Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

If Janeane Garafalo died...

80 posts in this topic

Posted

I would love to see the left and the right come together and eliminate waste on both sides. No water parks in San Francisco. No $100 toilet seats for the military. No more bailouts.

That's why I voted McCain. He had a history of working with the left to the point his own party didn't trust him. Instead we're stuck with Bush on steroids.

That's what Obama promised, but we saw how far his promises go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think Bush and Obama both suck. I'm Libertarian though, so I'm a certified lunatic according to both Elephants and Asses. So, what do I know, right?

We will technically always have the money, cause they'll just print more. The problem is, it will devalue the dollar so low that it will eventually become worthless. The point of the Fed is to control and dissuade the Executive and Congressional branches from doing so. This honestly is a two-step program: Bush managed to get the Executive branch far too much power after 9/11, and now Obama is using that power to enforce his radical spending programs filled with pork. Both sides are to blame for this fiasco.

The question now becomes, how are we all to regain control of America so that this poo desists immediately, and simple Economics regains a foothold in our government? Best line of any movie was from "Dave" (paraphrased from Charles Grodin): If I ran my business like they run this country, I wouldn't have a business to run at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

She just said on Olbermann "Let's be honest, every one of those people is a racist" about the Tea Parties. Give me a fugging break. So fall in line lockstep behind Obama or you clearly hate black people. This is what it has come to? Really, Janeane?

You don't have the right to say that. I'm working on having you removed from this forum because you have no rights of free speech here - oh wait!...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

well the people who do go out and openly protest, why don't you think they held teabag parties before now?

they were busy defending W's policies on web forums for the past 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Quit bringing up Obama. His first few months on the job, hell during his transition team period, was nothing more than, "how the hell am I going to clean up this terrible mess?". Just because George Bush was in over his head and bankrupted the country does not give Obama the ability to do nothing about the problems and just point his fingers and say, "I can't do anything, it's not my fault". All he is doing is following the advice, and the lead, of the advisors and policies set before him, but doing it with a more urgent frame of mind.

I can understand that a lot of people hate the idea of this whole spending spree, I am not really happy about it myself. But despite the official rhetoric about this not being a partisan problem, the real reason these people came out was to complain about Obama in general. All of them stood by while their guys passed tax cuts while starting wars and increasing spending, turning the surplus into a deficit in record time, but now that the other guys are doing it, it's suddenly going to destroy our way of life and we need to somehow take over the country. It's a simple and easy way to reenergize the Republican base since Sarah Palins boobies didn't quite do the trick. No big deal, but sell it for what it is.

If you think those protesting at Tea Parties are only after the Democrats, think again ... look at the treatment Republican Gresham Barrett received in Greenville, SC, last week:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/18/another-republican-booed-by-tea-party-protesters/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did they boo him when the bank bailouts were signed? When the deficit spending to feed the war was going on? or did they wait until this latest package was done, then complain about it just because the guy realized that, just perhaps, the economists that recommended such action had a point and did not protest it just because it was not Republican overspending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did they boo him when the bank bailouts were signed? When the deficit spending to feed the war was going on? or did they wait until this latest package was done, then complain about it just because the guy realized that, just perhaps, the economists that recommended such action had a point and did not protest it just because it was not Republican overspending?

Did the anti-war protesters boo Hillary immediately after she voted yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did they boo him when the bank bailouts were signed? When the deficit spending to feed the war was going on? or did they wait until this latest package was done, then complain about it just because the guy realized that, just perhaps, the economists that recommended such action had a point and did not protest it just because it was not Republican overspending?

Some of us, in fact, did "boo" our representatives over the bank bailouts. We've been giving our Republican (and Democratic) representatives hell who voted for them, yes, before Obama took office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did the anti-war protesters boo Hillary immediately after she voted yes?

Yes, I believe they did.

And of course, she voted to give Bush the power to go to war "if necessary". She did not vote to go to war. You know, bipartisan support for your president in tough times and all that. I guess she should have started a tea party instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, I believe they did.

And of course, she voted to give Bush the power to go to war "if necessary". She did not vote to go to war. You know, bipartisan support for your president in tough times and all that. I guess she should have started a tea party instead.

I believe you are wrong. Again. What's that like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/04/19/clinton_blames_moveon_for_cauc.html

But Clinton's focus on MoveOn illustrates a larger tension between the senator from New York and liberal internet activists in the party who are members of MoveOn or frequent visitors to sites like Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Many of the activists were opposed from the beginning to the Iraq War, which Clinton voted to authorize, and were skeptical of the centrist approach of her husband.

Such divisions have deepened during the primaries, even though Obama and Clinton have very similar plans to pull out troops from Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0307-01.htm

Published on Friday, March 7, 2003 by the Washington Times

Hillary Given 'Pink Slip' for Stance on Iraq War

by Julia Duin

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was handed a "pink slip" — a frilly piece of lingerie — yesterday from an enraged group of female war protesters who told her to quit her job because she was not doing enough to oppose military action against Iraq.

The anti-war groups were not happy with Hillary, and her vote sealed her fate with a lot of primary voters....including myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Weak. Pink slip?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites