College Republicans

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:37 pm

http://www.truthcaucus.com/index.php?id=73

BTW: The nancy boy on the right is the leader of the College Republicans. And no, I don't have a problem with college kids drinking. But could they perhaps look a little more "manly" while doing it?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:52 pm

Those two guys will have to take what they can get. If the only place they can score are log cabin meetings, so be it. Enjoy, boys.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:03 pm

If they were College Dems, there would be more than just a tie in his mouth.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:22 pm

Cicero wrote:If they were College Dems, there would be more than just a tie in his mouth.

Yea, there would be a bong. What's yer freakin point?

fix · Post by **fix** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:04 pm

BSmack wrote:
Cicero wrote:If they were College Dems, there would be more than just a tie in his mouth.
Yea, there would be a bong. What's yer freakin point?

You were expecting one?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:01 pm

Otis wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Cicero wrote:If they were College Dems, there would be more than just a tie in his mouth.
Yea, there would be a bong. What's yer freakin point?
You were expecting one?

I was hoping he'd delve into his vast experience as a agy Republican to shed some light on this matter.

~sigh~

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:12 pm

They do seem to be well fed.
Guess they're Republicans 'cause they want to make sure the trough stays full.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:11 pm

Mikey wrote:They do seem to be well fed.
Guess they're Republicans 'cause they want to make sure the trough stays full.

That reminds me of that old Supply Side mantra, "An overfed Republican sinks all boats".

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:25 pm

Weight smack ?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:28 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Weight smack ?

Heavy stuff eh?

Hapday · Post by **Hapday** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:53 pm

BSmack wrote:
Mikey wrote:They do seem to be well fed.
Guess they're Republicans 'cause they want to make sure the trough stays full.
That reminds me of that old Supply Side mantra, "An overfed Republican sinks all boats".

This is rich coming from supporters of a party that still has Ted Kennedy as a member.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:53 pm

Here's a BSMACK RACK, well played.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fit ... index.html

Clinton: 'I was a fat band boy'

Hapday · Post by **Hapday** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:54 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Weight smack ?

Next BMonica will be here posting that Democrat' Dads can beat up Republican's Dads.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:55 pm

Hapday wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Weight smack ?

Next BMonica will be here posting that Democrat' Dads can beat up Republican's Dads.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:15 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Here's a BSMACK RACK, well played.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fit ... index.html

Clinton: 'I was a fat band boy'

I think Bubba might have been exaggerating for the cause. See exhibit A

Not exactly looking like the band kid in Hollywood Knights. More likely he was picking up tips from JFK on his Newbaum Turk impersonation.

I'll rack him for trying to do something constructive with his post Presidency.

But, back to the College Republicans, don't you find it revolting that they are ostensibly pro Bush and pro war but would rather sit around looking like drunken dorks than sign up for the military to fight the war they purport to support?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:18 pm

About as revolting as sitting around smoking weed, planning trips to the next concert, selling sodas at a $1.00 a pop to make money for the trip, while decrying capitalism, and "war for oil".

Sure.

fix · Post by **fix** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:23 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Here's a BSMACK RACK, well played.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fit ... index.html

Clinton: 'I was a fat band boy'
I think Bubba might have been exaggerating for the cause. See exhibit A

Not exactly looking like the band kid in Hollywood Knights. More likely he was picking up tips from JFK on his Newbaum Turk impersonation.

I'll rack him for trying to do something constructive with his post Presidency.

But, back to the College Republicans, don't you find it revolting that they are ostensibly pro Bush and pro war but would rather sit around looking like drunken dorks than sign up for the military to fight the war they purport to support?

Could it be that they're following in the footsteps of their media mouthpiece...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:23 pm

Tom In VA wrote:About as revolting as sitting around smoking weed, planning trips to the next concert, selling sodas at a $1.00 a pop to make money for the trip, while decrying capitalism, and "war for oil".

Sure.

At least hippies aren't asking anybody to die for them.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:24 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:About as revolting as sitting around smoking weed, planning trips to the next concert, selling sodas at a $1.00 a pop to make money for the trip, while decrying capitalism, and "war for oil".

Sure.
At least hippies aren't asking anybody to die for them.

Implicitly, they most certainly are.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:06 pm

BSmack wrote:
Cicero wrote:If they were College Dems, there would be more than just a tie in his mouth.
Yea, there would be a bong. What's yer freakin point?

I'd put more money on a cock and balls. Have you seen the hard core democrats that run a muck on college campuses? Two words Freak Show!!!

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:10 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:About as revolting as sitting around smoking weed, planning trips to the next concert, selling sodas at a $1.00 a pop to make money for the trip, while decrying capitalism, and "war for oil".

Sure.
At least hippies aren't asking anybody to die for them.
Implicitly, they most certainly are.

No they are not. No hippie asked for this Bush inspired idiocy in Iraq.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:27 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
BSmack wrote: At least hippies aren't asking anybody to die for them.
Implicitly, they most certainly are.
No they are not. No hippie asked for this Bush inspired idiocy in Iraq.

Keep that mantra going Dorothy, you might get back to Kansas '71.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:39 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Implicitly, they most certainly are.
No they are not. No hippie asked for this Bush inspired idiocy in Iraq.
Keep that mantra going Dorothy, you might get back to Kansas '71.

Having some trouble with reality again?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:48 pm

No, not at all. Reality is, based on each and every citizen in the United States depending upon oil to some degree or another, this "idiocy" is mandatory. U.S. presence in the middle east, in one form or another, is mandatory.

The truth will set you free, but it will probably hurt like hell first.

<obligatory profound quote from "A Few Good Men">

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:56 pm

Tom In VA wrote:No, not at all. Reality is, based on each and every citizen in the United States depending upon oil to some degree or another, this "idiocy" is mandatory. U.S. presence in the middle east, in one form or another, is mandatory.

The truth will set you free, but it will probably hurt like hell first.

<obligatory profound quote from "A Few Good Men">

Tom,

This vendetta in Iraq has nothing to do with our oil supply. If anything, oil prices have gone UP because of this foolishness, not down. Not one single drop of crude has been added to the marketplace because of our invasion and occupation.

Whine all you want about our interdependence on oil, but realize that Iraq has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with profits for oil companies.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:01 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:No, not at all. Reality is, based on each and every citizen in the United States depending upon oil to some degree or another, this "idiocy" is mandatory. U.S. presence in the middle east, in one form or another, is mandatory.

The truth will set you free, but it will probably hurt like hell first.

<obligatory profound quote from "A Few Good Men">
Tom,

This vendetta in Iraq has nothing to do with our oil supply. If anything, oil prices have gone UP because of this foolishness, not down. Not one single drop of crude has been added to the marketplace because of our invasion and occupation.

Whine all you want about our interdependence on oil, but realize that Iraq has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with profits for oil companies.

I'll chalk you up as this is Bush's vendetta against Saddam for attempting to kill his daddy.

:roll:

Brilliant.

For the past 100 years, interest in the Middle East, has been about one major thing, oil.

Enjoy riding that carousel of blame by yourself, the facts are out there. I'll focus on them.

Variable · Post by **Variable** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:47 pm

So the war in Iraq was Bush's master plan to drive UP the oil prices so that refineries and oil producers in the US could maximize profits by charging more?

Hadn't heard that one before. Too many holes in your other black helicopter theories, so you had to make up a new one, eh?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:55 pm

Yeah the rise in oil prices has absolutely nothing to do with the rising overhead of protecting the fields, the refineries, the shipment, etc... etc....

It's not as if Al Queda and the autonomous groups that fall under it's umbrella haven't actually stated that they will attack the oil supply chain.

Hey, "brush doesn't clear itself", and Bush needs a new tractor down at Crawford. That's what this all about.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:47 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Yeah the rise in oil prices has absolutely nothing to do with the rising overhead of protecting the fields, the refineries, the shipment, etc... etc....
It's not as if Al Queda and the autonomous groups that fall under it's umbrella haven't actually stated that they will attack the oil supply chain.

Hey, "brush doesn't clear itself", and Bush needs a new tractor down at Crawford. That's what this all about.

how bout lack of refineries