks! Dead on commentary, imo. I loooove Tom Tomorrow, and that’s one of his best. (scoffs) And you guys say liberals don’t make jokes at Obama’s expense!

                      • froofrou says:

                        Did the Teleprompter tell you to say that, Mark? *stern look*

                      • Anniee451 says:

                        THAT was a joke at Obama’s expense? I’ve really heard everything now.

                        • froofrou says:

                          Let’s see…lack of facial expression, obvious reading from the teleprompter, horrible lack of timing on jokes, not to mention bad jokes to begin with………if they had added Dumbo ears it would have been pretty much par for the course. There isn’t a whole hell of a lot more they can do with Obama, other than make fun of his “date night”. The dude’s too squeaky clean. He knows how to delegate.

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Actually, I was referring to the willingness to overlook past criminal behavior in the service of “moving forward”, but whatever…

                        • froofrou says:

                          Now I *KNOW* the Teleprompter told you to say that, Mark. Come on, own up to it!!!!

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          (scoffs) Come on, you know I can’t even read! (points at self) HellOOOO! Public education here!

                        • Anniee451 says:

                          Obama’s squeaky clean? LOL – where have you BEEN?

                        • froofrou says:

                          In terms of what they got Clinton on, and the fact that all of the stuff they throw at him doesn’t stick (for whatever reason), yeah, he’s pretty much Teflon and squeaky at this point. All of the stuff that could be pinned on him, he’s got plausible deniability in. “It wasn’t me, it was that guy” works for him because it can’t be proven that his hands are dirty. His delegating finger may be dirty, and his colleagues certainly are, but he himself is not.

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Hmm, Froo; sounds a lot like Reagan and the Iran/Contra scandal to me!

                        • froofrou says:

                          Gee, one scandal, can’t you do better than that??? *crosses arms and taps toes*
                          -
                          :-)
                          -
                          Obama has three and a half years to forget to wipe his prints, don’t think I won’t dance around your naked corpse yelling “I told you so!!!!” when he gets caught!
                          -
                          Of course, I expect the same if Cheney goes up on charges of war crimes :twisted:

                        • PortlandMark says:

                          Fair enough little one.

                          (shy cough)

                          You don’t happen to have a sister living on the west coast, do you?

                        • froofrou says:

                          Sadly, no. My only sister is married and living in a pin dot of a town in East Texas.
                          -
                          Now, I am adopted, so I might have a blood related sister out there of whom I am not aware…………. *thoughtful*
                          -
                          Admit it, it was the thought of me dancing around your naked corpse, wasn’t it??? ;-)

  16. Anniee451 says:

    Haha! Cheney’s so bad*ss even his HEART can’t kill him!

  17. Anniee451 says:

    Veritas, is that you? It SURE explains a lot if it is. If not, move along.

  18. Droid4 says:

    I’ll bet on that…(50 says he doesn’t say another nice thing about Cheney till he dies)

  19. Eric-in-STL says:

    Until who dies, me or Cheney?

  20. froofrou says:

    If you bet on Cheney dying first you’ve got better odds.


Your comment

 

 

Search

Get Daily Lol News Emails


EmailSubscribe
Enter your email address:
 

TwitterFollow us
on Twitter »
FacebookBecome a
Facebook fan »
RSSRSS Feed »
  • Recent Comments

    oɹɹɐɥɔ on IF YOU READ THE HEALTHCARE…
    uber on This episode of Doctor Wh…
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on ….and then I said
    Just Stop Typing on ….and then I said
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on How to Reinforce One’s I…
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on How to Reinforce One’s I…
    oɹɹɐɥɔ on How to Reinforce One’s I…
    Just Stop Typing on ….and then I said
    Silverfox on This episode of Doctor Wh…
    AZfederalist on How to Reinforce One’s I…
  • Tag Cloud

  • The National Archives

  • Most Popular Pictures

  • RSS Cheezburger Network Blog

  • Even More Lulz