Show Only: Captions | Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous You never want to be | Tell me again why guys who Next »
“Rudy Giuliani. There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun, a verb, and 9/11.” Joe Biden
(Rudy Giuliani)
Picture by: Huffington Post Caption by: fastfood via Advanced Lol Builder
 | shortright; founding… on Watch Out Terrorists… |
 | Shaks on AFRICA |
| Shaks on At Least They Won’t Be… |
 | murky 2.0 on Watch Out Terrorists… |
| Shaks on Watch Out Terrorists… |
 | Dontmonkeyk on Ministry of Silly Walks: Aztec… |
 | Dontmonkeyk on Will There Even Be A Next… |
 | dissimilitude on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
| dissimilitude on Interrupting Kanye: I’m … |
 | jklinders on Will There Even Be A Next… |
Cheezburger Network Blog
So what?
I think the point is that even though 9/11 was a tragedy, it can’t be the base of someones political platform. Or, as the example states, it can, but it just won’t get you elected.
But really, from Joe Biden? The Dan Quayle of the Democratic Party……
Exactly. But it is foolish pandering from both sides.
I didn’t think Biden knew what a noun or verb was !
I don’t think this -had- to come from Biden. I think anyone who watched the primaries can vouch for it. I know I could. In fact, you are probably right, by adding Biden’s name it hurt the LOL.
100% Agree. But really how many people actually paid attention to the Republican Primaries, McCain won for Christ Sake!!!!
Know thine enemy.
The only reason I was able to “watch” Obama’s speech the other night.
By “Watch” I mean scream profanities at the screen and pray that he would just STFU!!!
I dunno, Obama isn’t as good a canidate as McCain, but McCain looke like he was gonna die soon, and then we’d have Pailin…
I agree with you on that, he had more experience. However, I hated how McCain suddenly changed his personal policies for the election. He was a friggin’ sellout. I wasn’t fond of his policies before, but at least I thought he was a decent guy, for a politician at least.
PB, I don’t know why you hated the speech so much. He pretty much repeated everything Bush said right before the surge. The ones screaming were the progressives. *sigh*
Well it just goes to prove my point. All our politicians are drug up in a bucket from the same well.
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c30,000http://www.thedailyshow.comDaily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorHealth Care Crisis
Aw crap. Try this one.
{http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-2-2009/30-000}
It was that his actions didn’t meet his words. If it was so important why’d it take him so long to make a deciscion? I really don’t think he cares about our men and women in harms way, except for the fact if more die, his poll ratings go down. I know that’s blunt, BUT really that’s how I feel and how I’ve seen him portray himself. Though he might have been an idiot, I think Bush made sure to show his appreciation for the troops.
As a progressive, I agree his actions didn’t meet our expectations of a supposedly liberal president.
I don’t think that taking a long time to make a decision is a negative thing. When I make big decisions, I usually take months to do so and my big decisions in the bigger picture are usually pretty trivial.
If he was doing things to strictly keep American soldiers from dying, wouldn’t he have pulled everyone out as quickly as possible?
I apologize if this comes off as confrontational. It is not intended to be, but I think many of the points you make are tinted by your own ideological lens (as are mine). I would honestly rather have a president that doesn’t pander to the troops with doting language, flag pins and fluff. I would prefer a commander to be deliberative, precise and confident – I think these actions would be more ‘supportive’ of our troops than other behaviors that are more traditionally considered ‘patriotic’. I am not saying that these characteristics do or do not belong to Bush, Obama or previous presidents, but I feel that in this country we often (particularly in all of the television news media) get lost in the semantics, missing the things that are really important.
crap, it’s a well thought out argument on PK… we can’t have that! ILPB and bitter wino, quick you better start calling each other nazi’s, homophobes and assholes.
i actually appreciate a legit discussion. so thanks for giving me something half intelligent to read while i’m blowing off my work!
By all accounts, Obama’s war plan was completed back in March. Pad that through June or July to account for GEN McChrystal’s warm-up time at ISAF. Any delay beyond that, when troops are in harm’s way waiting for that plan, is unforgivable.
There’s no reason that the war plan needed to wait for a few months of post-stimulus economic numbers, or to see how the health care debate was shaking out, or even for the Afghan election. (I’m a little surprised Obama didn’t wait until after the Nobel ceremony.) These delays were political, not military, and they’re regrettable at best.
(And that doesn’t even get into the substance of the plan — about how, as we heard so often from Candidate Obama, the “virtuous” war, the “war of necessity”, has to be wrapped up in time for the 2012 primary.)
Of course the decision involved politics – he’s a politician.
I assume he was playing politics, but that is part of being deliberative, thinking of all the different elements involved. Making the same choice you would have made before the deliberation doesn’t mean it wasn’t valuable to take extra time, particularly b\c the troops are at stake.
In addition, if Obama had asked for the additional funds for any surge in March, I would think the likelihood of him having acquired those funds from Congress might have been quite different than waiting until a later time. It may also have to do with our foreign allies. It might take time to convince some of our distrustful allies that what we are doing in Afghanistan is valuable.
Democrats like time timetables. It would have been ridiculous for him to have not included one. As I mentioned earlier, I only wish it was a shorter one.
Obama’s job as the commander-in-chief is to make the best military decision possible given the circumstances. His job as the president is to sell that decision politically. While it’s not surprising, he’s been allowing the concerns of the second job to subjugate the responsibilities of the first.
I don’t see any evidence that Obama was, in fact, thoughtfully deliberating, that he was working the decision through the Democratic leadership in Congress, with NATO and foreign governments, etc. All I can see are calculated delays to maximize his domestic approval rating. (Which, again, is fine for the president to do, but not the concern of the commander-in-chief.)
Here’s the problem with a timetable: it communicates to the Afghanis that we’re not committed to the fight (especially for such a short timeframe — a year and change is nothing to people who have been at war for decades) and it tells the enemy that they’re better off hunkering down for a year and waiting for us to disappear.
Cynically, I agree with you — Obama’s interest in the Afghan war was obviously nothing more than campaign rhetoric, and if he’s not going to execute the war effectively, leaving our forces in place is going to waste American lives for no good reason.
What a politician’s job is and what their goals are always conflict. I’m as irritated as you are about it, but I’m far from surprised.
Yeah, I expect that — but I think that bitter’s following the “Obama is a deliberative, thoughtful leader” narrative too closely.
In keeping with PK standards… “Bitter you’re an idot!!!” I kid I kid.
I think that you’re missing about 75% of showing appreciation for the Troops. Bush did not treat a visit to a VA hospital as a public event. There are multiple stories of him sitting at soldiers’ bedsides and weeping. I have not seen Obama in any overt way reach out to the Military as he seems to reach out to people I deem “less important”. Obama needs to understand he is the Commander in Chief, and as such he owes much more to the soldiers then he is currently giving. Bush had his failings at time (not enough body armor, un-armored Hummers, etc…), but one thing that he was, was deliberate, precise and confident about the Wars in Iraq and Afghanastan.
Obama had said from the get go to support Afghanastan, and that I remember. However if he truely ment it, he would have enacted a plan months ago to support said troops. He has been tested by our enemies time and time again, and continually fails.
To answer your question about pulling out quickly, a sharp and responding “NO!”. Simply put, if we were to pull out too soon (a problem for the ladies) then the Taliban and Al Queda would reoccupy the country. Two things happen a) We ignore them again and get schnookered. That would lead to another invasion, costing lives. Or b) We’d reinvade prior to attack, once again costing lives.
He’s is a politician though! Everyone knows politician’s don’t have real emotions!
“I have not seen Obama in any overt way reach out to the Military as he seems to reach out to people I deem “less important”. ”
I believe just recently Obama went to the AF base for one of the too frequent returning of bodies. (I’m sure there’s a nicer way to say that. Sorry.
)
Obama went the AFB to see the bodies of the fallen troops be returned home, yes. However it did it with bells and fanfare as a photo op (from my perception). There were multiple times Bush did that same thing, yet it wasn’t a media frenzy.
“Keeping with PK standards,” ILPB you can’t even spell idiot***
- I have seen threads on other pages, but still haven’t learned how to make any sort of smileys.
Maybe this seems harsh and uncaring, but I honestly do not care very much about the president visiting tomb stones, forts and what-have-you, unless it explicitly serves the purpose of making better decisions as the commander in chief. If making these public appearances gets the public behind decisions the president makes then there is a reason, albeit a ‘political’ one.
I like timetables. I understand the logic against them as explained, but I am not convinced that it accurately describes the full motivations of the actors involved. A major reason for the troop surge is to gain a break from the constant violence to engage in the construction of infrastructure and generally improve the everyday of life Afghans. The ultimate point of which is to build support for the ‘democratic’ government in contrast to the Taliban. Examples of this strategy include the amnesty and job offer for those who decide to put down their guns and the focus on building employment opportunities. If we can get the Taliban to truly hunker down for a set amount of time, the logic follows that the Afghan citizens will be less tolerant of them when they do return.
After saying all that, I am not sure this strategy will work any better than escalating the troops to an even higher level. As has been eluded to already, there have been groups fighting foreign powers in Afghanistan well beyond any person’s living memories. Plus, there are no jobs, the government is corrupt/not even a good sham democracy and seems to be dipping its hands pretty deeply into drug money, etc. Solving THESE problems seems at least as important for the long term success in Afghanistan as the troop surge.
I am not sure what to do with Afghanistan. I am not fully convinced of any strategy, but I am not and never will be the president.
I guess i figured out the smiley part.
I’m not answering any more posts in this thread because the responses are so predictable. (“When MY guy visits troops, it’s supportive; your guy does it, it’s a photo op.” ad nauseum. ) But the best smiley face is
, which you make by: colontwistedcolon
Very cool.
:~:
^ I am guessing that wasn’t it.
No, you type out ;twisted; but without the semi in the colons.
Hee hee. Sorry. Use the actual word twisted in between the colons.
Danbala knows how to do everything! So, I must ask, is a wine steward a poorly paid sommelier?
I have just spent way too much time trying to explain html in browsers – it’s always tricky… “Wine steward”? Never heard of it. Whine stewards are “PK denizens commenting on captions” though.
You have to know it to teach it.
Returning favor: when you end a sentence with an ellipsis, you need four periods (one for the sentence).
You are joking about the wine steward, yes?
But I like the whine stewards….
Really, I just like wine. I wish I knew more about it. I am living in France for a short time for work and wine is very cheap. Thus, I have been drinking a lot of wine.
*takes a large gulp of nouveau boujolais – the wine that is ‘in season’ right now.
Wine steward is actually Bitter’s Chef’s term. He offered me the position. Previously I was just a bitter wino-ist.
No, really, I’ve not heard the term “wine steward” before!
As for the ellipsis and full stop thing – thanks for reminding me. I recognise that rule! When it comes to punctuation I take liberties, though – especially on the Internet. *hangs head in shame*
To me, ending a sentence with an ellipsis indicates that you do not finish the sentence except possibly with a suggestive eyebrow waggle, so adding the full stop kind of takes away the purpose of the ellipsis. (And if someone don’t buy that, I’ll just go “But I am Sveedish, bork bork!” ;p )
Honestly, I never have either, but I liked it. I could change my name to sommelier, although I think it would be misleading.
Hmm…valid points. Just harassing you, really…
It’s probably just called something different. In fancy restaurants there is a wine steward who comes to your table and advises you on your wine choices (after you’ve ordered, of course). He (usually) gets the wine, opens it for you, pours, all those things. He has the keys to the wine cellar, too, and often is in charge of keeping it stocked. The French word is sommelier, so fancier US restaurants use that term to show they’re too fancy to have a plain ol’ wine steward (you have to infuse a bit of Western twang into that last part).
The American equivalent of the “I am Sveedish” is “Well, heck, I jist din’t know that thar.”
“Bork bork”? Do Swedes sound like ill seals?
Oh.
Oooooh, I SEE.
Excuse me while I facepalm and headdesk a bit. (I really never read people’s names past the first word of the name on here. :p )
I’m from the states and I had never heard wine steward before BC offered the job. I also cannot afford to be eating at any restaurant with any sort of wine specialist in the states or in Europe.
“bork bork bork” is the favourite saying of the Swedish Chef from the Muppet Show.
Here, ah just order mah wine from mah waiter… OH NOES, I just made it very clear that I never go to really posh restaurants, didn’t I?
I did know what a sommelier is, so it was just a new term to me.
I don’t think I’ve ever actually been in a restaurant with one (under either name) here or in Europe. I just read a lot. I am a huge font of bizarre trivia.
And math. Lots of math. Lots and lots of math. Many many maths.
∞ + 1 maths!
@ Bitter wino:
alluded, not eluded
I try so hard, but I can never win
I blame it on the wine. Nice catch.
Danbala, in response to your “But I’m Sveedish! Bork Bork!” I reply: “Ker-fluegan-oogan.”
Have you not figured out that liberals are pathological liars? Republicans lie. Democrats are liars. The difference is not insignificant.
Everybody lies.
Thank you for the diagnosis doctor, but what is the solution? Pie, cake, or massive overhaul of the political system with no clear direction?
(I like cake)
Wait, what? Isn’t a Republican Liberal an oxymoron?
Nope — see McCain, John, and McCain, Megan, for starters.
Oh right, my bad..
The Liberal Republican Party of the United States was a political party that was organized in Cincinnati in May 1872, to oppose the reelection of President Ulysses S. Grant and his Radical Republican supporters.
Here’s what it boils down to — McCain conservatives have already admitted defeat to the center-left. As far as they’re concerned, the left owns the population, the legislation, and the message. Their strategy is to jump on the high-tax, high-spending, big-government bandwagon in hopes that placating it will bring them some “cross-aisle understanding”. I think, for lack of a better word, they’re a bunch of retards for doing so.
The far left is happy defining the Republicans as a racist, homophobic, anti-sex (what does that even mean?) Puritans. And instead of fighting back against that kind of crap, what do the McCains do? They legitimize it and they act as though they have to apologize for it.
So, in short, I think that’s a ridiculous characterization, and I’m not going to give it legs by arguing as though it were true.
On some levels the center left does own US politics, at least until the next election. It is definitely the center left that does the owning.
I am not sure that McCain conservatives have given up. My impression is that they have been forced out or ostracized by the more mainstream social conservatives, although I welcome evidence demonstrating otherwise.
As to your second set of comments, I am not sure what you are referring to. Unfortunately, the reply function does not extend to this detail in the conversation.
The supposedly far-left policies being offered up at the national level in the US these days would get most western European politicians tarred and feathered for being such unabashed reactionaries.
What, you mean that different countries govern themselves differently according to their own local standards and customs? I had no idea — I thought all y’all drove trucks to WalMart! Gee, thanks for the tip!
ILPB; I can appreciate how you feel on this issue, and I know others who share your view; however, i will say this:
He is not surprising anyone with this. He talked about this during his campaign. He did not support the war in Iraq, but supported the war in Afghanistan and thought there should be a surge there.
Why it took him this long to make the decision, I cannot say. It may be that he wanted to show that he took the time to make an informed decision, or that it was a decision he did not make lightly… I’m not sure.
Hey, apparently dhoti knows why. Guess you ask him.
unlike what certain people have asserted on this site, planning and implementing a military operation on the scale that we are talking about is not an easy process. especially when you have multiple generals with doctorates from the war college all advocating differing opinions. obama does not have the luxury of changing his decisions after he presents them in a press conference, so you can bet that he took his time to make a decision and made sure it was a decision he could stand behind.
monday morning quarterbacks always think they could’ve done it better…
ubr: Funny it didn’t take Bush that long to plan the surge. Planning should not take 11 Months, implementation could. Logistics are the problem and should be “Monday morning quarterbacked” but we always know when the game is scheduled. Coaches don’t get, “Well I’m not ready for the rival team, can we push the game back some?”
Bush rushed into a lot of policies, and look where it landed us…
Obviously you’re unaware that there was an Afghan war plan on Obama’s desk when he took office.
part of being a new president is the option of following the last guy’s plans, and evidentally since obama was elected by people who objected to the last guys plans, do you really expect him to become a turncoat and just fall in line with what bush had left behind?
let me know how well that works the next time you move and the previous tenant leaves all their cr@p for you…
Really? The opinion polls seem to suggest that those people actually liked the last guy’s plans a little better — maybe they elected him because they thought he was cool or something. Regardless, Obama’s already towed the Bush line on Iraq, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition, so it’s not much of a stretch.
My point was that this whole “war plans are complicated” argument, while true, is a partisan apology in this case. Nobody was starting from square one here; in fact, Obama’s plan is really just Bush’s plan with 20k fewer troops and a retreat tacked on.
Hey ILPB, good to see you! Missed you. I think I’ve been slacking.
Howdy!! I’m back and louder than ever!!!
No…Joe Biden actually said this in a debate.
More like the Sarah PAlin of the Democratic Party
So, you’re saying that the Democratic Radditz is better than the Republican Radditz?
Except that he’s an old white dude with 30+ years of experience in the US Senate. Besides that, practically the same.
But can he see Russia from his house?:wink:
His IQ test came back negative…
His suits say, “business in the front; party in the back.”
I’d disagree. Sarah Palin looks good in a skirt and stillettos. I would most definetly NOT want to see Biden or Quayle in either.
…. so ……
It’s funny cuz Biden is an idiot?
You’re retarded, DRH.
heh… you posted the response after ~ 9 hours. I suspect you spent the majority of the time composing it. Well done. You deserve a cookie!
Biden, now there is a real authority
9/11………
Yes, a day that will make 7eleven lose the competition as to which number followed by 11 will have the biggest impact on American foreign policy.
Possibly!!! Remember the impact on immigration that 7 has is tremendous!!! Well I guess immigration is more of a domestic issue.
lol. This is very true.
*opens a 13/11*
His handlers should train him not to smile like that.
They tried, but he bit them, and they had to get shots.
Rabies, TB, or other?
Rabies occurs only in warm-blooded animals.
I love this thread.
EPIC WIN!!! +35!
So TB?
As opposed to NEVER mentioning it…
Oooh, oooh, you mean like this? (click name)
9…. wait for it… 11
You’re right, more people should mention it, just not in the way Rudy did/does. It cheapens the memories of the dead and the heroics of the workers to use it as a platform to scare people.
9.11…. oh wait I mean 9/11
9-11
Nine… WAIT FOR IT!!!! Elben.
Nine Elebenty!!!!11!!!21!!!1!!?
Agreed – it’s like people who use the word holocaust or Nazi to show displeasure at something that can’t compare “OMG, your such an ahole brother – you are such a NAZI!!!”. Really – your brother beating you up doesn’t compare to being a Nazi. The Palestinian/Israeli situation does not compare to the holocaust.
And “Commie”. If your teachers make you stand outside in the cold rain, sleet, and hail, are they commies?
Actually, they might be…
No, they’re sadists. What does torture like that have to do with Communism?
With communism, little “c,” the theoretical system of organizing a society? Nothing. With Communism, capital “C,” the system practiced by USSR, which is what most people think of when they hear the word communism and that has about as much similarity to the first as our health insurance system has to a health care system, quite a bit actually.
The USSR did not practice Communism (I believe it’s a capital “C” regardless of the associations). They practiced Soviet Socialism economically and a single-party dictatorship politically. It was not “the dictatorship of the proletariat” of Marxism because some were “more equal than others”. Don’t mean to rant but it bothers me when the term is misused like it was by Shadow.
the differences between an oligarchy and a totalitarian system are lost on the multitudes of slaughtered peasants.
Gee, thanks, caretroll. However, both can exist in the same governing body simultaneously.
Yes, you are more clear than I was. I was trying to say that most people CALL what the Soviets did communism when it really wasn’t.
*borrows HOW’s tray to whack Shadow.*
*cries*
Now all I’m left with is a gray background for an avatar.
No, no! I’m returning it. Look, I even put pie on it…chocolate pie. *returns pie laden tray*
My brother locked me in the garden shed without food for weeks at a time and performed what he called “medical experiments” on me because he said that “older brothers are the only TRUE master race.” Can I call him a Nazi?
I would have called the state psychiatric health authorities. It’s not too late to get him help.
He moved to Brazil after his attempt to connect the car’s exhaust pipe to the garden shed using a flexible dryer vent and a lot of duct tape was noticed by our nosy neighbor, Mrs. Kravitz, but thank you for the suggestion!
Well, many Nazis escaped to Brazil right before the end of the war. So, he’s in good company.
I am glad the torture ended. However, he took my baseball card collection with him and I keep getting his stupid mail at my house.
WTF! The torture thing just goes under “boys will be boys”, i think, but taking those cards? He IS a Nazi, for sure!
And why, oh why, does the smiley look happy? A colon and an o should look shocked!
It’s a happy shock? Surprise buttsecks and the smiley liked it? That’s my best guess.
@ The Guy Who Always Complains About Everything
I like your name! I think you’ll fit in well here!
Just look at him! Complaining about being tortured and starved… tsk, tsk, tsk. Some people don’t even own garden sheds you know!! His name suits him well.
Exactly! Some people pay good money to be tortured and here he is complaining about getting it for free!!
Well, I said I always complained about everything.
I try to be as honest as humanly possible. My therapist says it’s an important part of my therapy for being a compulsive liar.
You’re a compulsive liar? I think you’re full of it.
You are not the secretary of awesome. You are the secretary of loserville.
And you’re a pathetic ass.
I’m impressed……someone who actually pays attention to Joe the Biden.
Sounds like his Mafia name. Joe the Biden.
I think I just stopped the Russian Mob with him on Mafia Wars just the other day.
You play Mafia Wars, VNV? I need to add you to my mafia.
No, I don’t. I was just messing around. I try to have as little facebook addons as possible. I don’t trust them.
Oh, ok!
I don’t trust them either. Not that that stops me.
George the Bush. Dan the Quayle.
Barrak the Obama? Or is it Barrack the Yo’ Mama?
“Why do they call him “George the Bush”?”
“Same IQ.”
No I think it’s b/c that’s what he enjoys the most.
No honey, that’s Clinton.
I thought Clinton liked his women clean shaven and a little on the plumb side.
Monica was da plumb bo(m)b.
Do you think she was on the level? Or did she need some shim-mying?
Oy vey, it’s survey of moving that started it all.
Ah, brilliant words of sagacity from that paragon of with and articulation, the stunning orator Joe Biden.
Holy crap, I typed that with a straight face.
Well, he’s stunning in a sort of “Did he really just say that? (stunned silence)” sort of way.
9/11 = 9 November
Go back to Belgium, you commie.
Honestly, the nerve of Americans, to use American syntax while discussing an American domestic political issue on an American website — fascists, the lot of them!
Inded! Boo! Boo!
Unless of course those Americans are serving in the military, where they use the more internationally recognized day/month/year format. (I once had a mechanic apologize for doing that, who explained this to me. He so didn’t need to apologize…and was eye candy to boot!)
typical american
I lurvs reading Graffiti in England that’s posted in the future (like in August, I read stuff that was posted on 11/4 which *of course* is November…)
In Soviet Russia, typical American…oh it’s been done.
In the rest of the world, yes, you would absolutely correct. However, we are backwards here in the US or just plain rebellious and therefore you, sir, are wrong. Our dating format is month/date/year.
Unless you’re writing a paper in college.
Or in the military.
Where does that come from? Who determined “our” dating format?
Who cares? We’re American, and thus we are automatically right and everyone else is wrong. I mean, duh.
Dittos
typical american
Typical whatever you are.
Really? I thought sarcasm isn’t usually percieved of as typical American, rather the contrary. What culture are you from, where that is a stereotype?
Sarcastians from Stereotypastan
Oh yeah? Well what if it have happened on 9/17. Whachu got then? huh?
November 2017?
Wouldn’t that be September?
What is this!? A ninja?!
Huh? What? I don’t understand.
^Disregard that. I meant September 2017. Obviously.
Don’t give the terrorists any ideas. They chose that date because they knew we would call it 911 which is also the number we call for emegencies. Now, 11/9, that’s also veterans day…
No, Veteran’s Day is 11/11, no matter which system for doing month/day you use!
oop! That’s right, my goof…
And in two years it’ll be 11/11/11
Joe Biden is an epic fail. Anyone who quotes him is an epic fail. Joe is such an epic fail, that he needs to borrow a cup of fail, cause he is a little short on fail this week, due to being such an epic fail. He is burning thru his fail at an astounding rate of fail. He risks a fail implosion so grand that it could swollow the entire planet, and cause the sun to fail, triggering even more fail throughout the galaxy. fail, fail, fail, fail, fail…. (fail)BOOM.
Joe Biden, like Geraldo, can steal Fail from other universes, and thus has an inexhaustible supply.
So I’m a bit confused. Are you saying you are not a fan?
Maybe he likes him a little too much?
*singsongs in an annoying, bratty way*
Biden and manchowder sitting in a tree; K-I-S-S-I-N-G!
*sings along*
First comes love,
Then comes elections,
Then comes Biden and manchowder stroking their… egos. c.c
He heats up his Manchowder
YUCK!!!
Geez, why does everyone hate poor Joe so much? Seem likes an okay guy to me. Yeah, we all knew it was gonna be kinda scary when he talked before the election, but he seems okay.
That make 3 things more than Biden knows about.
Read post Frank wrote make Biden look smart!
“Matt Damon”
Is this the pro-death clown calling the pro-death clown a clown? Both are murderous abortionists, so called “Catholics”.
Hypocrites – the both of them: Biden and Guliani. I pray for their repentance and failing that for their ex communication.
Besides, Guiliani is a RINO: Republican In Name Only. RINOs are the same kind of putrid refuse of human society that Democrats are.
Phbltttt.
You seem to have lost all sense of proportion.
He/she/it has definitely lost all sense of the christian spirit, or what I understood it to be.
When I read Catholic, I assume mostly atheist with a lot of superfluous habits.
That’s an excellent definition.
Catholics atleast have religous people in strange costumes, like super heros…they dress funny, have young boys as wards..-nodnod-
I never said that the habits were superfluous to those individuals that the habits were done to.
Only the nuns get to wear habits.
That’s a very strange definition.
You follow criticizing someone for having lost the sense of christian spirit by saying “Catholics are mostly atheists with a lot of superfluous habits” is an excellent definition?
Yep. Good to see you’re keeping up with things, jim.
Nope, I haven’t caught up yet. Was it sarcasm, irony, or neither? I can catch the broad strokes, but this subtle stuff just escape me.
A stereotype of Catholics is that the only attend church because it is what they have always done: a habit. They don’t attend church or hold political political positions because they believe in the Holy Catholic Church, but because it is what they are supposed to do. Clearly, this doesn’t hold for everyone, but there does seem to be a portion of the Catholic population for which this definitions matches.
This image is replete in satires of the Catholic church.
There certainly is a lot of truth to that, particularly in regards to the American Catholic Church. The cafeteria Catholics, they pick and choose what they want to believe. Some of it is probably a result of the comfortable life we live here, the immaturity of the baby boomers, and the poor religious instruction that many of them got during the 1960s. Of the 10 or so guys from my relatively small catechism class, I don’t know any other than myself who still attend Mass. The girls all still do, but not the guys. Men in general don’t want to think about it, like so many things it’s just easier to ignore religion and it’s implications.
Interestingly, you can find literary references to this image of Catholic ‘beliefs’ at least as far back as Machiavelli’s writings.
I suppose as soon as you had a second generation, the children of believers, it would be true. People who were brought up in the faith and did not search it out and make an active decision to become a believer. It happened in Communism in Russia as well, soon you had all sorts who belonged to the party just because it was a way to get ahead, or their peers had joined, or their parents had been members. We probably have atheists today when it comes to being an American citizen. People who were just brought up as Americans, and never make a conscious choice to become one.
I really don’t think it has anything to do with being American.
Avowed atheists and agnostics make up a measurable percentage of the US population. We seem to be one of the faster growing ‘religions’ in the US. There are many people who make a conscious choice to become atheists.
I mean that in a deeper sense of believing in any concept or philosophy, one may be within the community yet not believe in that concept or philosophy at all. One can be a communist without believing in Communism, or can be an American without believing in America.
In the sense of being a religious atheist, being an American might engender it because our life is comfortable and there are so many distractions. The saying that there are no atheists in combat is true, put into other circumstances, many with no faith would find it. It’s true with poverty too. Having faith gives people hope and joy, and a reason to carry on.
It helps if you read Ionnes/Primavera’s posts in the voice of Mr. Burns from the Simpsons. And picture him, too.
LOL! You’re right, Diss, that works perfectly.
Mr. Burns you say. (clicky)
I’m still voting for Stewie.
I think you better go back and reread the history of the Republican party. It sure wasn’t what we’re stuck with today!
The sad thing is, if you look at the Democratic party you will see that they at least embrace every aspect of being a member. It’s a f*cking shame that people such as myself who have been Republican for 35+ years are being pushed out by neo-cons such as yourself. Well you know what? You can f*cking have it because it damn sure isn’t the party I signed up with. And good luck with that because as long as people like you exist, the Republican Party will become irrelevant.
I kinda wish the people like him would just go form their own damn party and let the normal conservatives keep the Republican party.
why dont normal conservatives form a new party?
the not asshat republicans?
republicans who everyone but wacko extreamists can deal with.
Rudy Giuliani is crazy pants!
I propose a new party. The Noveau Whig Party of INEEDANOTHERCOOL-WORD.
Our goal is to be as pretentiously awesome as possible and to use words that we don’t completely understand OR use words in the wrong spots. We have no political platform. We just support whatever sounds coolest.
If your party is a Nouveau party, we will have to fling a Wooden Rabbit at you!
Because splitting the party means you lose. (It’s not just true in D&D.)
Now, if we could get the loony Left and the reasonable Dems to split into two parties as well, then we’d have something.
Question is: which Dems do you think are looney left, and which ones are reasonable? I’m honestly curious–which areas are more agreeable to you?
I figured that slag thought ALL on the left were looney.
So we split the party. Rather than the 50/50 split of the republican party it’s a 100/0 split.
Viking Gal, here’s an example of one kind: If a person believes that his side is bereft of loonies… he IS a loony.
my magic sock puppet is loony…lucky i can keep him on a leash on only let him burn down certain buildings
Bitter keep your ‘sock puppet’ in your pants! er…kilt…or Charro…Bah! Just keep it out of sight!
but mr socko wants to talk, say hello to mr socko
I hope Mr. Socko doesn’t want me to shake hands O.o
Er, see, my response was in response to Rando’s statement that you thought all liberals were looney. If all liberals are looney and we spit the party between loonies and none loonies then we have a 100/0 split.
Actually, I think everyone’s loony.
And about 30% of each on the Right AND Left are irredeemably loony. The rest of us are just loonies you can talk to. It’s like the difference between being neurotic and being psychotic.
The ones who treat Marxism, AGW, and other Tenets of Leftism in pretty much the same way that Fundies treat Christianity. (Just like Fundies, though, they deny that they do any such thing. )
Ignoring his tone for a moment — you’re branding him a neocon and a reactionary just because he’s pro-life? Is that really all it takes to be ostracized these days?
(Interestingly, Firefox just offered to change my misspelled “ostracized” to “Anglican”. I’m sensing subtext.)
Oooh, can we start using “Anglican” as an insult again? Just like back in 17-1800′s America?
How much would you pay to see, in the next presidential debate, a candidate denounce the other as an Anglophile?
I’m all for old-timey insults, so have at it. (I’m partial to “leave it to the Democrats to let the Spaniards back in the pantry” myself.)
*bites her thumb at Dhoti*
o.O Ostracized = Anglican? Weirdness!
No, Dhoti, it’s not the pro-life that makes him a neo-con. It’s the obvious use of the word RINO. Just because some Republicans don’t agree with everything the extreme right believes doesn’t mean that they don’t agree with the majority of the platform.
Yeah, the extreme right seems to consider anyone who isn’t a social conservative to be a faker. Being an old school GOP isn’t good enough anymore.
Thank goodness we have the extreme left to explain the extreme right. What exactly defines the “old school” GOP?
To me a RINO is that segment of Republicans, like Colin Powell or Scozzafava, whose beliefs cannot be distinguished from Democrats. Those beliefs are liberal, usually socially liberal. A Powell or a McCain do no harm to the party when it’s controlled by conservatives, but when a McCain rises to the top of the party he undermines us all. In the case of Scozzafava, you have to wonder why she was ever a Republican.
So by your definition, the late Barry Goldwater would be a RINO…
Most definitely.. In fact, I think Nixon might be considered a RINO by their standards. It would appear that there is no room for disagreement in the GOP from the neo-con’s perspective.
Barry was probably closer to the Democratic party of the 1960s, but he would be horrified by the Democratic party of today. I was a big fan of Barry, he had the support of every conservative I know. Although he was a libertarian, he was considered quite conservative during his time, and he was also another that the Dems took cheap shots at. I dont doubt at all that he admired many Democrats during the 60s, but I can’t think of one he would admire today. There are no liberals in the classic sense, a Tip O’neil or H. Humphery, around anymore.
The problem is you have those on the extreme right, who I believe are the minority in the Republican Party, who seem to have control. Those are the people that seem to be pushing those of us who are moderates out. If that’s the way they want it, fine. I’ll take my ball elsewhere. But if those who are moderates leave, I’m afraid there won’t have much of a Republican party left.
I don’t know about you specifically, but getting rid of the Colin Powells and the Scozzafavas will only help us. In what way did their presence help us in the last two elections?
You will always have those in a party, whether it’s Republican or Democrat, that those in the party don’t agree with. But the difference is, in the Democratic party those people still are considered to have a point of view. In the GOP, if you disagree with a certain platform, you’re basically told to go elsewhere. This is one reason why I see the Republican party getting left on the roadside. How many Republicans in the last election jumped ship and took their votes outside of the GOP?
I’m sure we lost a lot of Republicans and we gained no Democrats, but I attribute that to McCain, who is the prototype moderate with his hand across the aisle. None of the Republicans I knew supported him when he began running, not one. One Democrat I knew supported McCain and then voted for Obama anyway. Another Republican supported McCain after he won the nomination, but then voted for Ron Paul. The only person who brought excitement to the ticket was Sarah Palin, if he had not been for her, you would have heard crickets at the McCain rallies. When it came down to brass tacks, our moderate McCain lost against a guy with nothing going for him at all.
And I for one don’t buy this “I didn’t vote McCain because of Palin” stuff. It would be like saying you didn’t vote for Clinton because of Gore, or for Reagan because of GHWB. All these so called moderate and independents would have gone to Obama anyway. We lost because we lost conservative Dems and conservative Republicans.
I know quite a few republicans who liked McCain until he started changing his policies to conform with Bush. At that point they started feeling he had lost his integrity and possibly his spine.
When was that, exactly? I’ve always thought he was a defeatist — as far as I’m aware, he never changed his position on “shamnesty”, government spending (with the notable exception of big-ticket military acquisition projects), TARP, campaign soft money, etc.
The only thing that might count would be the surge, but there, McCain was its primary civilian proponent; if anything, Bush changed his war plan to conform to McCain.
I have been called a RINO in the past, by people who frequent this site. Fine, so be it, as I said I’m more than happy to take my vote somewhere else if my point of view can’t be embraced within the party. But realize that even though I’m one person, the reality is I probably represent a 1,000 who have the same opinion.
This whole “us vs. them” mentality still bothers me — yes, there are some hateful individuals on the far right wing (a minority of the people who would actually qualify as far right, I believe), but I can’t help but feeling that the far-right stereotype is more of a leftist smear tactic than it is a reality. (The zealously anti-Christian slant seems to give it away.)
Yay! Uh, I mean, too bad for you Republicans.
Be careful, I just might have to invade your party!
That is what makes me wonder about you Eddie, you have occasional bursts of conservatism, but then in half seriousness you’ll say something like that. Do you even admire anyone in that party?
Actually yes, there are a few.
In all honesty, there aren’t many in either party that I can say I really admire. The entire political spectrum is so fluid any more it’s hard to say who stands for what. One of those in the GOP that I have always admired was Pete Dominici from New Mexico. That guy stood for damn near everything I believe in.
That’s a name I have not heard of for awhile. I liked him too. I would think you’d like Gingrich, Giuliani, Santorum, Hatch, McCain, etc. There are many guys to like, across a pretty wide spectrum.
Gingrich, yes
Guiliani, mostly yes
Santorum, hmm
Hatch, yes
McCain, maybe the 2000 McCain but not the latest iterations so much
And for what it’s worth, the biggest detriment to the Republican party is Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and FOX News in general.
I never listen to O’Reilly, but with the other 3 speak for a lot of people who had no public voice speaking for them.
Can I add Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck to the detriment to the republican party list?
As usual, you’ve proven that you don’t know the first thing about Christianity. You fail at life, and God just gave you the finger.
You know, if that was a Biden quote, that he was just plagiarizing it from some kid’s Master’s thesis.
B\c it was witty or do you know someone who included that sort of journalistic statement in a Masters thesis? – (click)
B/C Biden has a history of plagiarizing. First in law school, then later one of the UK labour party’s speeches – which forced him to drop out of the 1988 race. (link)
It made for a little scandal back in the day, and I always thought it should have been played up more in the debates: “Nice answer, Joe. Whose paper did you steal THAT one from?”
I get it now. Thanks for the link. I had heard mention of these things before, but I was a little too young at the time to remember the details of the Dem primary for the ’88 election.
I think that would have been a better retort than “Say it ain’t so Joe” or whatever that nonsense was.
I remember that. Sigh. I guess it goes with the new reading glasses. *hands slaggingham a glass of her old-timer’s lemonade*
Can I have some too?
I guess remembering this sort of things really dates us.
Yes, I’m old… comparatively speaking.
But it did mean that the whole campaign thing was good for a few more laughs – and a great deal more experience-based cynicism – than younger people got out of it.
Heh-heh-heh… Biden…
It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true.
Joe Biden, there’s only 3 letters he provokes in people’s minds when saying any sentence….W T F?
I thought the point was to make your own joke.
no the point is to make something funny.