« Ann Curry Fails | Main | How It's Possible That Barack Obama Was Elected President »

No seat belt. Notice that shit eating grinn. Get use to that look folks.

Moonbat government on display.

Jimmy Carter and Robert Mugabe. Isnt socialism great?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_af/af_zimbabwe

"JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Monday the crisis in Zimbabwe appears "much worse than anything we ever imagined" after the government there blocked his weekend humanitarian visit.

Carter, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and child advocate Graca Machel called for southern African leaders to halt the "deep suffering" in Zimbabwe, where the U.N. says more than 5 million people face imminent starvation.

The president of neighboring South Africa, meanwhile, warned Zimbabwe "may implode and collapse," as he announced a new round of talks to try to resolve the political impasse."

Maybe Obama could be the President of Zimbabwe instead? They need HOPE and CHANGE !!

Store run by principles of 'Moonbatonomics' goes belly up.

alan colmes leaving h&c - good, now i don't have to hear my otherwise sweet husband say, "shut up alan!" whenever walking in front of the tube at 8:00 central.

Why dont he pal around with FIDEL CASTRO and HUGO CHAVEZ these vultures must be nest mates

V the K: So it looks like she was giving money away to charity, and then using what was left over to pay the bills, and if that wasn't enough, then the bills don't get paid. Her landlord must have been thrilled. Any by allowing customers to pay whatever they want, she couldn't guarantee that she would make enough to cover her fixed costs.

Notice that the landlord, who is running his business as an actual business, is kicking her out because he needs to pay his mortgage. If I were him, I would report her to the credit bureaus if he hasn't already. If she had made a good-faith effort to pay the rent on time but the store just didn't work out, then maybe I cut her some slack. That she was giving away money without paying her obligations first in inexcusable - I'd say she used up her slack already.

My favorite comment on that post is this one (my analysis in bold):

C'mon, people. How un-American can you get? Allowing the free market to determine what something is worth? [That's how it usually works, yes.] This woman must be a socialist, the most evil economic philosophy yet devised by the mind of man. [Yes, and yes.]

She has courage, an entrepreneurial spirit and above all, compassion. [But no business sense or sense of responsibility.] No wonder she couldn't survive in the economic system Edward Abbey characterized as "savage capitalism." [Natural selection does tend to weed out the unfit.]

I have no respect for a man who spends time with his family instead of shining my shoes?

"And thee Devil will come and he will be draped in the lamb skin of family values to fool the heathens of the land"-Superior Bay scrolls

The documentary interviewing some 500 totally politically ignorant BO voters exposing their total political ignorance is revealing. They apparently voted for BO as President without a clear understanding of who he is against the current political landscape.

I have a thought about this.


The liberal vote was most likely racial in intent; race had to be an over-riding factor in the liberal decision because they knew practically nothing else about the man or his politics. But I don’t believe the liberal wanted to elect a black man just because he’s black. Rather, I think they elected what they believe a black man to be.


Liberals don’t read; they watch TV, U-tube and movies (analyzed by Ann Coulter- and probably why liberals discovered the documentary but didn't understand the scientific polling).

And for decades blacks have been portrayed in the American film media as heroes, men with exceptional skills, deep, thoughtful, courageous, self-sacrificing, well-meaning geniuses, gods or just generally all-round good guys you’d like to hang with. Black as bad guy is balanced by black is good guy. A clown is balanced by a greater calling to a noble effort. There is always an indomitable spirit and the triumph of virtue.


These ideal but formulaic illusions persist into the soft reality of the liberal zeitgeist into which BO fits perfectly. HE is The One… The Messiah… HE who causes a thrill up the leg.


So from the backdrop of Sidney Poitier to Will Smith, BO steps out of the fog of illusion between giant Greek pillars, wrapped in brilliant white flowing robes,----to extend an omnipotent hand to the once-godless liberal ---who is now--- saved.

See? GM is going to make these great new electric cars just for me and they will call it the Sasha. And they only need $50B. No need for air bags, or seatbelts. What? NO! you can't have one you stupid twit, they are only safe for the ignorant masses! I swear you are becoming more like your mother every day.

you honestly don't think one could find 500 equally ignorant Palin voters Fiberal? also, be careful, your white robe is showing.

"you honestly don't think one could find 500 equally ignorant Palin voters Fiberal? also, be careful, your white robe is showing."

what's a Palin voter?

...see, with this stupid comment you prove the whole point behind that poll. Sarah Palin was the VICE presidential candidate. The vote was for McCain.

****ing idiot Liberal. Bet you think she actually said "I can see Russia from my house", too.

COMMENT DELETED

COMMENT DELETED

I gotta agree with you to some extent Dino. The Republican leadership has been pretty lousy. Republicans, including Bush, have been acting like Democrats with the big spending, earmarks, amnesty etc.

But it is possible to get worse, and that's where we're headed. It won't take long for the Democrats to botch things up even worse, then maybe we'll see some real conservatism again. I'm thinking 2-4 years rather than "generations" from now.

Hello Dino. Hope you had a great weekend. You keep forgetting the Dems are running the country. When will you come out of denial? Not any time soon. Keep following your shepards and they will lead into the financial abiss that we are all headed for. You should be a lot more tolorant like a good Liberal. Fall in line now. You're not acting like you did before the election. So angry. I just love it. You have to use anger to get your point across while people on this site use clear facts. Have a good night. I have to go make more money so that I will have enought to sustain my simple yet happy life. BAAAAAH BAAAAH! Sheeple

COMMENT DELETED

The actual problem, Dino, is Statist intervention in the marketplace.

Dino - is that a reference to Democrat In Name Only? I know it wouldn't be that you are a Republican in Democrat clothing - so is it a reference to being a communist in democrat clothing?

picture caption
"Obama using his learners permit to practice driving,
just like he'll use his learners permit to practice governing....oops I meant ruling"

Dino said "The most cherished programs and policies benefiting the masses have been democrat-created."

Like social security & welfare??
these 2 programs have been so mismanaged by the democrats that the country is broke.

The free cheese crowd will always cherish programs that give them money for not working.
The taxpayers think otherwise

Class I want you to notice how monkeys behave in the wild. Notice the hunger that manifest itself as anger. You might ask what that hunger is for as most of these monkeys are well fed in the usual sense of the word. They hunger for sex and the end of time. Papers are due on the 1st, have a good break

Eva I'll be seeing you later ; )

WHOA!

To Stanford Class:

You can't use the term 'monkey' when referring to the liberal administration - in even the most off-hand way.

While it's okay to morph Bush into a chimp and hang it on office walls; even THINKING 'monkey' when referring to Obama will brand you hateful and racist.

Liberals are REALLY, REALLY hypocritical that way. What's okay for them is NOT okay for anyone else. That's cuz they're the elite special people. Enlightened, don't you know? We all have to go to special education like they did before we will realize that.

To To Stanford class
this is a series out let for ideas please if you have nothing constructive to say don't say anything at all

-Tim

Notice how the monkeys inability to comprehend out observation, interesting. Extra credit if you choose to cover the monkeys cognitive issues on top of the original assignment.

Jimbo what swamp are you from?

Adam tell eve to bring an apple later ; )

Posted by: blue at November 24, 2008 4:14 PM

I think you're preaching to a free-cheeser, Blue. One that has never and shall never produce anything (except crap and CO2) in it's worthless existence. A lot like a leach or a mosquito.

Or a liberal.

Oooooo! To Stanford is a RACIST!

RACIST ALERT! RACIST ALERT!

Of course - all liberals are. And I do mean ALL.

Silly liberals love their lower-class slaves. They never want to see them be anything, or do anything, without the 'liberal nod' - and they're still limited.

you honestly don't think one could find 500 equally ignorant Palin voters Fiberal? also, be careful, your white robe is showing.

John

You could find 500 ignorant voters who like Palin..its just a lot easier to find 500 voters who like BO.


Hard as it may be to understand, criticism of a black stereotype perpetuated in movies and television is not racism, rather its a criticism of racism.

Seriously, do yourself a favor and go figure out how a scientific poll is conducted.

And stop looking for racists; even if you found one it wouldn't make you cool.

Paging Van Helsling: Shit bird droppings all over the isle. Please purge Dino comments with such prejudice even long dead Stalin gets wood, OVER.

You and the kind you represent have been employing the same sleight-of-hand racism throughout this campaign. Despite Obama's positions and plans being very well publicized and very accessible the entire time, you insist the opposite and then claim that race must be the only factor. So not only is it untrue and disingenuous, it's an attempt to interject race into an argument that should have nothing to do with it. It is done not with the intent to criticize Obama supporters, whom you know know better than this, but to incite racists on your own side. Hence all the footage we see of Palin rallies turned into near lynchings.

And yes, NoObamunist, according to your own political leadership and general poll numbers, it was Palin that conservatives largely came out to support, not McCain.

Caption:
"Look honey! There's a 'rich' American making over $250,000 (Or is it $150,000? Or is it $42,000?) we can run over!"

Dino said "The most cherished programs and policies benefiting the masses have been democrat-created."

Why do communists always say "masses" when everyone else says "CITIZENS"?

John at November 24, 2008 5:18 PM

YOUR people voted for his skin color. Obama first said that his COLOR would be attacked. YOUR media said that EVERY WORD uttered by conservatives was "code" for RACISM.

But now that you bring it up, please tell us just what Obama's platform was. I have asked this before several times on several sites and all I got from Liberals were HATE, THREATS and ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM!

What would you like to know about Obama's platform? It has been detailed and publicly available on his web site throughout his campaign. That the reality is anything otherwise has been a bizarre urban legend that I've never understood. Obama has called to stimulate the economy through tax cuts for all but the "rich" (and we can debate what "rich" will mean in another discussion) as well as tax cuts for small businesses. He will work to stimulate job growth through investments in manufacturing and green tech. Likewise, he will stimulate employment in the longer run but making critical improvements to education; he's recognized the value of early childhood education and STEM education for high schoolers. He'll work to end the Iraq war as soon as possible and to neutralize the threat from Iran through diplomatic actions rather than another multi-trillion dollar war.

That's just a bit of his platform off the top of my head. Ask me whatever other questions you have and I'll do my best to answer. But honestly, none of this stuff is hidden, he's discussed these issues in speeches and on many TV and radio interviews, and as I mentioned, published it all on his web site. It's all quite clear and accessible. To say otherwise is to simply deny reality.

Barack Obama school mockery

Johnny sed:
"Despite Obama's positions and plans being very well publicized and very accessible the entire time,..."

Yeah! Just like his college transcripts! Open to ALL!!!???

Yomama has waffled and changed his tune so many times to please so many people it's DAMNED impossible to understand WHAT the SOB beieves in other than free cheese for his illegal aunt.

You silly liberals are so silly it is absolutely rediculous.

Go play with yourself - that's all you're doing - continuing your sick little orgasm for an empty O.

well it's nice to see you're all such grown-ups around here who argue using facts, just like Watcher said.

Can anyone tell me which group of people Democratic Party Voters soundly voted to not allow to marry in CA?

Who gets the door prize?

I know this is an alien concept, but once again, let's give some facts a try:

"Another exit poll showed that Republican party members sided in favor of the measure by a ratio of more than 4 to 1, and made up nearly a third of the voters. By contrast, more than half of Independents and nearly two thirds of Democrats voted No. Independents made up 28% of voters, while Democrats made up 42%.[13] Bush supporters' support for the measure was also important to the outcome. An exit poll showed that of the one-fifth of voters who approve of Bush, 86% voted in favor of the measure. Likewise, 85% of conservatives voted Yes, while 53% of moderates and 78% of liberals voted No. Conservatives made up three tenths of those polled, while moderates took up four in nine and liberals just over a quarter of the total.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Demographics

After smoking+Universal Healthcare oxymoronic plan, Obama reveals homosexuality+AIDS prevention plan

Citing what they call America’s “promise of equality,” the Obama administration plans to push for homosexual rights by including protections of sexual orientation, “gender identity” and “gender expression” as civil rights. His office proposes expanding hate crimes statues and the adoption rights of homosexuals while supporting full civil unions for “LGBT couples” to give them “legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.”

The proposals are announced under the Civil Rights section of their agenda presented at Change.gov, the web site of the Obama campaign’s self-described “Office of the President-elect.”

A section titled “Support for the LGBT Community” outlines the agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered activists and quotes remarks Obama made on June 1, 2007.

“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do,” Obama said, referring to riots which followed a police raid on a New York City gay bar.

“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

Advocating the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the agenda plans to “enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”

Its AIDS prevention policies also pledge to enact a “comprehensive” national strategy including contraceptive sex education and “combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception.”

Call me curious but what do you all do?

-no reply from Jimbo is needed this is prime noodling time and I understand you have a large family to feed-

His positions and plans have been publicized, but his website keeps getting edited as he waffles, telling one group one thing and another something else. Then there are the outrages like "share the wealth" and "bankrupt the coal industry" that are whitewashed by the sympathetic press. It becomes impossible to tell from what he SAYS or even what it's SAID he says, what he really means. So, we have to return to his voting record and his actions AND ASSOCIATIONS prior to the campaign to get a sense of what his real positions are. I for one don't find comfort in those.

What do I do? I (probably against my better judgement) deliver the children to the NEA lackeys for their indoctrination (call me a bus driver), while trying my best to counteract the effect public education has on my own offspring. I know, I should probably homeschool; seems like I wind up doing it anyway, since they can't seem to get through to him.

wikipedia - hum.

So basically you are arguing that the 7 in 10 blacks in CA that voted yes on 8 are republicans?

Same argument for the unexpected and strong Hispanic support of yes on 8 in CA?

The end result was that the Minority Group (in name only) Democratic Party Voters in CA voted yes on 8 and pushed that extra 4 - 5 % point win against Gay Marriage.

What your wikipedia reference only goes to show is that yes on 8 in CA won because of the strong turnout of Democratic Party Voters.

You can argue with facts 'son', but you might want to use the ones that don't prove your opponent's argument.

I never said that Republicans did or not vote. I was just pointing out the irony that yes on 8, no gay marriage in CA, won because too many Democratic Party Voters hate Gays being married.

Next.

anonymouse asked:
"Call me curious but what do you all do?

-no reply from Jimbo is needed this is prime noodling time and I understand you have a large family to feed-"

Blue is a rich, retired republican.
I get up every morning with nothing to do & I spend all day doing it!

It's not nice to talk bad about those who put money on the table. For your sake i hope you find something else to do, it doesn't seem like it could be satisfying, delivering people into the clutches of the NEA. What changes do you want to see in your sons schooling and by what means do you see those hopes becoming reality, short of home schooling.

COMMENT DELETED

COMMENT DELETED

And Gays still can not marry because Democratic Party Voters hate gay marriage in CA.

Why does everyone assume I am a Republican?

COMMENT DELETED

1896 was a good year for the courts if you ask me, if i got the year wrong I'll go to the back of the bus.

Ah, Dino... the tired old parrot. Only knows twelve sentences and keeps sqwuaking them over and over and over and over and over and over (deep breath) and over and over and over and over and over again. Hell, Spurwing Plover might be semi-unintelligible half the time, but at least he's ORIGINAL.

Ever heard of Gerald Celente? He accurately foresaw the 87 crash (and quick recovery), the fall of the Soviet Union, the 97 Asian currency collapse, and a hell of a lot more: he's the CEO of the Trends Institute. I listened to an interview with him a few nights ago. He was giving some predictions for the next 5-6 years, and he's buying bullets, gold, euros, and getting ready to leave the country.

Decades? Nah. 2010 will be a revolt in Congress and 2012 will be another "Carter Landslide". See, while everything is going to hell, your Messiah will be pushing his socialist nonsense down everyone's throat. People will associate the two. Just like they did with Carter.

You may be old enough to remember Slick Willy, but I doubt you remember Carter. Clinton, after all, wasn't a socialist & was hardly even a democrat; he was in favor of Bill Clinton, and that's about it. Same for his evil wife, who I'd infinitely prefer over Obama. The '0' is a 'true believer' (judging by his voting record & past associations), and he's not about to let a trashing of the American economy stop his quest to build Utopia. The trashing of American anything doesn't seem to bother him at all.

Hey Van, are you saving this idjit's rants before you delete them? It'll be fun to pull them out of the time-capsule after the next election cycle. They'll be worth more than a few laughs.

Completely unhinged PETArds release non-kid-safe mockery aimed at destroying an innocuous Nintendo game

Obama has called to stimulate the economy through tax cuts for all but the "rich" (and we can debate what "rich" will mean in another discussion) as well as tax cuts for small businesses. He will work to stimulate job growth through investments in manufacturing and green tech


John
Congratulations for being able to move away from your “racism” theme; not many liberals can do that.

Taken at face value, BO’s tax cuts for all but the “rich” are said to be based on his ideas of “fairness”. “Fairness” is not an economic theory, nor is it a dynamic or instrument of an economic theory. It is an ideal imposed upon an economy.


Conservatives hold that taxing incomes for redistribution of resources, no matter how they are redistributed, cannot lead to a utopian society. We are a highly taxed country and have been for a very long time, with trillions of dollars taken from citizens at the point of a gun. This has not brought our country anything except socialistic programs that have produced entire generations of disenfranchised, government-dependent drones, criminals and poor.


How does Government invest? Again, by taxes. Taxes are pushed back from businesses to the consumer and inevitably will produce poverty bc government can’t stop spending and taxing. Look at the spending fiasco we have now, bailing out incompetent banks and companies. Your grandchildren will be paying for all this frenetic activity happening in government today.


In any event, investment in business is better left to business. Economies thrive because businesses compete. The government does not compete.


Green Tech? What the F is this to an oil-based economy? How experimental is this? What is going to cost to let our government know-nothings experiment around with “green tech”? And for what? To reduce our carbon footprint? This is an unproven concept with respect to global warming and pollution. The government has no business or background or expertise to start a trillion dollar industry based once again on tax dollars and undeveloped science to address an unfalsifiable hypothesis propped up with falsified data (i.e., global warming).


John, remember what modern government is today– essentially we have in leaders nothing more than a congress of self-serving, egotistical arrogant fools trying to hold onto power regardless of how much damage they do to the country. (A contemporary and magnificent exception was Ronald Reagan).

Burning Hot, that game is hil-frickin-larious!!! I love it! Especially the part when you get to the mixing bowl for the stuffing, and blood drips out of the cracked eggs... bwahahahahah!!!!

We are in this situation because we are fighting a war in which business is competing to make the biggest boom and at home they compete to get you in debt, something that happened because of the lack of regulation. I was READING an article in IEEE spectrum about weapons acquisition now there is the fat that needs to be cut from our budget. Fiberal it seems to me companies aren't thriving because they were left to do as they pleased

You should try traveling, you might encounter VAT

COMMENT DELETED

Hey Burning Hot. Thanks. That was fun. I especially liked the gutting part.

I like how they use 'Evaluation' versus 'score'. Sounds like liberal socialist grade school teachers chose that term.

LET US GIVE THANKS FOR OUR BLESSINGS

THANKSGIVING EXPOSED PART TWO–GIVING THANKS

It’s easy for conservative Americans to feel deep in the dumps this November considering what happened on the fourth day of this month. We still have a great deal for which to be thankful this Thanksgiving.

All is far from lost, even if McCain/Palin did. One thing we should keep in mind is that John McCain was no conservative, except for his pro-life position. Obama’s victory therefore did not represent a victory over conservative principles but rather over a wishy-washy Republican moderate, and we can take heart and be thankful for that.

Also, aside from the grievous national harm which will result from a pro-abortion president in the White House, Obama cannot, at least initially, govern as the extreme liberal that he is in a nation which is still moderate-conservative according to exit polls.

Post Election Day, 2010, if he solidifies his congressional majorities, America may start to witness the changes he promised, changes which will shake us to our national core but, temporarily, we are relatively safe. Should he attempt to “do-a-Clinton” over the next two years, Republicans will have another great shot at taking back the congress in 2010 just as we took it in 1994. We should give a muted thanks for that possibility.

Newt, where are you when we need you?

It’s important, too, to understand that Obama paid dearly and literally for every vote he received. Reneging on his pledge to accept public financing proved to be his most brilliant move, brilliant but scurrilous and demonstrating his lack of honesty and good character.

He ended up spending almost as much money on media alone ($340 million) than McCain raised ($360 million): http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008.

We can be thankful that Obama didn’t win the election as much as he bought the election.

Furthermore, he remains the stealth president-elect who will take office as an unknown quantity thanks to a media which felt collective tingles up their corporate legs and thereby allowed him to wage an extended primary battle followed by two months in the general campaign sans vetting and sans probing questions.

Of course, he had his legions of the faithful, including virtually every black in the country who would have voted for him if he espoused that they all be drawn and quartered on Inauguration Day, and his other faithful contingent who were taken in by this charlatan with a messianic complex.

Add to that blind group the disenchanted naysayers who opposed the war, who hated Bush and Cheney, who are suffering in our blighted economy, and those who simply voted against the status quo and, Voila! the nation was punished with Obama.

There’s a silver lining even in that cloud, namely that America did not knowingly choose as president an arch-liberal over a moderate since they knew not what they did nor for whom they were voting and that, to me, is a pyrrhic victory for which we should all give thanks.

For those who feel all or most of the above is a stretch, a Pollyannish, fantasy analysis of Election 2008 or an exercise in spinning a dash of sugar into a bunch of sour grapes, try these on for size as further reasons to be thankful:

OTHER THINGS TO BE THANKFUL FOR

Thanks to George Bush’s and General Petraeus’ “surge” in Iraq, we are finally winning that sector of the war against terrorism and winning the hard-fought battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis;

We have not had to endure another 9/11 for over seven years;

Love him or despise him, on January 20th, 2008, Obama will receive the torch to lead, and change for better or worse, this nation after a (somewhat) spirited campaign on both sides and he will do so in accordance with our Constitution and without a violent upheaval that would be the norm in many countries;

We are still the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth despite Europe’s undisguised wishful thinking that our day is past;

Hillary lost;

If you have a roof over your head, food in your stomach, clothes on your back, and since you obviously can look down at the grass rather than up toward it, be thankful for that;

Finally, we should give a deeply appreciative thanks to God for allowing us to live in the greatest nation on the planet.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY TO ALL! MAY GOD CONTINUE TO BLESS US!

(http://genelalor.com/)

Congratulations for being able to move away from your “racism” theme

in fairness, that was a theme you started, but OK.

We are a highly taxed country

only until you compare us to other industrialized nations, then we are in the middle to low end of taxation.

Your grandchildren will be paying for all this frenetic activity happening in government today.

My grandchildren and their children are already in massive debt because "tax and spend" democrats gave way to "spend and spend" republicans who have robbed my descendants blind. Since Nixon there has been a very consistent trend of republicans running deficits higher and higher, and democrats doing the opposite. George W. Bush in particular has single-handedly stacked more on our debt burden than all previous administrations combined, and that's *before* we get into the present giveaways to big business and the trillion or so more we've yet to pay on the Iraq fallout.

The American people have finally recognized the Republican "fiscally conservative" theme for the incredible lie that it is. The numbers cannot be denied.

Green Tech? What the F is this to an oil-based economy?

The question to ask is what does an oil-based economy do when oil represents a security threat at best, and a rapidly diminishing resource at first. This is a classic example of Republican short-sightedness. Although Reps of a Libertarian bent are another story, mainstream Republicans' vision does not go out beyond 2-3 years. That myopia will kill us if we're not careful. We need forward-looking people and ideas more than ever now if we are to salvage the mess we're in.

A contemporary and magnificent exception was Ronald Reagan

Under Reagan we saw the greatest job unemployment rate in modern American history and a spike in national debt only eclipsed by George W. Bush.

wikipedia - hum.

which in turn cites the poll that the summary is based on, which is vastly more than you cite to support your claim.

So basically you are arguing that the 7 in 10 blacks in CA that voted yes on 8 are republicans?

ah, now we get to it, the good old republican race fetish. the answer is no, I am not claiming that at all. your claim was that "Democratic Party Voters soundly voted to not allow to marry in CA" when precisely the opposite is true, and that is what I am "arguing", though there's nothing to argue here really, it's a matter of record.

I never said that Republicans did or not vote. I was just pointing out the irony that yes on 8, no gay marriage in CA, won because too many Democratic Party Voters hate Gays being married

not really, in fact not at all, but thanks for playing. I'd recommend you study up on something called "proportional reasoning" before you attempt something like this. most children learn this in middle school, but you can be forgiven for not having made it that far, school funding being what it is these days.

Andre Breitbart challenges unhinged Prop 8 rioters to protest at a mosque

Beautiful conservative women has libs bellowing in impotent, jealous rage

John, but hey, Reagan inherited a terrible economy from 4 years of Jimmy Carter (as DINO would say).

And as for being shortsighted on the oil issue. Fact is that alternative fuels are too expensive for the average consumer. America has HUGE energy reserves stuck in the ground - but liberals refuse to let us access it. Ivory tower/limosine liberals can afford alternative fuels but regular people cant. Yes, research alternatives but satisfy immediate needs NOW. We cant wait 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, for wind and solar to be cost effective. Its the same reason alternative fuels went nowhere during the Clinton years. Oh, but people will blame the Republican controlled Congress back then for that? No, it was $1.00 gallon gasoline. Simple fact of the matter is that if ordinary people cant afford solar and wind (both unreliable power sources) people will not stand for it. Clinton in that respect was smart about it and never pushed it, despite Al Gore nagging him about it. Clinton, to his credit, acted more like a Republican in his second term than Bush did in his 2nd term.

The deficit went up? Yep. As a percentage of GDP/inflation adjusted dollars, it really wasnt as high as people think it was. At least not until the DEMOCRATS took control of Congress in 2006. Bush should have stopped them with his veto pen but didnt - thats why alot of Republican voters stayed home in 2006 and in 2008 (because McCain was Obama-lite). Republican in Congress also lost because they betrayed their principles of fiscal conservativism. They didnt lose because they acted like Republicans, they lost because they betrayed real Republican principles in place in the mid-late 1990s.

Call me curious but what do you all do?

-no reply from Jimbo is needed this is prime noodling time and I understand you have a large family to feed-

Posted by: Anonymous at November 24, 2008 7:46 PM

Typical coward to not post at least his/her screen name and occupation. What do you do for a living? Or is there too much free cheese in your mouth for you to speak right now? I know Jimbo. Jimbo is a friend of mine and believe me, you don't want to go there.

Pointing out how 70% of blacks voted for traditional marriage when 95% of them in California voted for Obama isnt a "race fetish" its true.

Most blacks vote Democrats because they have been conditioned over the last 40 years to expect government handouts from Democrat politicians. Despite the fact the number of blacks in poverty has not changed much during that time. Dependency on the government breeds sloth and laziness. This also applies to the poor in general, regardless of race.

Things will only get worse as the government inserts itself into more and more aspects of peoples lives. Its now controlling large parts of the formerly private sector. People say the current situation is a result of free market capitalism. No its not. Its a direct result of increasing government intervention. The Great Depression lasted as long as it did because of FDR's massive government programs.

Unemployment during the 1930s makes todays situation seem like utopia in comparision. The only thing that stopped it was WW II. While the rest of the world was in ruins, America was largely untouched.

Imagine unemployment rates like these! And after millions of government make work jobs were "created". Imagine 14.3% unemployment being considered LOW.

1930 8.7
1931 15.9
1932 23.6
1933 24.9 1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3 1938 19.0 1939 17.2

Thanks C-Bug - I tend to ignore the twirps as much as possible - it irritates them.

"What do I do?" LOL! I'm certainly not an illiterate sitting around waiting for my monthly handout like most of Zero's base. Besides that, cheese eaters, you probably wouldn't understand "what I do" if I told you - but it has to do with "infrastructure". That's a big word for something most liberals take for granted - look it up. HINT: It's NOT ebonics - look in a real disctionary, dipwads.

John



The usual liberal canards. Any reference to race and you're a racist. Liberals care about spending? Give me a break...That's liberalism holding on to deficit spending under Reagan, which wasn't.


Liberals have published debt dollar figures under Reagan without adjusting for inflation or as a percentage of GDP and then have squawked for years about Republican Big-Spending.



John, like all liberals, you intentionally confuse conservativism with Republican politicians. Bush spent like a fool bc he is not a conservative. He compromised his legacy with "Compassionate Conservatisim"

How many times do you have to be told this?

Liberals have cynically been overcompromising the few remaining conservative Republicans (like Newt Gingrich) for years who otherwise would probably not vote for spending bills or for putting crap like Ginsburg in the Supreme Court. Confused, squishy liberal voters putting the same corrupt, sleazbags in office (can you say Barney Franks or Ted Kennedy?) repeatedly have created the disasters we have in politics in this country to the point where we can't find another Reagan.

You are an example of the brainwashing that has been the order of business as usual in this country over the last 50 years.

And its like talking to the cat.

John,
I could understand your criticism of Republicans, and wanting to drill in the United States if there were a viable, affordable alternative to petroleum.
1. Liberals are against more Nuclear energy plants.
2. Liberals are against more coal burning energy plants.
3. Liberals are against windmills, which may cause bird-strikes & look ugly.
4. Liberals are against drilling for oil in the United States.
5. Liberals believe the electric car is the future, despite battery shortfalls, and not allowing electric generation infrastructure to expand to support it.

...and you call the Republicans short sighted on energy?
When will we get these magic twinky beams that will fuel our cars & homes with rainbows and hugs you liberals evidently believe is a viable solution?

Duh xantl.

Obama has been very open and transparent in his platform. He's going to create millions of 'green jobs.' His website said so, and that's all I need to formulate an argument.

/sarc

John, but hey, Reagan inherited a terrible economy from 4 years of Jimmy Carter

but he had two terms to turn that around and he just kept digging that debt whole deeper, and then the first Bush still couldn't do much better after 8 years of reaganomics to clear the way for him.

Yes, research alternatives but satisfy immediate needs NOW.

sure, but you do have to start the research in earnest eventually. and thanks to Jimmy Carter, we would have done just that 30 years ago and been in a much better position now, but unfortunately Ronald Reagan squashed all that. He even went to the childish distance of removing the solar panels from the roof of the white house "just to show em." so now we are stuck with an "energy portfolio" with virtually no diversity and are suffering the consequences. again, the Dems had the foresight and the Reps had none.

As a percentage of GDP/inflation adjusted dollars, it really wasnt as high as people think it was.

Fair enough. Measured that way, George W. Bush can't touch the debt disaster that was Reagan+Bush I, but the trend is still there - Reps spend us into debt and Dems dig us out.

Pointing out how 70% of blacks voted for traditional marriage when 95% of them in California voted for Obama isnt a "race fetish" its true.

It's only because Oiao attempted the same silly rhetorical sleight-of-hand to cover his true agenda as Fiberal that I phrase it that way. If you want to address race politics head on, do so, but if your argument is cribbed from the logic- and math-challenged screeds of the likes of Bill O'Reilly, you're just going to come out looking as ignorant as he does.

Most blacks vote Democrats because they have been conditioned over the last 40 years to expect government handouts from Democrat politicians.

Ha, OK I just won't touch this, lest you guys get even more distracted by having your subtext called out. I will say this though: members of the Democratic Party hardly march in the lockstep that the GOP typically does. It's a big diverse tent, and yes it includes plenty of Christian and/or social conservatives, of which blacks and Hispanics counts for a large number. That arm of the party is going to be at odds with other parts of the party on occasion, but so it goes in a Democracy.

Liberals are against...

sure xantl, many Liberals are against many of those energy alternatives to some extent. again, this is because Liberals think in terms of sustainability and long-term results. Those are short term solutions (apart from nuclear) or what we can think of as bridges between our present position and a truly sustainable one in the future. The only way we get to that sustainable future is by investing now. The government has given away billions, if not trillions at this point, to prop up the oil economy over the years, whether it's R&D spending or massive tax breaks and giveaways to the petroleum and auto industry.

What liberals are saying is that it is now time to shift that investment to other energy sources. Think of the vast increases in efficiency that combustion engines have undergone in the past 50 years and imagine if we applied that same effort to increasing the efficiency of wind, solar, or something wholly new, such as algae-based biofuels.

As for Nuclear, not all Liberals oppose it (see previous comments re: marching in lockstep.)

"That arm of the party is going to be at odds with other parts of the party on occasion..."

That's the exact point being made in regards to Prop 8: the lunatic protestors are bitching and moaning about evil Mormons when it was members of their own party who ensured the bill passed. No one would reasonably expect an entire party to think as one cohesive unit.

"As for Nuclear, not all Liberals oppose it..."

Who cares? I have no interest in interviewing every single liberal to determine their stance on, well anything really. However, I can pull together the stances of liberal leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Obama et al) and make assumptions.

So, you'll forgive me I'm sure if my skepticism of liberal leadership on energy policy isn't assuaged any amount by your vague assurances of dissent among your ranks.

They're protesting at Mormon churches because they're following the money. It's not that complicated. and roughly half of democrats support Nuclear, that's not that complicated either:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1515

also, Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama all support nuclear power. find some new talking points.

"They're protesting at Mormon churches because they're following the money. It's not that complicated."

Sigh, apparently the point flies safely over your head yet again.

1. Mormons are not going to vote against Prop 8, ever. Would you agree?
2. Prop 8 never would have passed if Democrats (e.g. many groups of minorities) hadn't voted in favor of it. Would you agree?
3. Therefore (stay with me here) these protestors would be far better off if they "protested" against the swing voters who could have actually affected the vote in favor of Prop 8's opposition: Democrats.

They're never going to convince the Mormons, especially not by vandalism, disrupting church services, and general lunacy. If anything, they're only hardening Mormons' stance against their cause by behaving like animals. The way they're behaving will only ensure Mormons and conservatives spend even more money to defeat them.

The reason they're not protesting Democrat minority voters, the ONLY group that could ever help them, is because they're both raging idiots and cowards. Plain and simple.

Obama, in his own words, albeit their constant shifting:

Sure, he likes nuclear, but doesn't support more nuclear, but thinks nuclear is important, but we can't use it unless it doesn't create waste.

Ugh, the nuance is making my head swim.

He even takes on thos nasty nuclear power companies, unless, of course, they give him money.

Pelosi can't even get her story straight from day to day.

I'm sure you know Reid is a staunch opponent of, well it seems like any energy source really, seeing as you didn't mention him.

Like I said earlier, your and your next door neighbor's opinions don't matter to me. It's your leadership that I question. Hell, I wish I could even pin down their exact stance on anything related to energy policy. All I get is various green-washed statements demonizing Bush and offering no solutions.

Consider the source, but this is a decent summary of Obama's stance on nuclear. It's predictably short as well.

1. No, I wouldn't agree.
http://forgivenessfor8.blogspot.com/

2. sure

3. eh, not really. first of all, you're confusing protesting with campaigning. second of all, the african american churches you'd like to see targeted rather than the white ones that are being targeted did not lead and bankroll this attack against civil rights.

John don't discredit yourself by linking to a blog with 17 followers and 26 posts as some sort of evidence that Mormons will eventually (?) vote against another Prop 8-esque bill. That's just extremely silly.

If you can't see by now that the protestors' hate is misplaced, nothing will show you.

It would be like me being upset that Obama won and taking it out on Democrats instead of RINO's. Why would I waste my time on people I'll most likely never convince?

you said "ever", I supplied an existence proof. QED. if you want more existence proofs, research it yourself. it's beside the point anyway. relative to the last time this proposition came around, those who support equal rights gained around 20% on those who oppose them. one more shot and we'll probably be there, and there'll probably be a few more mormons, latinos, and african americans with us. maybe a few republicans that remember what they're party is supposed to represent too.

doh, excuse the bad grammar and spelling. didn't preview and typing fast as I'm trying to actually get some work done here. :)

QED would be showing strong gains in the Mormon community as a whole in favor of gay marriage and being able to project that to an estimation of Mormon opposition to a future Prop 8. Like I said, 26 comments on a blog with 17 followers falls just a little short of that goal. Remember, groups always have their opposing parties, right? That was your position just a short while ago in reference to the Democrat Party.

As far as existence proofs, that's not what I asked for. Your deflection is noted, however.

Back to the point, these protestors are counter-productive and Democrats helped to pass Prop 8. Nuff said.

this is just silly. you said mormons won't vote support equal rights ever, i've showed you that there are already some that do. "all mormons" or "most mormons" would be a different story altogether, but you just said "mormons." and yes, 1/3 of democrats voted for Prop 8. that doesn't change the fact that the Mormon church as a unified entity bankrolled it and campaigned hard for it, making it the most natural target for protest.

What's silly, John, is that you will acknowledge the Mormon church can act as a unified entity when campaigning for Prop 8, but you deny the Mormon church can act as a unified entity that will never support gay marriage. You substantiate your claim to the contrary with a blog that has 26 comments on it.

Pathetic.

Don't worry, if I decide to correct you in the future I'll be excessively precise in my wording and sentence structure so you'll have no opportunity to cling to one word or lack thereof as a base for some childish argument.

To hammer the point home, Democrats were the deciding factor that denied marriage to gays in California. No wonder Oiao repeats it so often. Apparently he needs to for some of you to understand.

it's a specious argument. you could take any subset of the "yes" voters and call them the "deciding factor." more independents and republicans voted yes, why aren't you harping on them?

and again, i'm sure there are a lot more mormons in possession of a sense of human dignity and equality than are on that blog, go find them yourself. the point is, they represent that the mormon faith can in fact live side by side with respect for humanity.

Glad I am not in the US right now...

John, no matter what is said and done, homosexuality just doesn't work! The body wasn't designed for it, it doesn't procreate, it puts 'self' before anything else, and the current 'gay extremism' smacks of a modern day Sodom and Gommorah.

Voting for a sinful lifestyle choice will never make it 'right', just legal. As many have said in the past, "Repent".

John:
That is funny since I have a little insight into what Liberals believe with Nuclear -- there are more reactors doubling their Gigawatt production power, than being built right now -- all because they have had their permits to build new ones blocked (by Liberals!)
I think its funny you think Conservatives are saying lets drill for oil here, so we can rely on oil forever! They want to stop giving as much money to foreign policy threats like Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
You can talk about "bridges" and "possible" but it might as well be unicorn kisses -- the United States has been blessed to pay much less money for Oil/Gasoline, and has much more rich coal resources than other Western countries who have not come up with anything better despite paying almost triple the price for the above -- but hey lets put our food in our gas tank, overload our electrical grid and keep paying the Sauds for oil while Liberals dream.

Finally, a Christmas celebration Moonbats have no objections to

Organisers of a Christmas carol concert being held in a famous church have been condemned for rewriting traditional verses to attack Israel. Mail ONline hat tip Davida

Far from bringing tidings of comfort and joy, the participants will instead sing about ‘war crimes’, ‘assassinations’ and the ‘oppression’ of Palestinians.

The concert, which has been organised by anti-Israeli campaigners, is due to take place on Wednesday at St James’s, Piccadilly, a Christopher Wren-designed church in Central London.

Its critics include the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who said that the rewriting of much-loved traditional carols for such partisan political purposes was deeply offensive.

The reworked carols include favourites such as O Come All Ye Faithful, O Little Town Of Bethlehem, The Holly And The Ivy and Hark The Herald Angels Sing.

Even The Twelve Days Of Christmas gets the treatment. A revised opening verse of While Shepherds Watched goes: ‘While shepherds watched their flocks by night, All seated on the ground, Some occupying soldiers came and bulldozed all around.’

The event, called Bethlehem Now: Nine Alternative Lessons And Carols For Palestine, has been organised by Jews For Boycotting Israeli Goods, a group of secular British Jews opposed to Israeli policies.

Bruce Kent, a former Roman Catholic priest and prominent peace campaigner who will read one of the lessons, said: ‘I think it is perfectly reasonable for carols to be rewritten in this way.

‘I am fed up with sugary religion – the baby Jesus sitting in his stable and all that stuff.’

Gaia is ten times the CO2 Gaia-rapist as human industry

A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.

Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.

Countermoonbat's handy list of which stores have succumbed to moonbattiness

~ A.C. Moore – Web site: “Holiday Wishes From Us to You.” Report: 3 types of “Holiday” gift cards – when “Christmas” gift cards requested, store representative replied “We have to be politically correct.”

~ Banana Republic – Web site: “Banana Republic Holiday 2008,” “Most Wanted for the Holiday; Holiday Gift Guide” and Holiday 2008 Fashion Show.” No mention of Christmas.

√ Amazon.com – Web site: “Christmas Trees” and “Christmas” decorations.
√ Bass Pro Shops – Web site: “Time Passes … Hold on to Christmas” and “Classic Christmas” section. “Christmas” music playing in stores.

Depraved community throws Prince under the bus

The singer Prince was asked about religion, politics, abortion and Proposition 8 in a profile in the New Yorker.

Here's his response: "You've got the Republicans, and basically they want to live according to [the Bible]. But there's the problem of interpretation, and you've got some churches, some people, basically doing things and saying it comes from here, but it doesn't. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got blue, you've got the Democrats, and they're, like, 'You can do whatever you want.' Gay marriage, whatever. But neither of them is right."

Asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, “God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ ”

Prince's anti-gay statement is already reverberating around Los Angeles' gay community. At Train, a popular West Hollywood gym, openly gay spin instructor Tevia Celli told her packed Sunday morning class that she had removed all Prince songs from her playlists.

New Mexico photographer fined $6000 for not succumbing to homosexual agenda

A Christian law firm will appeal a ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fining a photographer who refused to take photos of a homosexual commitment ceremony.

Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, who co-own Elane Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico, are both Christians. So when a lesbian couple asked them to photograph their "commitment ceremony" in Taos, the Huguenins politely refused. In response, Vanessa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her "sexual orientation." On Wednesday, the Commission found the Christian couple guilty of discrimination under state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay more than $6,000 in costs.

Lorence said Americans do not surrender their freedoms of speech or religion just because they choose to open a business. He added that the Commission's decision is tantamount to the State of New Mexico forcing a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for a butcher shop.

Toilet experts call for world to become as stinky and unwashed as a typical Moonbat hippie

AS the world celebrates World Toilet Day today, sanitation experts have called for the end of the flushing dunny to save water and provide fertilizer for crops.

Speaking at the recent World Toilet Summit in Macau, World Toilet Organisation founder Jack Sims said the concept of the flushing toilet was unsustainable.

Mr Sims said a culture where people flushed their loos but disregarded the thousands of litres of wasted drinking water each year was one of sanitation's greatest challenges.

There have already been calls by Australian experts to reduce the amount of water wasted through toilet flushing with a proposed new toilet tax.

Adelaide University's Water Management Professor Mike Young said the tax would encourage people to take shorter showers, recycle washing machine water or connect rainwater tanks to internal plumbing.

"Some people may go as far as not flushing their toilet as often, as the less sewage you produce the less the rate you pay," Professor Young said.