Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Ramblings on New Hampshire

So, what happened?

Basically it's no different than buying a new car. You go into the showroom and your eye is caught by the sleek, sexy new sports car. After a few minutes, though, you realize you can't afford it and you go with the old but sturdy used car.

So long as Obama was just a fantasy he was attractive, they even took him for a test drive. But when the salesman demanded to know if they were buying, they knew how unrealistic this one-third of a term Senator with the radical leftist agenda offering nothing other than cute slogans was and went with the old but sturdy sedan.

What does John Edwards do now? His angry, hate-America-always, attacks saw over eighty percent of the voters reject him. Why vote for pretty and angry when you can vote for pretty and upbeat. Interesting, isn't it, that the woman is the least pretty of the three?

So...what happens next? Here's my GUESS:

If/when Edwards drops out -- I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to send him money and he's too in love with his millions to spend much more of his own -- those votes go to Obama. Does that make Obama a winner? Nope, for the more you know about Obama the less you like him, the longer the campaign goes on the more of his votes go to the only option left. In other words, there's a straight line from "hate America" to "change" to "oooh, I don't want THAT change."

On the other side?

I'd say there were a lot of big winners and almost no losers.

That is...obviously this was a huge win for McCain. He needed a victory, he got one, that puts him into play. Against conventional wisdom, it was an okay night for Romney, NH as a special case (independents voting for the Republican nominee) sees his solid second place finish following the win in Wyoming following a solid second place finish to a DIFFERENT winner leaves him solid as the campaign goes beyond the eighty-two people that make up Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire. He does need to win Michigan but, coming out of the early rounds he is far from beaten.

Huckabee didn't lose, either. He wasn't expected to do well, he didn't do well, but he did come out in the top three and that's the ticket. He has a major win, a ticket from NH and South Carolina coming up soon.

Ron Paul was in single digits at nine, but that's where you'd expect him to be. After all, something like six percent of the people still think Elvis is alive, that means, with all his campaigning and the children fueling his campaign, he beat Elvis by three percentage points.

Thompson. Big loser at one percent. Don't know how hard he campaigned or how much money he spent but that's only one percentage point more than I got and I got to sleep in my own bed the whole time.

Big winner? Giuliani. Why? Because, as wrong-headed as I think his decision to forfeit the early battles was, it is his strategy and in order for it to work there could be no better outcome than what it is: the first three contests, with three different winners, with Romney winning neither of the ones that get the coverage.

So...are there any guarantees? Only one: if Barack loses the left will cry "racism." If Hillary loses the left will cry "sexism" and, either way, they'll find the justification they need to continue to hate America.

175 comments:

Dora said...


So...are there any guarantees? Only one: if Barack loses the left will cry "racism." If Hillary loses the left will cry "sexism" and, either way, they'll find the justification they need to continue to hate America.


No, no, you got it wrong. No matter who wins or loses, Evan Sayet will find a way to accuse the left of hating America.

Larry Blivins said...

Gee...interesting how Sicket's corrupt, baby killer man crush, Dame Rudith, is always the big winner...whether he comes in sixth or is even noticed at all...hahahaha, funny stuff all the way around. I just hope the anti-gun, pro-gay JulieAnnie wore his best pumps and panty hose to his victory gala. He must have quite a wardrobe if he kept any of his THREE wives stuff.

LB said...

BTW, I wonder if he's currently having his next wife...number four...taxied around by the NYPD. Probably not...they all hate the fraudulent crook, just like the firemen do.

Evan Sayet said...

Amazing how the leftists, who accuse the Republicans of being "sexist" and homophobes, go right to the homophobe attacks to advance their hate-America-always agenda.

Sorry, if Giuliani's strategy (which I keep saying was wrong) is to wait until the big primaries, the best result for him is that nobody emerge from the early primaries as a front runner. that's what happened so, logically, this is good for Giuliani.

But, of course, that's logic. Leftists don't deal in logic. Instead they deal in spin, lies, hate and slander. Forget how he handled 9/11, he was liberal enough to once dress in drag.

You guys make me laugh.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

God you're such a joke.

Anonymous said...

Evan, it's so good to have you back blogging again. IMO your analysis is spot on.

Keep it up!
M

Justin Greenwood said...

Wow - a lot of lib's are watching you! Don't let it discourage your writing. There are still plenty of conservatives like myself reading your stuff. I got hooked when I saw the heritage foundation speech. It was very inspiring (and a lot of fun too).
Anyway, I have a fear that we've reached a point where so many of our populous are brain-dead to politics and history - so much so that an unexperienced socialist disaster like Obama could win based on his media persona alone. I hope I'm wrong, but almost all of the people I've approached say they like Obama. These people can't tell me anything of substance about his views and have no passion for politics. When I talk to my family and conservative friends, we have intense debates (about the republicans primarily) based on issues, integrity, history, electability, etc. It's amazing the difference in political discussion when you listen to "moderates". It's all feel-good bullshit; nevermind the consequences of the proposals, as long as it feels good to hear them.

skyvies said...

"Evan, it's so good to have you back blogging again. IMO your analysis is spot on.
Keep it up!"
M

Sayet writing himself a love letter...

skyvies said...

Justin Greenwood said...
Wow - a lot of lib's are watching you! Don't let it discourage your writing. There are still plenty of conservatives like myself reading your stuff

Haha...another imaginary blogger...one of his many conservative fans...they embrace failya, ya know.

skyvies said...

Evan Sayet said...
Amazing how the leftists, who accuse the Republicans of being "sexist" and homophobes, go right to the homophobe attacks to advance their hate-America-always agenda.

Duh, yeah, that's what we're doing...no, see, we're pointing out how you hypocrites attack leftists for all those evil Rudith traits, but all of a sudden you embrace everything you've whined about at the top of your rancid lungs for ever as long as they appear in some little tin pot would be dictator like JulieAnnie.

underpantsgnome said...

The Boo-hoo kid wins. Gee, I guess she finally "connected" with her NH constituency...dora's oblinvious skivvies

Evan Sayet said...

And so it starts. Giuliani isn't even President yet and he's already a "tin pot dictator." Amazing how many "Hitlers" the Republicans have and yet, when they leave office, the world is a better place (Reagan liberating Europe, Giuliani getting rid of the drug addicted prostitutes mugging people in Times Square.)

Obviously what the Democrat hates is not that they're "dictators" (of course they're not) but that they make the world better. Democrats will INVARIABLY side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

Farmer John said...

The DNC's eight year campaign against Bush and Republicans has been a campaign of disaster-hyping and RNC voter supression whilst holding out the promise of a white knight riding to the people's rescue.

I think Barack fits the stereotype better than Hillary. She only gets sympathy when she plays the damsel in distress. No doubt we'll be facing BOTH of these petty actors in the general.

Anonymous said...

The Giuliani cross-dressing jokes are incredibly lame.

Anonymous said...

Did BO sign any bills in his short stint in the Senate? Do any of the Dem candidates have any executive experience? Is this election gonna be affirmative action driven since BO is black and has zero experience?

Dora said...

But, of course, that's logic. Leftists don't deal in logic. Instead they deal in spin, lies, hate and slander.

This coming from the man who just took this shot at the Democratic slate of candidates:

"Interesting, isn't it, that the woman is the least pretty of the three?"

Anonymous said...

Did BO sign any bills in his short stint in the Senate? Do any of the Dem candidates have any executive experience? Is this election gonna be affirmative action driven since BO is black and has zero experience?

Dora said...

Did BO sign any bills in his short stint in the Senate?

Since when do senators sign bills? LOL

Do any of the Dem candidates have any executive experience?

Bill Richardson.

Makes me wonder, did Bob Dole have any executive expperience? How about H.W. Bush, Ford, Nixon, Goldwater, Eisenhower? Lincoln? No? Hmmm.

Is this election gonna be affirmative action driven since BO is black and has zero experience?

Only for some people, maybe like you.

But look at the bright side, if Barry gets elected, conservatives will have the ultimate piece of evidence that "there is no more racism in america" and then you all could finally do away with all those pesky desegregation plans and affirmative action.

underpantsgnome said...

HW founded and ran Zapata. Ike ran WWII (it doesn't get any more "executive" than that). Nixon had been Ike's VP. Ford was appointed and Goldwater wasn't elected. Your point (step 2)?

michaeljackson said...

Only for some people, maybe like you.

You mean Obama voters, don't you?

Dora said...

HW founded and ran Zapata. Ike ran WWII (it doesn't get any more "executive" than that). Nixon had been Ike's VP. Ford was appointed and Goldwater wasn't elected. Your point (step 2)?

Whoa, wait a second, executive experience now includes being an executive of a corporation? That's news to me. I thought we always mean the executive branch of a state or the federal government.

So, HW had no executive branch experience prior to being president.

Bob Dole (1996), Barry Goldwater (1964) and Gerry Ford (1976) were all nominated by the Republican party as presidential candidates. Therefore, they were intended to become President, with no prior executive experience (except for Gerry Ford, who by 1976, had 2 years of presidential experience by virtue of being appointed).

You're right about Nixon being Ike's VP, but running a war is not the same as running civilian government, contrary to popular Republican belief. Being a general is not executive branch experience, i think.

And you forgot y'all's favorite Republican president, Lincoln -- he had no executive branch experience!

My point is that in recent history, republicans have had no probelm nominating candidates with no prior executive branch experience, so wtf are you criticizing the democratic candidates for not having prior executive branch experience?

PS if being an executive in a corporation counted, then I would submit to you that perhaps Hillary having served on many boards of directors would be something akin to executive experience, no?

noahwebster said...

News to YOU? LOL!!!!!!!!

And Huh? HW was USN, DCI and US Ambassador to the UN. An yes, running a major corporation is "executive" experience. Bob Dole was in the Army (Executive experience by YOUR ridiculous standard). And Barry Goldwater was a Major General in the USAF Reserves.

As if the "label" executive had a singular meaning which only YOU were qualified to attach. LOL!

Farmer John said...

btw - Lincoln botched his presidency in a way that only a fellow lawyer could fail to appreciate.

Farmer John said...

btw2 - What boards HAS Hitlery served on?

Anonymous said...

Which elected position would bring the most experience to the Presidential table: Governor or Senator?

Anonymous said...

...or Mayor?

serge said...

9 US soldiers killed in Iraq in 2 days

Military Says 9 US Soldiers Killed in 2 Days of Operation North of Baghdad

Staff
AP News

Jan 09, 2008 15:35 EST

Nine American soldiers were killed in the first two days of a new American drive to kill al-Qaida in Iraq fighters holed up in districts north of the capital, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

Anonymous said...

Which elected position would bring the most experience to the Presidential table: Governor, Mayor or Senator?

Dora said...

Experience

Businesses Owned, Past Careers, Board Memberships, Etc.:

* Attorney, Rose Law Firm, 1976-1992
* Faculty, University of Arkansas Law School, 1975
* Board Member, TCBY Yogurt Company, 1985-1992
* Board Member, Wal-Mart, 1985-1992
* Board Member, Arkansas Children's Hospital
* Board Member, Children's Defense Fund
* Co-Founder, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/hillary-clinton/

Anonymous said...

Which elected position would bring the most experience to the Presidential table: Governor, Mayor or Senator?

simes said...

Yeahyeahyeah executive experience blah blah...these morons use whatever happens to be handy whether it makes any sense or not...if some right wing crackpot is running he could have all the exec experience in the cosmos and he'd still be a huge disaster like GW. Tell us all about JFK's executive experience dingbats. WE just want someone with brains and judgment...none of which we see in the weirdo lineup on the right...even GOPs are hiding in embarassment from this freak show.

Dora said...

And Huh? HW was USN, DCI and US Ambassador to the UN.

You're right, that is executive branch experience. Also, his 8 years as VP is executive branch experience.

An yes, running a major corporation is "executive" experience.

I think only you think so.

Bob Dole was in the Army (Executive experience by YOUR ridiculous standard).

Being in the army is not executive experience either.

And Barry Goldwater was a Major General in the USAF Reserves.

The Reserves? Wait, remember that gay general who asked the question at the YouTube debates? Afterwards, the right wing said that he was only a general in the reserves, so that doesn't count. But it counts for Goldwater? How does that work?

As if the "label" executive had a singular meaning which only YOU were qualified to attach. LOL!

No, let's consult the dictionary:

1 a: of or relating to the execution of the laws and the conduct of public and national affairs b: belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as diplomatic representation, superintendence of the execution of the laws, and appointment of officials and that usually has some power over legislation (as through veto) — compare judicial legislative

2 a: designed for or relating to execution or carrying into effect < executive board > b: having administrative or managerial responsibility < executive director >

3: of or relating to an executive < the executive offices >

http://m-w.com/dictionary/executive

Looks to me like it only means "government," so your private organizations stuff is BS, and it doesn't seem to encompass the army either.

Anonymous said...

Which elected position would bring the most experience to the Presidential table: Governor, Mayor or Senator?

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like experience: Obama or Romney?

Dora said...

if some right wing crackpot is running he could have all the exec experience in the cosmos and he'd still be a huge disaster like GW.

Wait, don't you mean GW himself? He was governor of texas, which is pretty serious executive experience. And if you bring in all his corps -- hahaha.

Yeahyeahyeah executive experience blah blah...these morons use whatever happens to be handy whether it makes any sense or not...

Well, duh. I'm trying to argue the alternative, i.e. "even if executive branch experience did matter, the GOP's record ain't that stellar either."

Honestly, if exec. branch experience was the best predictor of performance as President, how do you explain the divergent performances of Clinton and Bush II?

Dora said...

Geezus, Coolidge had a fuck-ton of exec. branch experience, and was still a total fuckup.

Harding and hoover had a bit of it too. All three of the above are total fuck-up Republican presidents.

Farmer John said...

JFK got his executive experience the old fashioned way. PT-109.

And Hitlery must have had some real fun at TCBY and Walmart. I guess having your husband as your governor does have its' perks!

Now, was Ms Hillarity ever a CEO (please notice that the E stands for 'executive')?

Anonymous said...

"...how do you explain the divergent performances of Clinton and Bush II?"

You mean like how Clinton got blow-jobs in the oval office and Bush had a war to fight?

simes said...

Psychet drones:
Democrats will INVARIABLY side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

Duh...where we heard that afore?
This guy's not real is he...just some pathetic battery operated robot with a little tape inside that plays the same laughable drivel over and over and over and over and...............................................................................t

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like experience: Obama or Romney?

Farmer John said...

Are you kidding? A good executive knows what his job is, and in the case of running the USA, THAT means staying out of trouble and not trying to do "good" in the world. You know, like starting wars and stuff (you democrats just love your wars... even Lincoln wasn't entirely to blame for that one).

sh*t4brains said...

Presidential-like experience?

Is that a question like... who gets the most blowjobs at the office? LOL!

simes said...

Riiiiiiiiight, running a PT boat is executive experience...shoot yerself, moron. You'll gain invaluable exec experience running your own, little suicide squad that way. Then we'll run your corpse ass for president...that way you'll do less damage to the country than the rest of these chimps.

Anonymous said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like* experience: Obama or Romney?


*Executive situations- similar to situations in the Executive branch of Gov't.

simes said...

in the case of running the USA, THAT means staying out of trouble and not trying to do "good" in the world. You know, like starting wars and stuff (you democrats just love your wars... even Lincoln wasn't entirely to blame for that one).

hahahaha...doing good...like bringing democracy to Iwreck. Starting wars ...like bringing war to Iwreck...you are truly defective. Every reicho dingaling on here is egregiously and blatantly defective...you're site is a JOKE...that's the secret of your mysterous mini-popularity boom...lefties are hearing about this even weirder than usual psychet crackpot and his three dwarves and are dropping in for laughs.

Anonymous said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

Farmer John said...

Heck, being a father is executive experience. Being responsible for acting, and not sitting around making honeydew lists. The "active" vs "passive" verb. One who "carries out" a task, much like the garbage. The masculine.

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like* experience: Obama or Romney?


*Executive situations- similar to situations in the Executive branch of Gov't.

pudpullingexec said...

Hey, if Clintoon would have enforced the terms of GulfWarI, we never would have had to go lookin' for WMD's in Uwreckedit, would we?

But why blame Clintoon? I guess because he spent soooo much time trying to portray a real "executive" in the Oral Oriffice.

desperatelyseekingexecutives said...

I think Monica had a bent over the desk executive experience more than once. Maybe we should run HER for prissydent...

simes said...

I know what you're doing, Dora, and a damn fine job you're making of it...I was referring to these guys making a big deal out of experience all of a sudden because they think it's some kind of advantage. McCain's main experience is sitting in a spider hole in VN and giving hickeys to lobbyists in DC. The rest have NO foreign policy experience, though Fred (a combination of Sleepy and Grumpy) did sleep through some forn pollsy stuff and may have learned something subliminally. And I believe Rudy exchanged panties with some visiting dignitaries from faraway places and learned hitherto unknown things about their hinterlands and underbrush. And then there's Huckabee.

simes said...

Hey, if Clintoon would have enforced the terms of GulfWarI, we never would have had to go lookin' for WMD's in Uwreckedit, would we?

Wow...a moron who still doesn't know we DIDN'T "have to go lookin' for WMD's"

Dora said...

You mean like how Clinton got blow-jobs in the oval office and Bush had a war to fight?

No, you know, how you think Clinton was an awful president, and Bush is great. Yet, both were governors of states before becoming president. So maybe, executive experience is not so important?

Dora said...

Are you kidding? A good executive knows what his job is, and in the case of running the USA, THAT means staying out of trouble and not trying to do "good" in the world. You know, like starting wars and stuff (you democrats just love your wars... even Lincoln wasn't entirely to blame for that one).

So that must mean you think Bush has been a horrible president?

Dora said...

Heck, being a father is executive experience. Being responsible for acting, and not sitting around making honeydew lists. The "active" vs "passive" verb. One who "carries out" a task, much like the garbage. The masculine.

Well, then I guess y'all should stop whining about Obama and Edwards' lack of executive experience, since both are fathers. Not bill richardson tho.

And being a mother isn't the same kind of executive exprience? Only being a father?

You crack me up.

Anonymous said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

Dora said...

And I believe Rudy exchanged panties with some visiting dignitaries from faraway places and learned hitherto unknown things about their hinterlands and underbrush.

Oh yeah, i fucking love Rudy's foreign policy experience. "I was in New York City proper when 13 foreign guys flew planes into two buildings, destroying my emergency response center. That makes me really qualified in foreign policy." Wha...?

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like* experience: Obama or Romney?


*Executive situations- similar to situations in the Executive branch of Gov't.

Dora said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

I dunno, is a senator responsible for people? What do you think?

simes said...

Poor, dumb, little adolescents with their blow job fixations... maybe if they could get one before they're 35, they'd forget about their Clinton envy. Most great men have great libidos...which is why the tight ass freaks from the GOP always fuck up the world because of the hatred and frustration their morbidly repressed psyches are ready to blow up with. And which is why there's a new one every week being exposed as a raging hypocritical deviant (by their own standards).

Anonymous said...

If you were to start a business who would you want as your manager: Mitt or Barrack?

Anonymous said...

"I dunno, is a senator responsible for people? What do you think?"

Senators have a constituency to answer to, right?

Anonymous said...

Slimes is about to lose it. haha

Dora said...

"I dunno, is a senator responsible for people? What do you think?"

Senators have a constituency to answer to, right?


Well, but what do you mean by "responsible"?

Anonymous said...

responsible- answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management.

Dora said...

If you were to start a business who would you want as your manager: Mitt or Barrack?



Mitt, he has more experience, of course.

But that's if you have a business.

Contrary to popular belief among wingnuts, a government is not like a business. The chief executive swears to do what? Uphold the laws. He's the chief executive of the LAWS. Mitt has a JD, btw, but was never admitted to the bar. I'd rather have a lawyer for chief executive than a businessman.

Or have you not learned anything from the Bush presidency, which he advertised as being "the CEO of the country" back in 2000?

The greatest presidents have all been lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

Anonymous said...

dora, i guess we will always differ in what we want in a president. I want a proven manager and you want someone who can manipulate the law.

simes said...

Who has had more presidential-like* experience: Obama or Romney?

Rom is much better at the flip flop...is there one major thing he hasn't made a 180 on? Rudy's stategy is different...he hasn't abandoned his baby killing, anti-gun, pro-gay stuff...he just makes up for it by really, really emphasizing his tin pot dictator potential...so far more than enough to give Psychet a man size man crush on him in spite of the fact that he's been saying those are all mortal sins of lefties forever...well since somebody put the last energizer in his squeaky, plastic ass, anyway.

Dora said...

dora, i guess we will always differ in what we want in a president. I want a proven manager and you want someone who can manipulate the law.



Well, y'all got your proven manager in 2000. And look how well he's done! LOL

And now you want to do the same thing again, but expect different results. Isn't that the definition of insanity, according to Albert Einsten?

Anonymous said...

No no no slimes. The comparison is b/w Obama and Romney. Wow, you are so daft.

simes said...

dora, i guess we will always differ in what we want in a president. I want a proven manager and you want someone who can manipulate the law.

Riiiight....no, what you want is a right wing crackpot...if he just jumped fully blown out of the primordial soup, naked and as naive as you are, you'd still vote for him if he came labelled as a rightist goofball.

Dora said...

If the presidential oath of office said that the president swears to balance the budget and increase shareholder value, then maybe a business man would be a good choice.

unfortuantely for you, the oath says that he has to uphold the constitution, says nothing about being a good manager or making the government more efficient or any of that.

not that your manager president has done any of that anyway. and he's mangled the law and the constitution to boot. what a winner!

Anonymous said...

"And now you want to do the same thing again..."

Wait, is Bush running for a third term? Oh course he's not. That was a rhetorical question. Though, I can't help but wonder how things are the same as they were 8 years ago.gjquj

Anonymous said...

"unfortuantely for you, the oath says that he has to uphold the constitution..."

Since the constitution is already written why is only a lawyer capable of governing within the law?

Anonymous said...

If you were to start a business who would you want as your manager: Mitt or Barrack?

simes said...

No no no slimes. The comparison is b/w Obama and Romney. Wow, you are so daft.

Learn to read , simpleton...I addressed Mitt's ability to flop...and dismissed him in the first line. And, quit pretending you give a shit about anything but ideology...you sound like the simplest, little dick on the site, and that's a distinction you really don't want.

Anonymous said...

I get the distinct impression that Dora fancies herself as an elitist because she's a lawyer. I know 100's of dirty low down lawyers of the sleaziest cut. You should be careful with how you come off.

Anonymous said...

No no no slimes. The comparison is b/w Obama and Romney. Wow, you are so daft.

What about Obama?

simes said...

Actually, these twits don't even care about ideology. They're so shallow all they care about is the label of ideology. The Republican party is nothing like it was when it was relatively sane...yet these losers quit spouting the same old tired memes they used in the seventies...and don't even know they no longer apply...and that everyone is sick to death of hearing them.

Anonymous said...

Does Hillary support Big Gov't or small Gov't? If small then why is she creating so many social bureaucracies at the expense of our civil liberties?

Anonymous said...

"unfortuantely for you, the oath says that he has to uphold the constitution..."

Since the constitution is already written why is only a lawyer capable of governing within the law?

Anonymous said...

Slimes is so hostile. Instead of raising your voice you should reinforce your argument.

Anonymous said...

Where are all the menstrual Douche-Bag Libs?

Anonymous said...

I guess they don't feel like spamming anymore.

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like* experience: Obama or Romney?


*Executive situations- similar to situations in the Executive branch of Gov't.

simes said...

anonymous...go back to frosh polisci and learn a new question...what we all care about here is political orientation...not your childish notion of experience. What a pres needs most of all is to be a politician...in the good sense of the word...he needs to lead people...next he obviously needs to lead them in the right direction...you fools have proven that you have no clue what that direction should be...and as for being politicians...GW is universaly hated by the people he's supposed to lead and the GOP candidates are a group joke to all but you dumbass diehards.

simes said...

Where are all the menstrual Douche-Bag Libs?

Hahaha...gee, he's so hostile...butt, I guess he's just reinforcing his argument...oh, he didn't have one...just a pissant pest with the same silly parrot question...is he really Psychet joooonier?

Anonymous said...

Lincoln was hated too. Read about the Copperheads.

Anonymous said...

Slimes likes to mock people. He's the parrot.

Anonymous said...

Who has had more presidential-like* experience: Obama or Romney?


*Executive situations- similar to situations in the Executive branch of Gov't.

Anonymous said...

Libs are funny when they get all mad. It's like they don't even believe their left wing talking points.

Anonymous said...

Does Hillary support Big Gov't or small Gov't? If small then why is she creating so many social bureaucracies at the expense of our civil liberties?

Anonymous said...

Obama's church:
Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.
Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable
commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join
Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.
Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America
while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!
I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers.
This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of
our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest
chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.
Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:

www.tucc.org/about.htm

Anonymous said...

Does Hillary support Big Gov't or small Gov't? If small then why is she creating so many social bureaucracies at the expense of our civil liberties?

Anonymous said...

One minute each night
In WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill who organized a group of people who dropped what they were doing every night at a prescribed hour for one minute to collectively pray for the safety of England,

it's people and peace. This had an amazing effect as bombing stopped!

There is now a group of people who are organizing the same thing here in America .
If you would like to participate: each evening at 9:00 PM Eastern Time (8:00 PM Central, 7:00 PM Mountain, 6:00 PM Pacific), stop whatever you are doing and spend one minute praying: for the safety of the United States, our troops, our citizens and for peace in the world.
If you know anyone who would like to participate, please pass this along.
Someone said if people really understood the full extent of the power we have available through prayer, we might be speechless. [AMEN!]
Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have.
Please pass this on to anyone who you think will pray for our nation.

Anonymous said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

Anonymous said...

Where's all the funny Marxist wanna-bes? Since it takes a village they are all probably forming a drum circle for food.

Anonymous said...

Slimes....? I need a tofu treat 'cause I got the munchy madness!

Anonymous said...

Dora, can I borrow your Phish shirt. I gotta go wait in a bread line for most of my life.

Pass that Chronic Dope Yo!

Anonymous said...

Calling all Liberal elitist...

Anonymous said...

ha ha, freakin' 'tards.

skyvester said...

If you would like to participate: each evening at 9:00 PM Eastern Time (8:00 PM Central, 7:00 PM Mountain, 6:00 PM Pacific), stop whatever you are doing and spend one minute praying: for the safety of the United States, our troops, our citizens and for peace in the world.

Can I knock off a piece, instead? And you little weenies would do more good by masturbating then. It won't really give you pimples. You are pimples.

Anonymous said...

Hey Slimes, Lets smoke a Phat Doobie Joint and form a drum circle. Maybe afterwards we drop some X we can have some totally hetero gay sex at the thrift shop.

Anonymous said...

Anybody seen my Hybrid?

Anonymous said...

TOFU PARTY!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Who has more Executive experience, Rudy or Obama?

skyv said...

Any Repervs arrested today. Who's got the news. I heard the senile guy won in New H.

Isis said...

Anonymous said...
dora, i guess we will always differ in what we want in a president. I want a proven manager and you want someone who can manipulate the law.


Ya mean like using "signing statements" to get around bills he doesn't want to uphold? Or by classifying information that could expose the corruption of his administration. Damned, stupid monkeys.

Anonymous said...

"Ya mean like using "signing statements" to get around bills he doesn't want to uphold? Or by classifying information that could expose the corruption of his administration."

Bush did not invent signing statements. Isn't Hillary supposed to release the confidential folders purtaining to whitewater in 2012?

Anonymous said...

Between Hillary and Rudy, who was responsible for the most people?

Floyd said...

I think there were three new ones today...but I liked this a lot:

CNN

WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for Sen. Larry Craig asked a Minnesota appeals court Tuesday to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from his June arrest in a public bathroom sex sting, citing a "grave procedural flaw."


Larry Craig, pictured here in August, says it's unjust not to be given another chance to prove he's innocent.

The Idaho Republican argues that a state law related to his misdemeanor conviction is unconstitutional and that it's "manifestly unjust" not to allow him to be given another chance to prove his innocence.

A state judge refused on October 4 to allow the senator to withdraw his earlier plea. Judge Charles Porter ruled the plea "was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and ... supported by the evidence."

Craig had earlier promised to resign if the judge ruled against his motion, but he changed his mind and vowed to stay in office until his term expires in early 2009. He is not seeking re-election this year.

Craig, 62, also faces a Senate ethics committee investigation of his actions after his arrest by an undercover officer in a public restroom at Minneapolis International Airport in Minnesota.

He pleaded guilty in writing in August to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, and a soliciting charge was dropped. He has since denied the charges.

Anonymous said...

Welcome copy/paste brigaders. Make sure to to take a bong rip before you start spamming.

donkeyspittle said...

What a pres needs most of all is to be a politician...

LOL! No wonder the Dementoids vote for Shrillary & co. They want an echo chamber bs-er to lead them all to happyland!

spam-warleader1 said...

It's too bad dora will also have to pay the price of the copy-paste brigaides.

skyv said...

haha...Craig just keeps on giving...I heard McCain's wife hugged him after his victory and they arrested her for necrophilia...

CountFloyd 1,2,3,.... said...

Hey, isis, your riposte was a little too sharp for these targets...don't expect an answer...well not one that makes sense anyway..Dora and simes were here kicking ass but some little spam dork came along and everybody got bored and left.

Promethea said...

I've recently discovered your blog and have it on my links bar. You have a lot of interesting things to say.

I hope you can attract a better class of commenters. Dora seems obsessed with you. Maybe she has a little crush on you. I forgot the other trolls' names, but they sure don't like to discuss ideas.

Anyway, good luck and hopefully the noisy ones will get bored and go away. Belmont Club used to have many annoying trolls, but they finally found somewhere else to hang out. Maybe you'll be so lucky.

Isis said...

Evan sez: Forget how he handled 9/11, he was liberal enough to once dress in drag.

Well, Suckit, only Julie has forgotten how he "handled 9/11." The fire fighters and the police haven't forgotten.

Floyd said...

haha...promethea...didn't he bring dung to the beetles...another non-existent blogger fan.

floyd said...

Well, Suckit, only Julie has forgotten how he "handled 9/11." The fire fighters and the police haven't forgotten.
Yeah, and everyone who breathed the deadly shit Rudy and GW's EPA told them did not exist. This prick won't take his own state or city if they're stupid enough to nominate him...of course, if they don't, then they've got to be stupid enough to nom one of the other weirdos...the modrun consoivative embrace failure wherever he can find it.

Isis said...

anon sez: Please pass this on to anyone who you think will pray for our nation.



That shouldn't take long...um, you awready passed it along to those three.

Isis said...

Floyd say: the modrun consoivative embrace failure wherever he can find it.

Yep, failure over success each and every time.

Gotta admit it, I love watching those monkeys debate. It's like watching a contest for who can be the nuttiest.

Anonymous said...

The Reserves? Wait, remember that gay general who asked the question at the YouTube debates? Afterwards, the right wing said that he was only a general in the reserves, so that doesn't count. But it counts for Goldwater? How does that work?

Probably the same way the left accused GWB of not serving

zbigenuff said...

Oh, he's a tinpot, alright...which is why Suckette is creaming himself:

Rudy Mussolini: "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." Said by NYC's Il Duce on January 8.

ztoobig said...

Orwell could not have said it better himself.

prof edvard teller said...

Yas, tellink, weery tellink.

Dora said...

"unfortuantely for you, the oath says that he has to uphold the constitution..."

Since the constitution is already written why is only a lawyer capable of governing within the law?


It's not what I said, and if you misunderstood, I apologize. A lawyer would be better at it than a non-lawyer. Lincoln and FDR were both lawyers, btw. As were most of the founding fathers.

Think about it.

Dora said...

I get the distinct impression that Dora fancies herself as an elitist because she's a lawyer. I know 100's of dirty low down lawyers of the sleaziest cut. You should be careful with how you come off.

I don't fancy myself an elitist, because I know real elitists, and so therefore I don't feel lke i'm part of any elite. But I am one of those latte-drinking whale-hugging French-speaking, high-earning, charity-giving, seared-tuna eating liberals.

Dora said...

Where are all the menstrual Douche-Bag Libs?

Hahaha...gee, he's so hostile...butt, I guess he's just reinforcing his argument...oh, he didn't have one...just a pissant pest with the same silly parrot question...is he really Psychet joooonier?



I like how he's using a feminine attribute as an insult. As if there is something wrong with being a woman. It would be like trying to insult someone by calling them Jewish.

Dora said...

Oh anonymous, i didn't even get to that strech of posts where you were just talking to yourself.

You make me sad. Get some friends.

I have to go play call of duty 2 now.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

That's so weird, I'm also playing COD2. It's like I always say, liberals will invariably side with smoking out Nazis with grenades and then wasting them when they come out of their bunker.

Justin said...

You know what I'd like to hear from people like Dora? I want to hear what exactly you like about Obama. What do you think qualifies him to be the president over any of the other candidate? Give me some substance. We all know he cares and wants to help people improve their lives - but almost every caring citizen, regardless of political party, feels that way. That's why you have to look at the details of the proposed solutions - first, see if they are realistic enough to ever make it through congress, and second, look through history and around the world to see if similar programs have worked elsewhere.
To me it's pretty clear. Liberals believe that giving away services by disproportionately taxing the populous, thus rewarding laziness and mediocrity, and punishing hard work and success. They think for some ridiculous reason that giving away health care is going to be better than the current system, which is still the best in the world overall. If anything, it should be a system where people could affordably insure themselves to whatever level they desire. Our country is overmedicated as it is - you think it will help to socialize it? NUTS!
Conservatives want the current immigration laws enforced - liberals want some sort of mixture of amnesty and the status quo.
Conservatives believe in a foreign policy that puts the interests of the United States first. That means doing what is right for us, regardless of what other nations think. That takes a strong person with convictions that wouldn't change their mind every time his/her approval rating wanes. Conservatives believe in the value of human life. All the democratic candidates would like to see partial birth abortion legal. That is, stabbing something into the head of a baby as it comes out and scrambling it's brains. I can understand why people would want an abortion for rape or to prevent the death of the mother. But over 99% of abortions are done for selfish reasons; convenience, embarrassment, etc. Then to take it to the level of murdering and innocent baby at the time of delivery. That tells me something about the democrats and their values.

Thissitemakesmelaugh said...

It's like this site gives off some sort of wingnut pheromone and they travel from miles around when they pick up the scent.

Dora said...

You know what I'd like to hear from people like Dora? I want to hear what exactly you like about Obama.

i'm not even an obama supporter. I gave money to Hillary!

That's why you have to look at the details of the proposed solutions - ...second, look through history and around the world to see if similar programs have worked elsewhere.

That's an excellent point, Justin. Which countries have the highest GDP per capita? How about the longest life expectancies? Lowest poverty rates? Lowest murder rates? Lowest crime rates?

Oh, come on, you know the answer: countries with socialized medicine, gun control, abortions for everyone, generous welfare programs, protective employment laws, etc etc.

Why is that?

Dora said...

They think for some ridiculous reason that giving away health care is going to be better than the current system, which is still the best in the world overall.

Saying that our healthcare system is the best in the world is one of those trigger phrases for other people to know that you're a wingnut.

Other trigger phrases:

- hate America
- dhimmi

Dora said...

Conservatives believe in a foreign policy that puts the interests of the United States first. That means doing what is right for us, regardless of what other nations think. That takes a strong person with convictions that wouldn't change their mind every time his/her approval rating wanes. Conservatives believe in the value of human life.

But it seems you value American and non-American life differently, namely, American lives are more worthy and valuable? Is that humane? Is that right? Unless you will maintain that people are born to Iraq rather than America for some past kharmic sins, you will agree that it is sheer luck where you are born. You are no more deserving to be born in the US than anyone else in the world, never forget that. As such, you have no right to go beating up other people simply because they were born in another country.


Conservatives believe in the value of human life. All the democratic candidates would like to see partial birth abortion legal. That is, stabbing something into the head of a baby as it comes out and scrambling it's brains.

Guess how many partial birth abortions are done in the US every year? Come on, guess.

Answer: 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in 2000.

In fact: Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. [FoxNews]

I can understand why people would want an abortion for rape or to prevent the death of the mother.

Now now, if a fetus has rights, why should it be denied those rights simply because it was conceived as a result of a rape? That doesn't seem consistent. It's just as much a fetus as any other -- why would you allow killing it, just because mommy was raped?

But over 99% of abortions are done for selfish reasons; convenience, embarrassment, etc.

You got a source for that statistic? :)

Justin said...

How can you associate murder rate with socialized medicine and abortion? The only reason the crime rate is so high in our country is because of continuous destruction of the stable american family, followed by a failing public school system (another socialist blunder), and a much weakened judicial and law enforcement system.
As far as socialized medicine is concerned, there are plenty of statistics to back up the argument. I'm sure you've seen the waiting lists for important life saving procedures, and of course the lifestyle improving ones as well. Guess what? They end up having to pay for it out of pocket if they can afford it in a private practice, otherwise they have to wait, sometimes months and years. It also has opened the door for the government to dictate how you live your life if you want medical attention, i.e. restricting healthcare to smokers and the obese. Is that what you want?
As far as abortion is concerned, I don't believe a woman should abort a baby after a rape, I believe they should adopt it out. My point was that I can understand why people would support that policy. Abortion was originally pushed through planned parenthood to stop the poor from reproducing. It was part of the eugenics movement - the same crap that led to Nazism and many other sick organizations. Planned parenthood is basically the same thing now - free abortions for those that can't afford them. You don't have to agree with my beliefs, but the facts are there - look it up.
As for my statistics, I can't find the study I had seen earlier, but here is another one with similar numbers (2004):
0.5% are from rape or incest
7% for possible health issues in mother or baby
link
The study I had read before had a much smaller percentage for the health issues piece, but still, staggering numbers.
93% for selfish reasons, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Furthermore, regardless of how many partial birth abortions are done, the practice is approved by all democrat candidates.

When it comes to how I value the interests of the United States, I do value our interests and a nation over others. HELL YES I DO! However, I do see value in all people. In fact, it could easily be argued that giving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan freedom was a true act of love and kindness. Are you aware of the freedoms women enjoy now in those nations that were never available to them in recent history? Look it up.

Justin said...

With many of these social issues (abortion, crime, etc) it all comes down to people not taking responsibility for their actions. Fathers not supporting and raising the children that they father, mothers not willing to take responsibility for getting themselves knocked up (at least 93% of the time), and responsibility for paving your own way through life honestly. This is called integrity, and it is what our nation lacks. In my opinion, and I think the facts back me up here, leftist policies are primarily responsible.

Who Dat said...

Evan,
Sure hope you're right about Rudy. It's been very unsettling not seeing him active in Iowa and NH.

Dora said...

How can you associate murder rate with socialized medicine and abortion? The only reason the crime rate is so high in our country is because of continuous destruction of the stable american family, followed by a failing public school system (another socialist blunder), and a much weakened judicial and law enforcement system.

Um, so how come the lowest crime rates are in the countries with the most destabilized family? Northern and western Europe have hte lowest marriage rates, highest average ages of marriage, lowest birth rates, gay marriage (spain & netherlands), civil unions (denmark, sweden, uk, france). The public school system is not doing well, but I'd like you to show me a country without a public school system that is doing well.

As for weakened law enforcement -- do you mean weakened by constitutional constraints?

As far as socialized medicine is concerned, there are plenty of statistics to back up the argument. I'm sure you've seen the waiting lists for important life saving procedures, and of course the lifestyle improving ones as well. Guess what? They end up having to pay for it out of pocket if they can afford it in a private practice, otherwise they have to wait, sometimes months and years.

As opposed to the US, where people are denied coverage for prodecures that they need to LIVE, or don't have any insurance at all, and so don't get any procedure at all. That's so much better!

It also has opened the door for the government to dictate how you live your life if you want medical attention, i.e. restricting healthcare to smokers and the obese. Is that what you want?

Where is this done?

As far as abortion is concerned, I don't believe a woman should abort a baby after a rape, I believe they should adopt it out. My point was that I can understand why people would support that policy. Abortion was originally pushed through planned parenthood to stop the poor from reproducing. It was part of the eugenics movement - the same crap that led to Nazism and many other sick organizations. Planned parenthood is basically the same thing now - free abortions for those that can't afford them. You don't have to agree with my beliefs, but the facts are there - look it up.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's true. Is it not possible that the organization has changed from those views? That was like 80 years ago.

Also, Vermont was part of the Eugenics movement, but I don't see anyone campaigning to shut down vermont because of what the government did 80 years ago.

93% for selfish reasons, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And what's wrong with selfish reasons? do you use contraceptives to control your reproduction? if so, why? probably for selfish reasons. The whole incessant hysterical screaming from wingnuts yourself of "cut my TAXES!" is for selfish reasons. You'd rather keep your money than see it go to insure poor children, through SCHIP, for example (which Bush recently signed, btw). How many lives are you responsible for ending prematurely by not wanting to pay taxes to pay for poor children's healthcare?

Furthermore, regardless of how many partial birth abortions are done, the practice is approved by all democrat candidates.

Yes, because unlike 1st trimester abortions, partial birth abortions are mostly done for medical reasons to save the life of the mother.

When it comes to how I value the interests of the United States, I do value our interests and a nation over others. HELL YES I DO!

But you also value American lives more than others. talk about culture of life!

However, I do see value in all people. In fact, it could easily be argued that giving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan freedom was a true act of love and kindness. Are you aware of the freedoms women enjoy now in those nations that were never available to them in recent history? Look it up.

If you really believe that, you're a case of terminally stupid. You can't be helped.

Vera Leigh Icey said...

I swear, the man just can’t help himself. It’s got to be an involuntary reflex now.
When asked to comment on Hillary Clinton’s show of emotion just before the NH primary, Rudy Giuliani invoked once again the sum total of his campaign platform: 9/11
I think everybody is their own person and they have to be their own person and this is not something that I would judge anybody on, one way or the other. And the reality is, if you’ll look at me, September 11, the funerals… the memorial services…there were times it was just impossible…not to feel …not to feel…not to feel the emotion.
He is now a parody of a caricature of himself. How can anyone take him seriously?


Now, I know why suckit likes Rudy Mussolini--he's a parrot, just like suckit.

Anonymous said...

Today's Republicrook:
SEARCH ARCHIVES

Rep. Doolittle
Republican Rep. John Doolittle, who is under investigation in a congressional lobbying scandal, plans to announce Thursday that he'll retire from Congress at the end of his current term, according to a Republican official who spoke with Doolittle.

The development comes as Doolittle, in his ninth term, faced growing political pressure from fellow Republicans who considered him a liability because of his involvement, along with his wife Julie, in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling investigation. House Republicans, still smarting from losing control of Congress in 2006, are eager to put that ethics taint behind them

Justin said...

The whole incessant hysterical screaming from wingnuts yourself of "cut my TAXES!" is for selfish reasons.

This is rediculous. Cutting taxes is good for everyone, including the governemnt. The government usually gets more money in the coffers when it happens.. look at the bush tax cuts - it brought in record revenues! Look it up. You see, putting more money in the market produces stimulous for the economy. Economics 101

Yes, because unlike 1st trimester abortions, partial birth abortions are mostly done for medical reasons to save the life of the mother.

That defies all logic. If you are healthy enough to get the head out, then the baby can be delivered.

But you also value American lives more than others. talk about culture of life!

You're putting words in my mouth. I am talking about national interests. If you think other non-democratic countries act upon the will of thier people you're a fool. I am not comparing individuals and valuing one over the other. When we bombed germany and japan in WW2 we killed good people. There were good people in both places of course. We were at war because of the actions of the Nazi government. They are seperate things, people and government. duh!

If you really believe that, you're a case of terminally stupid. You can't be helped.

I have come to my conclusions through studying the facts. I used to be a moderate - I never cared enough to look into things. I became a conservative after logically going through all of the issues and taking a side, and then constantly questioning myself. An open mind constantly questions, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. Your response here is just namecalling because you have no response. It always comes to this when you find yourself up against a wall. Tell me this. What freedoms were given to people without bloodshed and sacrifice? I can't think of any. Without strength, the united states is nothing. The strength of the United States is what deters war all over the globe. If you look at europe, the US, and all over the world - the free peoples sit on the shoulders of brave men and women that sacrified for it.

Anonymous said...

Justin sounds like a very earnest high school boy just getting interested in politics. He obviously, however, has not actually looked at the facts or he wouldn't tell us ridiculous things like how women's rights have improved where we've meddled...they are now far worse than ever in Iraq. And the US med care is among the WORST among richer nations.

Anonymous said...

Abortions, divorce, unmarried mothers are all more prevalent in the so-called blue states...though now, of course there is only about one left.

Larry Blivins said...

Just ONE of the many studies demonstrating our disastrous health care system.

US ranks LAST among other industrialized nations on preventable deaths
101,000 fewer Americans would die annually if the US improved its preventable death rate
January 8, 2008, Bethesda, MD—The United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research supported by The Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of Health Affairs. While other nations dramatically improved these rates between 1997–98 and 2002–03, the U.S. improved only slightly.

If the U.S. had performed as well as the top three countries out of the 19 industrialized countries in the study there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths in the U.S. per year by the end of the study period. The top performers were France, Japan, and Australia.

Justin said...

He obviously, however, has not actually looked at the facts or he wouldn't tell us ridiculous things like how women's rights have improved where we've meddled...they are now far worse than ever in Iraq.

Ok smarty pants. Show me your references. Islamic nations are the worst for women. They are treated like dogs. Even though Iraq was not as bad as Afganistan, it was still more repressive before the government changed hands, and it will keep improving.

Abortions, divorce, unmarried mothers are all more prevalent in the so-called blue states...though now, of course there is only about one left.

Have you ever looked at a map with location specific politics? like this.

What do you see? I'll tell you what. Liberals are concentrated in poor areas and big cities. In Indiana and Illinois for example, the states are VERY conservative, but the high concentration of democrats in Gary, Chicago, and Indianapolis make it pretty even. Do you know why there are so many democrats in the city? I'll tell you. It's because many of them rely on government handouts and social programs. They believe the socialist drivel spewed by the democrats hook line and sinker. Republicans own a much higher percentage of hard working Americans that earn their own. It's a fact. The kind of statistical analysis you're pulling out of your ass with red and blue states is meaningless. If you look at abortion statistics in concordance with a map like the one I linked to, you'll see the correlation!

I don't claim that all republicans are conservatives. Many are just fiscally conservative and have no ethical problem with abortion, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc. On the flip side, there are many socialist Christians that hate abortion and value human life, but like the idea of getting handouts from the government. There is no truly unified conservative movement, just as there is no unified liberal movement. There are so many special interests on the democratic side that it's hard to take a stand on any issue without pissing someone off. It's fun to watch it in a sick sortof way.

simes said...

Site specific my ass...what a laugh...is that some horseshit rationale they came up with on limbaugh? The so called blue states also pay most of the taxes and the more conservative a state is the more they suck in. The most liberal states have the fewest of those social problems you go on about. OH, how do you like your goofy blogmeister supporting the partial birth abortion, family values guy? I was really glad to hear you know more than med pros on whether a mother's life is in danger. You're a really ignorant, little puppy who is doome to stay that way because you will never be able to look at a fact honestly.

Dora said...

This is rediculous. Cutting taxes is good for everyone, including the governemnt. The government usually gets more money in the coffers when it happens.. look at the bush tax cuts - it brought in record revenues! Look it up. You see, putting more money in the market produces stimulous for the economy. Economics 101

Ummmm you're dreaming. Bush's chief economic adviser, N. Gregory Mankiw, wrote economics textbooks before taking that post. I had his textbook in a class of mine -- he devoted 2 pages to the Laffer Curve and dismissed it as completely ridiculous.

Yes, because unlike 1st trimester abortions, partial birth abortions are mostly done for medical reasons to save the life of the mother.

That defies all logic. If you are healthy enough to get the head out, then the baby can be delivered.


So now you're a medical doctor? Lol

Dora said...

We were at war because of the actions of the Nazi government. They are seperate things, people and government. duh!

Wait, isn't our government for by the people and for the people? eh?

Dora said...

What freedoms were given to people without bloodshed and sacrifice? I can't think of any.

Maybe you should think of the Magna Carta.

Without strength, the united states is nothing. The strength of the United States is what deters war all over the globe. If you look at europe, the US, and all over the world - the free peoples sit on the shoulders of brave men and women that sacrified for it.



Ah yes, war is peace, freedom is slavery. Nice, nice.

And I will address what you said, something about the peoples of Afghanistan and IRaq having more rights and freedoms than they did before the wars. Maybe, MAYBE, you could make a cogent argument for this in Afghanistan, because before the war, they really reached the rock-bottom.

But in Iraq? Before the war, women had the vote, could drive, walk around without a hijab, go to university, have careers, etc. After the war, grocery store owners are killed for displaying vegetables provocatively. And this government they've "elected"? impotent and corrupt. What progress.

Dora said...

Abortions, divorce, unmarried mothers are all more prevalent in the so-called blue states...though now, of course there is only about one left.

Now you're just lying. Blue states have lower divorce rates. Massachusetts has the lowest. I don't know about abortion or "unmarried mothers," but you know, in Sweden, most children are born "out of wedlock," but into 2-parent homes. In fact, the US has the lowest percentage of children growing up with both parents (63%) out of all the industrialized countries, even though the other countries have lower marriage rates. WTF is that all about?!

Dora said...

What do you see? I'll tell you what. Liberals are concentrated in poor areas and big cities. In Indiana and Illinois for example, the states are VERY conservative, but the high concentration of democrats in Gary, Chicago, and Indianapolis make it pretty even. Do you know why there are so many democrats in the city? I'll tell you. It's because many of them rely on government handouts and social programs. They believe the socialist drivel spewed by the democrats hook line and sinker.

Ah, they have learned. People like Justin used to come out and say it -- it's becuase of the black people who rely on social programs and government handouts. Now they just leave the "black" part out.

Republicans own a much higher percentage of hard working Americans that earn their own.

Really? Republicans "own" people now? Why is it that the red states are poorer, have crapper health care for children, and get more federal assitance per dollar they put into the federal government, whereas states like NY and MA, get less than $1 back for every $1 they put in?

We're subsidizing your lack of social programs for your poor people. You think poor people will just disappear if you eliminate all the social programs? Why does it enver work that way? And then you take OUR hard-earned money from the Federal government to ay for the social programs for these people that yOU refuse to pay for. Talk about responsibility! lol

If you look at abortion statistics in concordance with a map like the one I linked to, you'll see the correlation!

Yes, let's take a look at those statiscis: here.

Justin said...

Ah, they have learned. People like Justin used to come out and say it -- it's becuase of the black people who rely on social programs and government handouts. Now they just leave the "black" part out.

Typical call of racism when once again you are up against a wall. Unlike most liberals, I judge every person by the content of their character. I don't believe in classifying people by race. We are all Americans. People of all races on on the government dole. Conservatives believe in a colorblind nation. That means we all treat each other equally without separating Americans into different categories based on ethnicity. After all, we are all immigrants, including the american indians. Having race-specific laws and government sponsored race-based groups work against this, that is why we are against quotas and the EEOC. Of course I want diversity, but I want it the right way. Most people of other races feel the same way as I do. Anyone with dignity wants to get a job based on their qualifications alone. I can't believe you pulled the race card. Shows the way you think.

Larry Blivins said...

I can't believe you pulled the race card. Shows the way you think.

I love that one...when THEY use the race card and you point it out, they whine that you're playing the race card. They do the same thing with class war...they wage class war, and when you call them on it...they whine that you're making class warfare. But the country's caught onto that ploy, and even evangelicals are realizing they've had their pocket picked while supporting the right.

RidetheAApony said...

Obama is the race card candidate.

sexisaweapon said...

Hillary is the boo-hoo candidate.

h8lawyers said...

Ann Coulter was right about the Breck Girl... queer as a $3 bill.

Dora said...

People of all races on on the government dole.

So you're just going to ignore the statistics that show that blacks are more likely to be on the government dole than whites, and that black comprise the inner city populations of Chicago and Gary (I don't know about Indiannapolis) and many other big cities? Just sort of, put your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" on this one?

Nice.

Unlike most liberals, I judge every person by the content of their character. I don't believe in classifying people by race. We are all Americans.

Aw, how lovely, Dr. King. Speaking of Dr. King, did you ever wonder why it was the liberals who supported him, and the conservatives who opposed him? (Southern Democrats of that era are not liberals, btw) Yeah, I bet you haven't/

leighton said...

This is their phony mantra whenever a program which takes into consideration the effects of past and current bigotry and seeks to adjust policy for it. All of a sudden they're color blind...the rest of the time it's, "Git out the way, Sambo." Sanctimonious creeps.

Justin said...

Aw, how lovely, Dr. King. Speaking of Dr. King, did you ever wonder why it was the liberals who supported him, and the conservatives who opposed him? (Southern Democrats of that era are not liberals, btw) Yeah, I bet you haven't.

It was democrats (RFK) that put illegal phone taps on Dr King. Nixon was the one that started affirmative action, which was probably a good idea at the time. I believe it's done all the good it can do and needs to be discontinued. You can say southern democrats don't count as liberals, but those southerners and their children are still hanging out throughout the govt in the democrat party. And of course the Bush administration is much more "diverse" at the top than previous administrations. There was and still is ignorant race hatred on both sides of the line, but to say that republicans have a history of that is ridiculous. After all, our party, as it is today, was founded by Lincoln.

Dora said...

It was democrats (RFK) that put illegal phone taps on Dr King. Nixon was the one that started affirmative action,

But how signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

which was probably a good idea at the time. I believe it's done all the good it can do and needs to be discontinued.

Really? I see you're still ignoring those stats about blacks being more likely to be on welfare than whites.

You can say southern democrats don't count as liberals, but those southerners and their children are still hanging out throughout the govt in the democrat party.

More of them are in the republican party. Have you ever heard of Strom Thurmond? How about Ronald Reagan?

And of course the Bush administration is much more "diverse" at the top than previous administrations.

and those diverse people have definitely taught us all a valuable lesson, no sarcasm. Condi & Khalilzaid and Gonzalez show us that you can be an evil mofo even if you're black, arab or hispanic.

There was and still is ignorant race hatred on both sides of the line, but to say that republicans have a history of that is ridiculous. After all, our party, as it is today, was founded by Lincoln.

Ah, yes, Lincoln. If he were alive today, he's be a Democrat, I think.

Justin said...

Ah, yes, Lincoln. If he were alive today, he's be a Democrat, I think.

That's ridiculous. No modern liberal would ever have the courage to do what he did during the civil war. They would just talk and concede because that's what modern liberals do. He was also a man of great integrity. Such a quality rarely found in men of either party in my lifetime, especially elected democrats. And finally, he helped define modern republicanism, which by definition sets it apart from democrats. duh! "It (republicanism) is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters." I don't need to enumerate all of the differences for a law student such as yourself, but there are many - all stemming from basic republican principals. The idea is to preserve the freedoms and ideals established by the founding fathers. Of course the system is flexible to a point, but there is a core set of principals that must be preserved. That's why we're called conservatives.

Dora said...

That's ridiculous. No modern liberal would ever have the courage to do what he did during the civil war. They would just talk and concede because that's what modern liberals do. He was also a man of great integrity.

You know what I love about you guys? We liberals just can't win. You say, "oh, libs never want to fight, they just want to hug it out." But when libs go to fight, in Kosovo, for example, you don't like that either.

And what exactly did Lincoln do, according to you?

Dora said...

And finally, he helped define modern republicanism, which by definition sets it apart from democrats. duh! "It (republicanism) is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters." I don't need to enumerate all of the differences for a law student such as yourself, but there are many - all stemming from basic republican principals. The idea is to preserve the freedoms and ideals established by the founding fathers.

ah yes, the founding fathers, most of whom were... Democratic-Republicans!

Houston, we have a problem...

skyv said...

Idiot alert!!!!...

After all, our party, as it is today, was founded by Lincoln.

Lincoln wouldn't spit on you nazis.

skyvester said...

Republican principles...individual freedom...hahaha...this boy is so stupid, I don't think I even enjoy kicking his simple ass amymore...nothing but the dregs left over here...aint that a frigging surprise...this is the butt end of a dead end movement.

tveetybird said...

You know what you get when you put two Democrats in a room?

Noise?

No, an echo chamber that amplifies and then overloads on its own feedback.

Sam Smart said...

Justin said...

That's ridiculous. No modern liberal would ever have the courage to do what he did during the civil war. They would just talk and concede because that's what modern liberals do.


Although, slavery was not the only reason for the civil war, America is the only country that had to have a war to end slavery. Other coutries did it peacefully. So, yeah, a liberal would probably have peacefully resolved the issue. However, if Lincoln were alive today, you guys would be labeling him a RINO.

sam smart said...

Jusin says: duh!


That's most intelligent thing you've said, and it perfectly encapsulates the description of your perpetual state.

Sam Smart said...

Dora, "Houston, we have a problem..." doesn't even begin to cover it. I'd say it's more like "Mission Impossible."

sally forth said...

That defies all logic. If you are healthy enough to get the head out, then the baby can be delivered.

Thank you, Dr. Justin. I would never go to you if I were pregnant. I do value my own life.

You aint no doctor, and you are bone stupid.

Sam Smart said...

"Evan, it's so good to have you back blogging again. IMO your analysis is spot on.
Keep it up!"
M

Sayet writing himself a love letter...


in the sand.......