Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
Interesting, isn't it, these guys all seem to use the same stylist.
Interesting, isn't it, these guys all seem to use the same stylist.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
- Thread starter FlagDUDE08
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
WAR!!!
Rift widens between Emanuel and teachers union, pillar of Democratic support, http://fxn.ws/12W8bgs
WAR!!!
Rift widens between Emanuel and teachers union, pillar of Democratic support, http://fxn.ws/12W8bgs
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
And the senator in question is another Republican, Susan Collins.
And the senator in question is another Republican, Susan Collins.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
As much as I pooh-pooh the idea that people are actually going to rise up and take on the Feds en masse, there is an ever-increasing din these days. Perhaps it's due to the fact a person can broadcast their taking a crap, but jebus...
As much as I pooh-pooh the idea that people are actually going to rise up and take on the Feds en masse, there is an ever-increasing din these days. Perhaps it's due to the fact a person can broadcast their taking a crap, but jebus...
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
I'm offended and repulsed by that kind of language. It has no place in our political discourse. And we should all work to raise the tone of our political conservation. But the left is a little late coming to this party, don't you think?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos
I'm offended and repulsed by that kind of language. It has no place in our political discourse. And we should all work to raise the tone of our political conservation. But the left is a little late coming to this party, don't you think?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621#photos
Last edited:
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
Its been all over the news, google and you shall find. I wonder if their is tape of this or is this just someones supposed transcript
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
For all the screaming uproar over this supposed "conference-call-gate"by which the messiah is supposedly entitled to institute permanent martial law, there's something interesting if you read Priceless's smoking gun transcript carefully. A key word was taken out where we are to assume the worst, and replaced with "inaudible". Obviously the going assumption is that he said "assault rifles" but there's simply no evidence of that. If you follow to where it says "and phone calls", it gives a clue that at least for the alleged "moderater", this so-called armed rebellion might not be everything the chicken little's are telling us about causing the end of civilization, etc.
Probably what we have is a ding bat caller making a tasteless joke and the Priceless Chicken Little Brigade "admitting LGBT members since 1991!" is making an armed rebellion out of it in homage to the messiah's martial law ideal. Nothing more.
For all the screaming uproar over this supposed "conference-call-gate"by which the messiah is supposedly entitled to institute permanent martial law, there's something interesting if you read Priceless's smoking gun transcript carefully. A key word was taken out where we are to assume the worst, and replaced with "inaudible". Obviously the going assumption is that he said "assault rifles" but there's simply no evidence of that. If you follow to where it says "and phone calls", it gives a clue that at least for the alleged "moderater", this so-called armed rebellion might not be everything the chicken little's are telling us about causing the end of civilization, etc.
Probably what we have is a ding bat caller making a tasteless joke and the Priceless Chicken Little Brigade "admitting LGBT members since 1991!" is making an armed rebellion out of it in homage to the messiah's martial law ideal. Nothing more.
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
I was asking him to provide the source and context. It's his responsibility to let us know the source of his "quotes," just as it's his responsibility to "quote" accurately. This tactic comes from the first page of his playbook--find something "outrageous," present it out of context as representative of all conservative thought then do his best Claude Raines imitation: "I'm shocked. Shocked." Smearing everyone he disagrees with is his principal tactic. Recently he scrounged up a quote from some Republican county chairman in Arkansas, and with eyebrows arched to the top of his head, posted it. This is both childish and boring.
In the example at hand, somebody may have said something stupid. And we're supposed to be outraged, shocked, etc. But when a United States senator cracks wise on national TV about "killing two birds" at the WH, well, that's just being humorous. Not to be taken seriously. Move along. Nothing to see here. Although I can't be entirely certain, I'm getting a whiff of a double standard.
"Think Progress" said: "After Tea Party rhetoric got one member of congress shot in the head. . ." Presumably Sarah Palin's fault. This is a blood libel. And the fact that it's been comprehensively disproven and even condemned by Little Dick, is of no importance to these people. When some Tea Party loving clown actually commits violence, let me know. Otherwise, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with libtard myths and legends. Told around campfires, just before the S'mores.
I was asking him to provide the source and context. It's his responsibility to let us know the source of his "quotes," just as it's his responsibility to "quote" accurately. This tactic comes from the first page of his playbook--find something "outrageous," present it out of context as representative of all conservative thought then do his best Claude Raines imitation: "I'm shocked. Shocked." Smearing everyone he disagrees with is his principal tactic. Recently he scrounged up a quote from some Republican county chairman in Arkansas, and with eyebrows arched to the top of his head, posted it. This is both childish and boring.
In the example at hand, somebody may have said something stupid. And we're supposed to be outraged, shocked, etc. But when a United States senator cracks wise on national TV about "killing two birds" at the WH, well, that's just being humorous. Not to be taken seriously. Move along. Nothing to see here. Although I can't be entirely certain, I'm getting a whiff of a double standard.
"Think Progress" said: "After Tea Party rhetoric got one member of congress shot in the head. . ." Presumably Sarah Palin's fault. This is a blood libel. And the fact that it's been comprehensively disproven and even condemned by Little Dick, is of no importance to these people. When some Tea Party loving clown actually commits violence, let me know. Otherwise, we'll have to satisfy ourselves with libtard myths and legends. Told around campfires, just before the S'mores.
Last edited:
That's funny Opie, because this is the very thing that happened with ABC News reporting of the so-called talking points memo e-mails! I noticed you weren't too concerned with journalistic ethics then, as another dope of a reporter (Karl in this case) get screwed by his source, no doubt a Republican Congressional staffer who's recollections were a bit off but still got put in "quotes" as coming directly from internal administration deliberations.
See, this is why you guys have the credibility of David Vitter or Mark Sanford (two elected conservatives) chairing a conference on personal morality.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
Susan Collins is an elephant? About as much as the chafer.
Susan Collins is an elephant? About as much as the chafer.
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
"We liberals are appalled to see discrimination against anyone because of race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, or sexual orientation."
On the other hand, if the federal government actively discriminates against certain people because of their political views, we're perfectly fine with that.
Yeah, right.
"We liberals are appalled to see discrimination against anyone because of race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, or sexual orientation."
On the other hand, if the federal government actively discriminates against certain people because of their political views, we're perfectly fine with that.
Yeah, right.
Law states a special election.
Regarding Lautenberg, he was the last WWII vet in the Senate. End of an era (there are still a couple in the House I believe).
Can the gov. appoint an interim pending the special ala Massachusetts? ?
That I'm not sure about.
Regarding Christie though, were I advising him about his prospects I think he's better off crushing the competition for governor this year instead of joining an unpopular Congress. Christie is pretty well set up for a Prez run in the future, just not in 2016 as I don't think his party is ready to nominate another Northeastern quasi-moderate. I expect a hard righty to win the nomination, like a Rand Paul or Paul Ryan. If they win Christie's out of luck but if they lose think how it plays out: the party will be desperate to moderate so that leaves Christie as the front runner. I think he's only around 50, so say he wins big this year and serves out his term. Now he's out of office in Jan of 2018, giving him two years to plan and raise money for a campaign. He's only in his late 50s, presumably has shed a few pounds, and doesn't exactly have to work on his name recognition. I can't picture anybody getting the better of him in the primary debates either. Obviously I can't predict the future but his path looks clearer than most.
We agree on sonething!! BTW he's had stomach surgery to lose weight. He'll look svelte if and when he runs.
There are two GOP candidates I'd worry about running against. One is Jon Huntsman and the other is Christie. I don't think Huntsman could beat Hillary because it would be another race like 2008 and 2012 where you had a historic candidacy vs a Republican out of central casting. However, in a non-Hillary year I could see Huntsman running a "back to normalcy" campaign and re-enacting the narrow electoral win of GWB's 2nd term with 280 or so electoral votes.
Christie is the only candidate who could upset the fundamental problem facing GOP Presidential candidates which is the electoral map is working against them. Right now with the understanding that the past doesn't predict the future, the Republicans need to find someone that can win out West (NV,CO), in the Rust Belt (OH), and in the South (VA,NC,FL). They have to win all of these states. Christie changes the calculus because he puts NJ and PA in play at the very least. Then you can lose FL or VA or CO and still win the election.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
Yet they don't see hiring standards based upon race to be racism.
"We liberals are appalled to see discrimination against anyone because of race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, or sexual orientation."
On the other hand, if the federal government actively discriminates against certain people because of their political views, we're perfectly fine with that.
Yeah, right.
Yet they don't see hiring standards based upon race to be racism.
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines
Depends what you mean by "worry". In the sense that they are a greater risk for pulling back the folks who have fled to the Democrats and winning the election, yes, Christie and Huntsman are greater risks, but they're moderate enough that I could consider voting for them depending on the circumstances. In the sense that I'm worried about the damage they could do to the country if they win, I'm more worried about someone like Ted Cruz, who's clearly a solid politician who tends extreme Tea Party to boot, though I'd like to think that his schtick will play a lot better with Texas than the U.S. as a whole.
Depends what you mean by "worry". In the sense that they are a greater risk for pulling back the folks who have fled to the Democrats and winning the election, yes, Christie and Huntsman are greater risks, but they're moderate enough that I could consider voting for them depending on the circumstances. In the sense that I'm worried about the damage they could do to the country if they win, I'm more worried about someone like Ted Cruz, who's clearly a solid politician who tends extreme Tea Party to boot, though I'd like to think that his schtick will play a lot better with Texas than the U.S. as a whole.
- Status