jkisha wrote:What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? It happened on Bush's watch--he owns it.littleflower wrote:
either. it's a big world, and shit happens ...
And PLEASE do not forget that BOTH houses of congress and the president were REPUBLICAN--no wonder their ratings are so low.
JK
Oh, this is gonna be gooood!Simon of the Playa wrote:this should be interesting.littleflower wrote:
state of denial?
i would be willing to bet that my sources are better than yours ...
YOU ARE ON!
Bring it!
seems a little shallow for you, JK.jkisha wrote:What ever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? It happened on Bush's watch--he owns it.littleflower wrote:
either. it's a big world, and shit happens ...
And PLEASE do not forget that BOTH houses of congress and the president were REPUBLICAN--no wonder their ratings are so low.
JK
Yes, I will.ygmir wrote: Following your logic, if Obama is elected, will you blame him if the economy collapses (further), or some other calamity occurs, in February?
jkisha wrote:Yes, I will.ygmir wrote: Following your logic, if Obama is elected, will you blame him if the economy collapses (further), or some other calamity occurs, in February?
He is running with the promise to make things better and I will hold him accountable if he reneges on his promise--and will be as vehement toward him if he breaks his promise to us as I am to Bush now.
And if some other calamity occurs in February or any other month when he is President, I will hold him accountable either for it or for how he handles it, or both depending on the situation.
JK
This is an interesting question. The Common Wisdom is that we had the past 8 years--but here's the realityHow long have they both been Rep. controlled? By what majority?
Point being? Besides when R's were in control?lurker wrote:This is an interesting question. The Common Wisdom is that we had the past 8 years--but here's the realityHow long have they both been Rep. controlled? By what majority?
Congress went into Rep control in 1994--for the first time in 40 years. In 2001 it split with the Jeffords defection--that gave the Dems de-facto control of the Senate--though it was 50/50, roughly.
In 2003 Reps regained the Senate and won seats in the House
In 2005 Reps kept control of both houses but lost some ground
In 2007 Democrats won both houses.
Under Bush, Rs had Congress for 4 years. The middle 4
Under Clinton, 6. The last 6
So you cannot say how the statement McCain made is different than his 'all of the above' stance. Why not just say that then? Instead of wandering off into this odd post?I would believe that McCain would try to do everything he says, if he was in a party that would back him up. McCain effectiveness in a republican control congress would be nil. He would be a better president with a democratic congress then a repub. But would McCain even attempt half of the shit his said, NO!
Ummm...in case you haven't been paying attention, he will HAVE a dem congress.McCain effectiveness in a republican control congress would be nil. He would be a better president with a democratic congress then a repub.
I read things like this and can only wonder how your kness must hurt, prostrate, as you are, before a poster of Him. Will His touch heal all ills as well?OBama on the other hand would seriously attempt to make those changes and with a Democratic congress will be the most effective president in 47 Years.
jkisha wrote:It would have been interesting to have seen what Clinton could have done had he not been embroiled in defending himself over a blow job. Fucking republicans. At least Clinton wasn't caught trying to suck some guy off in an airport bathroom stall.
JK
ROTFLMFAO So funny and so true.DVD Burner wrote:jkisha wrote:It would have been interesting to have seen what Clinton could have done had he not been embroiled in defending himself over a blow job. Fucking republicans. At least Clinton wasn't caught trying to suck some guy off in an airport bathroom stall.
JK
Yeah the Kerry part is old but the fact still remains the same.
Still.
the difference is......?jkisha wrote:It would have been interesting to have seen what Clinton could have done had he not been embroiled in defending himself over a blow job. Fucking republicans. At least Clinton wasn't caught trying to suck some guy off in an airport bathroom stall.
JK
Guess the same could be said about Bush if you're going to use that analogy.ygmir wrote:the difference is......?jkisha wrote:It would have been interesting to have seen what Clinton could have done had he not been embroiled in defending himself over a blow job. Fucking republicans. At least Clinton wasn't caught trying to suck some guy off in an airport bathroom stall.
JK
and, IIRC, he was defending himself over a lot of things.......
but, is that the fault of his attackers, or, for putting himself in those positions.........
by position, I'm not referring to Fr. Marcy park.........
There is no difference, that's my point. So why did the pot call the kettle black? (rhetorical)ygmir wrote:
the difference is......?
yes, perhaps that's true, too........DVD Burner wrote:Guess the same could be said about Bush if you're going to use that analogy.ygmir wrote:the difference is......?jkisha wrote:It would have been interesting to have seen what Clinton could have done had he not been embroiled in defending himself over a blow job. Fucking republicans. At least Clinton wasn't caught trying to suck some guy off in an airport bathroom stall.
JK
and, IIRC, he was defending himself over a lot of things.......
but, is that the fault of his attackers, or, for putting himself in those positions.........
by position, I'm not referring to Fr. Marcy park.........
"Bush would do better with the economy if he didn't have that war to deal with." "but, is that the fault of his attackers, or, for putting himself in those positions........."
I've always loved stuff like this. Are the Republicans uptight sexual prudes or not?DVD Burner wrote:jkisha wrote:It would have been interesting to have seen what Clinton could have done had he not been embroiled in defending himself over a blow job. Fucking republicans. At least Clinton wasn't caught trying to suck some guy off in an airport bathroom stall.
JK
lurker wrote: I've always loved stuff like this. Are the Republicans uptight sexual prudes or not?
Do Democrats have a problem with cruising? They sure seem to--when it's a Republican doing it. Don't seem to have a problem when the person doing the cruising is thinking the proper, liberal thoughts, but....
And those who have the correct mindset are lauded for coming out of the closet.
Police are reviled for sting operations that prey on gay men.......
unless they're Republican.
It's like you guys search out ways to be hypocrites.
It's the hypocracy--they (republicans) are always the ones that are preaching the loudest against this stuff and they are the biggest offenders--all in the closet until they get caught. So they are easy marks. Simple as that.lurker wrote:
I've always loved stuff like this. Are the Republicans uptight sexual prudes or not?
Do Democrats have a problem with cruising? They sure seem to--when it's a Republican doing it.
Yeah. It's a big world and shit happens. I would like to see some Republicans around here "admit it."littleflower wrote:the approval rating of congress is ... what?
i fear congress more than even obama and mccain, if you want to know the truth. they are fuck-ups, and should be tossed out ... many republicans are getting out because of this, but the democrats stay ... and the media is totally ignoring this.
i don't think it's as simple aseither. it's a big world, and shit happens ...he is the president and I believe he was """VOTED IN""" to make this country a better place was he not?
but, i have said before and i will say it again ... i always support the president, because i believe he will have a lot of shit to deal with that i sure as hell would not want to have to wake up to every morning. if the dems do well, great. but if they fuck things up even worse, i will want to see some people around here ADMIT IT.
Is it not more accurate to say that more Democrats are being VOTED IN?many republicans are getting out because of this, but the democrats stay ... and the media is totally ignoring this.
MAN, DOES THAT SAY IT IN A NUTSHELL!jkisha wrote:It's the hypocracy--they (republicans) are always the ones that are preaching the loudest against this stuff and they are the biggest offenders--all in the closet until they get caught. So they are easy marks. Simple as that.lurker wrote:
I've always loved stuff like this. Are the Republicans uptight sexual prudes or not?
Do Democrats have a problem with cruising? They sure seem to--when it's a Republican doing it.
JK
This is what I mean. A liberal gay politician, who stayed closeted until he was caught, would not get that type of reaction from you--but you're perfectly comfortable throuwing homophobic invective if it's a Republican--even if both were pretending to be straight and narrow in the same fashion.It's the hypocracy--they (republicans) are always the ones that are preaching the loudest against this stuff and they are the biggest offenders--all in the closet until they get caught. So they are easy marks. Simple as that
And what I said was--Yeah but Lurker and Littleflower are just gonna say it's a joke of a 12 year old and there just isn't anything funny about it.
As stated, the cartoon is funny because it's true--and I know that FAR better than you. I was not being sarcastic. I DO love--and HAVE that particular cartoon(I'm the person who introduced LFP and Hustler to Leg Avenue Lingerie). I know a helluva lot of freaky righties.I've always loved stuff like this. Are the Republicans uptight sexual prudes or not?
That's prolly because it's mainly right-wingers who protest too much and get caught with their pants down.lurker wrote:
This is what I mean. A liberal gay politician, who stayed closeted until he was caught, would not get that type of reaction from you--but you're perfectly comfortable throuwing homophobic invective if it's a Republican--even if both were pretending to be straight and narrow in the same fashion.
lurker wrote: This is what I mean. A liberal gay politician, who stayed closeted until he was caught,
lurker wrote: would not get that type of reaction from you--but you're perfectly comfortable throuwing homophobic invective if it's a Republican--
Apple donates $100,000 to fight Prop. 8lurker wrote:On both sides of the aisle there are those who want to control our sex lives. They may come at it from different directions, but their end results are the same.
Ok, I can agree with that.lurker wrote:Yet Republicans are hypocrites.
Ok, your spelling is bad but I get ya, here is what I gotta say again......CITES!lurker wrote:Maybe democrats don't get called 'hypocite because hypocrasy is their natural state.
lurker wrote:Man, you just can't catch a break.
i'm not sure what you mean ... republicans don't think it's a big world and shit happens?betrdanevr wrote:
Yeah. It's a big world and shit happens. I would like to see some Republicans around here "admit it."
Sounds like you may be readying yourself to have to actually concede an Obama victory in the end?
I do agree that we do have to support whoever is President in the end.
Is it not more accurate to say that more Democrats are being VOTED IN?many republicans are getting out because of this, but the democrats stay ... and the media is totally ignoring this.
I hardly think that it's Republicans fleeing unless they are just seeing the writing on the wall.
Sounds a little bit too much like Atlas Shrugged. And I loved that book, but I don't think we're a heading toward socialism and the lack of value of the industrial magnate that just because of Obama's stance on helping middle class America. I think that's just scare tactics by the more well-to-do and/or "illuminati," if you will.
