KipWellsFan Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) i've seen him on TV before. He's is legit crazy. If it means keeping Hayworth out, and that's genuinely why McCain is being so lame, then I guess the means justify the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...rce=slate_rss_1 WASHINGTON—The White House suffered a severe bedbug infestation last week after Vice President Joe Biden reportedly "scored" a discarded recliner chair that "someone was just throwing out" on the corner of Windom Road and 32nd Street. "It's plenty comfy, and I'll tell ya, they don't make 'em with levers like this anymore," said Biden, scratching at a series of red welts on his arms as he pointed out the pocket on the side that could hold both a remote control and a Coors tallboy. "It reclines all the way back. All the way. And you wanna know what else? It holds two people, if you know what I mean." Meanwhile, Senegal officials reported that their nation has been plagued by an outbreak of bedbugs since its president returned from a short stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) What a maverick. LINK Powell probably promoted it as a practical matter at the time, not because that's what he actually wanted. McCain is just being a hack... again. (everyone already knows this, just saying though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I'm glad Fox didn't bother showing it...haven't we heard enough of Obama talking already? I mean, seriously. No president ever talked so much while doing so little. Yea, I've said it, he's done little to nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 If you're a news channel you should show... umm I don't know... like, the important news stories of the day. I know, I'm a crazy guy with these crazy-assed liberal ideas though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 02:18 PM) If you're a news channel you should show... umm I don't know... like, the important news stories of the day. I know, I'm a crazy guy with these crazy-assed Bolshevik ideas though. Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 This is an actual ad in the Republican race for the Senate Seat in CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) Fixed I'll take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Powell probably promoted it as a practical matter at the time, not because that's what he actually wanted. McCain is just being a hack... again. (everyone already knows this, just saying though) I believe he said at the time, the military wasn't yet ready for full acceptance. Basically, he saw it as a bridge policy. Now we've crossed the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 06:22 PM) This is an actual ad in the Republican race for the Senate Seat in CA. That is an awesome ad. Kinda long though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) I'm glad Fox didn't bother showing it...haven't we heard enough of Obama talking already? I mean, seriously. No president ever talked so much while doing so little. Yea, I've said it, he's done little to nothing. I'm trying to understand why you would go out of your way to go to the Dem thread to specifically do some Dem bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Photo #2 in Bigsqwert's series "Punchable Faces" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 The GOP has gotta be glad that they are up against the Democrats this year instead of a competent party. This week, they had a top budget committee Congressman propose a budget that slashes and burns Social Security and Medicare completely and still doesn't balance the budget until 2050. Then John Boehner's fundraising makes it onto the pages of the Wall Street Journal, because they are banking on big business dollars to help deliver their message. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...2216461790.html Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio made a pitch to Democratic contributor James Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of J.P. Morgan, over drinks at a Capitol Hill restaurant, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Boehner told Mr. Dimon congressional Republicans had stood up to Mr. Obama's efforts to curb pay and impose new regulations. The Republican leader also said he was disappointed many on Wall Street continue to donate their money to Democrats, according to the people familiar with the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Republican Voters prefer a deficit to a balanced budget if it means bigger tax cuts. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...f_taxes_are_cut President Obama has now turned his attention to the ballooning federal budget deficit, but a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a modest plurality of voters (41%) prefer a budget deficit with tax cuts over a balanced budget that requires higher taxes. Thirty-six percent (36%) would rather see a balanced budget with higher taxes. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure which is better. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters believe it is possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree and say a balanced budget is not possible without tax hikes. One-in-five voters (20%) aren’t sure. Obama on Monday released a proposed $3.8 trillion budget for the coming fiscal year, which includes a largest-ever $1.56-trillion deficit. In its reporting on the budget, the New York Times projects that the United States will be forced to run unprecedented large deficits for at least the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) Republican Voters prefer a deficit to a balanced budget if it means bigger tax cuts. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...f_taxes_are_cut I like how the most important point ALWAYS gets missed (on purpose, I might add) whenever this crap comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 06:09 PM) I like how the most important point ALWAYS gets missed (on purpose, I might add) whenever this crap comes up. This is a GOP leaning polling firm. What's the point that I'm missing from their headline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) The GOP has gotta be glad that they are up against the Democrats this year instead of a competent party. This week, they had a top budget committee Congressman propose a budget that slashes and burns Social Security and Medicare completely and still doesn't balance the budget until 2050. Then John Boehner's fundraising makes it onto the pages of the Wall Street Journal, because they are banking on big business dollars to help deliver their message. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...2216461790.html My takeaway from that is "Republicans fully endorse corporate welfare of the financial sector at the expense of taxpayers, envious that financial sector controls Democrats and not Republicans" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 Democrats have a 2010 edge in fundraising. DCCC: $ 3.8/ $ 16.6 NRCC: $ 3.2/ $ 2.6 DSCC: $ 3.4/ $ 12.5 NRSC: $ 4.1/ $ 8.3 DNC: $ 4.5/ $ 8.6 RNC: $ 6.8/ $ 8.4 TOTAL DEMOCRATIC: $ 11.7/ $ 37.8 TOTAL REPUBLICAN: $ 14.1/ $ 19.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 07:23 PM) Democrats have a 2010 edge in fundraising. DCCC: $ 3.8/ $ 16.6 NRCC: $ 3.2/ $ 2.6 DSCC: $ 3.4/ $ 12.5 NRSC: $ 4.1/ $ 8.3 DNC: $ 4.5/ $ 8.6 RNC: $ 6.8/ $ 8.4 TOTAL DEMOCRATIC: $ 11.7/ $ 37.8 TOTAL REPUBLICAN: $ 14.1/ $ 19.3 Which is exactly why GOP won't win, and in addition, the Dems need to stop whining about the SCOTUS decision. They get theirs as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 08:31 PM) Which is exactly why GOP won't win, and in addition, the Dems need to stop whining about the SCOTUS decision. They get theirs as well. Although, the Dem committees all have some outstanding debt currently. Although, if they paid it all off, the Dems would still have about a 10 million cash on hand advantage. I think, the way it stands, the Dems have enough of a cash advantage to hang on to weaker majorities in both houses, although I hope Reid loses his seat, and a better majority leader takes his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 I never understood why so many so called liberals weren't rooting for Al Franken when he was running for Senate. He's one of the few that actually has any balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 08:31 PM) Which is exactly why GOP won't win, and in addition, the Dems need to stop whining about the SCOTUS decision. They get theirs as well. You do realize that the money spent by the outside groups that SCOTUS just legalized doesn't count at all in those numbers right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) You do realize that the money spent by the outside groups that SCOTUS just legalized doesn't count at all in those numbers right? There are still some advantages to the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC cash advantage. If it's still there in November, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) Glenn Beck breaks down the president's un-American, African name BECK: He chose to use his name, Barack, for a reason. To identify, not with America -- you don't take the name Barack to identify with America. You take the name Barack to identify with what? Your heritage? The heritage, maybe, of your father in Kenya, who is a radical? Really? Searching for something to give him any kind of meaning, just as he was searching later in life for religion. UPDATE: Not that Beck would ever trust the president's words over his own ill-informed armchair psychoanalyzing, but Obama told Newsweek in 2008 why he chose to start going by "Barack" after transferring to Columbia University: "It was not some assertion of my African roots ... not a racial assertion. It was much more of an assertion that I was coming of age. An assertion of being comfortable with the fact that I was different and that I didn't need to try to fit in in a certain way." Edited February 5, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) Glenn Beck breaks down the president's un-American, African name Hey look - an idiot being an idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts