Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- DrBombay0
hahaha
- DrBombay0
Fox wasn't immune either...
- DrBombay0
This woman just won't go away
That Rattigan guy is pretty much a cock too though.- She's racist and driven by hatredJosev
- http://www.salon.com…Josev
- ninjasavant0
This is about all I have to say in this thread
http://religionandpolitics.ytmnd…
- locustsloth0
Jesus! How ridiculous is Drudge. TWO different headlines mentioning her "bondage belt" that link to two separate articles THAT MENTION NOTHING OF IT!!!! What a fuckin twit!
- Tangentially related in terms of press framing:
http://lefarkins.blo…TheBlueOne - fuck drudgeJonnyPompa
- Tangentially related in terms of press framing:
- ********0
Trotsky's ashes stolen and baked in cookies
http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=…
- TheBlueOne0
Rightwing protest art 1962:
Today:
Yeah, this will end well.
- Right wing typography back then was betterukit
- hahaJonnyPompa
- ukit0
So John Edwards, who talked a good line during the campaign, turned out to be pretty craven...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/2…
"The notion that Mr. Edwards is the father has been reinforced by the account of Andrew Young, once a close aide to Mr. Edwards, who had signed an affidavit asserting that he was the father of Ms. Hunter’s child.
Mr. Young, who has since renounced that statement, has told publishers in a book proposal that Mr. Edwards knew all along that he was the child’s father. He said Mr. Edwards pleaded with him to accept responsibility falsely, saying that would reduce the story to one of a political aide’s infidelity.
In the proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young asserts that he assisted the affair by setting up private meetings between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter. He wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."
Edwards - you got it wrong in so many ways...
- bliznutty0
- dont think ive ever thought about the distinctions between republic and democracy.********
- guess i thoguht of them as the same thing jsut linguistics and age changing the verbiage********
- but now i understand that i dotn believe at all in a democracy and its a republic that i follow********
- not good if i uphold democracy but denounce it for the thigns that make it a so called democracy********
- haha, we do live in a democracy dude. The distinction is between direct democracy and representative.ukit
- It is a good video, thanks.raf
- actually the disntinction is in when a rep democracy gains enough power to over throw its republic rules, and jsutify it under majority********
- dont think ive ever thought about the distinctions between republic and democracy.
- ukit0
http://www.latimes.com/news/nati…
The Justice Department is investigating whether former Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton illegally used her position to benefit Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that later hired her, according to officials in federal law enforcement and the Interior Department.
The criminal investigation centers on the Interior Department's 2006 decision to award three lucrative oil shale leases on federal land in Colorado to a Shell subsidiary. Over the years it would take to extract the oil, according to calculations from Shell and a Rand Corp. expert, the deal could net the company hundreds of billions of dollars.
The investigation's main focus is whether Norton violated a law that prohibits federal employees from discussing employment with a company if they are involved in dealings with the government that could benefit the firm, law enforcement and Interior officials said.
They said investigators also were trying to determine if Norton broke a broader federal "denial of honest services" law, which says a government official can be prosecuted for violating the public trust by, for example, steering government business to favored firms or friends.
The Interior Department's Office of Inspector General began the investigation during the waning months of the George W. Bush administration and more recently made a formal criminal referral to the Justice Department. Norton is the first Bush official at the Cabinet secretary level to be the subject of a formal political corruption investigation.
- TheBlueOne0
It's frustrating because it's not one party or the other that's more or less corrupt than the other, they both are, and each has it's specific area of corruption speciality and scandals du jour. No the thing is that one party isn't prone to phases of sheer batshit crazy. e.g. It's not that in the last election you had a choice between two corrupt parties, but rather you had the choice between someone that had some fine rhetoric but coming from a party that was beholden to certain members of the elites and an old guy and a batshit insane woman who were beholden to other members of the elite.
And now, the batshit followers are using batshit arguments about the guy who won. Calling the guy corrupt or whatever is totally being blind to the whole system, their own included, and doesn't really help anything. By calling into question his being a "communist nazi secret muslim agent provacateur" whose parents planned for him to be president before he was born and started some strange plot just to get him elected 45 odd years later, is just insane**. And it does the country a great disservice because you know there are plenty of actual fact based critiques of Obama that we can't get too because the crazy people keep interupting saying "He's got antennas! Look, wear these glasses and you'll see he's an alien! And he wants our women folk!" And the propensity of the batshit arguments, well, you know, they kinda keep people from pulling the wizards curtain aside and get down to the corruption and rot in the system because you're all screaming "Nazi! Hitler!" at the first democratically elected black president in American history - which is, you know, batshit crazy. Sellout to financial and military elites? Corporate centrist? Superficial overly ambitious waif? Sure I could buy those arguments, but Nazi? Communist? Come on.
And that's basically where I get to in this thread. I gave up. Sure I'll still post, but I don't want to engage in anything seriously. So yeah, you batshit peeps have won again. Because arguing with crazy people tires you the fuck out. Which I think you're doing on the larger stage as well. Thus dooming America, just like you did the enjoyability and interest that this thread once had.
**Odd how these batshit crazy conservatives make the argument that government can't do anything right, but the one consistent bit of their worldview is that liberal governments can somehow have longstanding powerful world spanning conspiracies that operate incredibly well for decades without fail.
- +1JonnyPompa
- will the blue at least admit the plan for such proposed healthcare is a socialist ideal********
- or this this post mainly to look like im a friend of all and slide in the denouncement of only right protestors********
- and if u want to post but not engage in anythign seriously i wonder what it is u want then. attention?********
- or simply to project your ideals/ideas but then take no responsibility for them.********
- Nice one TBO ..
I agree with everything you said
Ramanisky2
- TheBlueOne0
What this guy says: "The aspiring capitalists among us will decry such regulation because it invariably makes our lives harder; we can’t make as much money. But if the reason is that the regulation is now forcing us to bear all of the costs of our enterprise, then we are feeling the pain of having the socialist trappings removed, and entering into a more robust capitalist regime. "
- I agree with the article. Risk is essential to stability, most people can't grasp this paradox, they want protection from risk..raf
- ..which leads to carastrophy. Governments backing banks caused the crisis by taking banks' risk away.raf
- no the fed controlled the interests rates and made it profitable to act in such a way.********
- the so called regualtion lead to the distortions. with limited restrictions is the only way a capitalist system can work.********
- the more the regualtions the more the corruption of the politicains passign the regualtions by business who want to kill their competition********
- want to crush their competition********
- gov has no role in business at all. u cant regulate a ever changing system. only the nature of it can********
- Arild0
Wow a lot of LOL:
- God Bless America and the fucking stupid!utopian
- HAHA nice OHIO STATE shirt dumb assfooler2
- Take tons of footage ask the same questions....edit out any logical responses highlight the people who look the most foolish.designbot
- It's obvious the guy asking the questions has opposite views.designbot
- come on... really designbot .. really
Ramanisky2 - yea its not the opposing side damage control. typical********
- ********0
I would like to participate. I see a lot of you guys ignore beliefs and previous writings from our government officials. Maybe it's not such a good idea to get your news from Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.
I also notice we have some extreme left wing nuts in here. I am not surprised, most of the designers in here are gay and lean towards communism and marxism ideologies to help them feel safe in an unpredictable world. Cheers to you.
- LOLukit
- Never trust anyone named "Fred"robotron3k
- anyone interested in joining my baking cartell?version3
- I only know three people named Fred. And they are all gay or bisexual. Just sayin!utopian
- "...before it's to late"
Warning, Obama is going to try and learn us English.BusterBoy - haha, pretty much everyoen seems o have an agenda passed on by the news networks. no critical thinking whatsoever********
- BonSeff0
I noticed your last name is McWoozy, you must be an alcoholic and like the Celtics and potato's a lot
- BonSeff0
you should have registered McHalfwit
- ukit0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/…
Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal...
Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
- juhls0
John Edwards - what an idiot.
