Breaking News: Obama steps on dick again

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:04 pm

I haven't been a republican in at least 15 years, SCS, and it sounds like you're hitting the bong every 15 minutes again

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:30 pm

mvscal wrote:He's high on JEEBUS!! PRAISE THE LORDY, BITCH!!

MV, you actually post in the Theological forum so you know better than to lump me in with the Christers....

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:59 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:
mvscal wrote:He's high on JEEBUS!! PRAISE THE LORDY, BITCH!!

MV, you actually post in the Theological forum so you know better than to lump me in with the Christers....

We all know you're a heathen.

Sirfindafold · Post by **Sirfindafold** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:01 pm

what exactly is an asshat?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:15 am

There are lots. Here's a few:

{img]sirfindafold{/img]

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:46 pm

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:18 pm

Cuda wrote:

Funny. RACK and thanks.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu May 01, 2008 7:06 pm

and while we're at it...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu May 01, 2008 7:10 pm

BWA-HAHAHAHAHA

dat borders on de sublime.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu May 01, 2008 7:13 pm

How about this chicken? You know, the one who McCain is "proud" to be endorsed by.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu May 01, 2008 7:30 pm

You're comparing apples to scotch tape, Monica

Surely you need a midol by now.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu May 01, 2008 7:43 pm

Obsessed with sex much Rev. Hagee?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:14 pm

kinda hard to fault barack HUSSEIN for thinking that church was just a place for disgruntled folks to here about how the man's holdin' them down. apparently he just assumed white churches are pretty much like black ones.

And B, you give the "some of my friends are racist pieces of shit too" rational for obama's relationship with Wright. Would you describe any of these dudes as "spiritual advisors"?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu May 01, 2008 8:58 pm

I'm resetting that pic on page 3 simply because it didn't get nearly enough run on page 2. I don't want anybody to miss it.

Note the upturned eyes. Freaking classic.

Rack Coods, btw.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu May 01, 2008 9:07 pm

I know you're all looking for part 3.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu May 01, 2008 10:01 pm

l to r: B-Monica

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu May 01, 2008 10:36 pm

I'm glad America is turning their back on Obama. I knew it wouldn't last.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:59 am

Martyred wrote:I'm glad America is turning their back on Obama. I knew it wouldn't last.

Not so fast Marty.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/ ... 9259.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon May 05, 2008 6:24 am

OH?

So you tell ME not to believe what the media feeds us,

but you do, as long as it suits your stance?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:58 am

Mister Bushice wrote:OH?

So you tell ME not to believe what the media feeds us,

but you do, as long as it suits your stance?

Apples and hand grenades douchebag. Not that I would expect you to understand.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon May 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Looks like B-Monica has taken quite a fancy to Sheriff Obama

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon May 05, 2008 3:41 pm

DE PERE, Wis. -- U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., still isn't saying which Democratic presidential candidate he prefers.

At a listening session in De Pere on Saturday, Feingold said he'll be happy either way, but he's just anxious for the Democratic race to be resolved.

U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have dueled in a fiercely contested battle for the nomination. Feingold said he voted for Obama in Wisconsin's February primary but he hasn't committed to backing the Illinois senator at the convention.

Audience member Tom German disagreed with Feingold's opposition to the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. He quoted Vince Lombardi saying, "The best defense is a good offense."

Feingold replied that Lombardi always knew something about the team he was playing.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:34 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:Feingold replied that Lombardi always knew something about the team he was playing.

Feingold is still an idiot. We know all we need to know about the team we are 'playing', namely that they want us all dead.

Exceptpt for the Quislings like you and Russ. You just have to convert.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:38 pm

Diaphanous wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Feingold replied that Lombardi always knew something about the team he was playing.
We know all we need to know about the team we are 'playing'

You mean how we knew that when we invaded they were going to welcome us with open arms?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:50 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Diaphanous wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Feingold replied that Lombardi always knew something about the team he was playing.
We know all we need to know about the team we are 'playing'
You mean how we knew that when we invaded they were going to welcome us with open arms?

Actually I mean...

Diogenes wrote:namely that they want us all dead.

Exactly who do you think (regerdless of how the war so far was handled or mishandled) we are 'playing' with now?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:02 pm

But at the start of the game, it appears that Coach Chucklehead did not know who he was playing. And Coach Chucklehead got played.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:25 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:But at the start of the game, it appears that Coach Chucklehead did not know who he was playing. And Coach Chucklehead got played.

By what criteria and qualification do you make that assessment ?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri May 09, 2008 9:34 pm

Diogenes wrote:...namely that they want us all dead.

We don't want you all dead. Some of your more able bodied dipshits can provide valuable forced labour.

You can remain Christian if you like, or in your case, kinky-haired, hook-nosed yid.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 09, 2008 11:38 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:But at the start of the game, it appears that Coach Chucklehead did not know who he was playing. And Coach Chucklehead got played.
By what criteria and qualification do you make that assessment ?

He thought he was gonna waltz in there and it was gonna be a cakewalk. See "Mission Accomplished". He got sucked into a protracted quagmire that is draining us financially. That was everything Bin Laden hoped for.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sat May 10, 2008 5:16 am

Goober McTuber wrote: He thought he was gonna waltz in there and it was gonna be a cakewalk. See "Mission Accomplished". He got sucked into a protracted quagmire that is draining us financially. That was everything Bin Laden hoped for.

Whether you or I believe it or not, the banner was on the ship on it's way home. But that's his fault, he should be aware of the power of perception. Unfortunately he's about as graceful and tactful as a bull in a china shop. And I don't mean the one in the Merrill Lynch commercial of old.

I vaguely remember the mantra being about the war on terror being a pretty protracted one. Where some of the fronts would be seen on t.v. and others not. Not too sure about them having a notion of a quick, cakewalk of a campaign.

Strategic and tactical foibles are out of my league. The logistical foibles that occurred, line units moving faster than their logistical support groups, and the deployment of vehicles not intended for this type of fighting (unarmored HUMVEES) are apparent. NO campaign is without error though. As I struggle to comprehend this, madness, I am compelled to look back to history - precedent if you will - in order to put things into perspective. While I come up short the notions of SNAFUS and "FUBAR" are not new and not catchy terms from a movie. They happen and it seems to be as much a part of war as death and destruction. I think mvscal has better takes on the tactical and strategic miscues made by the Administration and the leadership hierarchy they had in place. I'm, just empty, but rambled on to just say - I can't argue with you on this point.

I agree, this has been a part of their (Al Quada's) plan. The rise in expenditures over the past few years and the economic downturn due to the price of gas, housing market, etc.. etc.. Valid point in my opinion. Could be coincidence but I guess only time will tell.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat May 10, 2008 8:00 pm

Tom In VA wrote:...the tactical and strategic miscues made by the Administration...

Strategic planning is done from Petraeus' command downwards.

Tactical planning is done, I think, from brigade level and downwards.

Miscues by the Administration are made on the "Grand Strategy" level, is what I think you meant.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sun May 11, 2008 3:35 am

This is true, however the commands you mentioned all fall under the Executive Branch, which is currently led by Bush and his administrative appointees. So they are ulimtately responsible for success and/or failure of decisions taken at those lower levels.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun May 11, 2008 4:18 am

Tom In VA wrote:This is true, however the commands you mentioned all fall under the Executive Branch, which is currently led by Bush and his administrative appointees. So they are ulimtately responsible for success and/or failure of decisions taken at those lower levels.

At what point during the Bush regime did the buck ever stop there?

Since January 2001, it's been about throwing disposable nobodies under the bus to cover for the fuck ups of upper management.

Yeah, I know, everyone does it...but with the Bush administration it's been to a mockingly absurd level.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sun May 11, 2008 5:18 am

Pretty standard operating procedure in any line of work with a management hierarchy. Hire people based on the hope they can deliver, when they don't, replace them. The CEO is expected to deliver something, hires people that he believes will get the job done. Gives them the opportunity and resources available to get the job done - they don't. So they go bye bye and a new team comes in.

We're no different when we're consumers of a service and I suspect anyone in here who is in management has been in a similiar situation of having to get rid of employees that aren't delivering.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun May 11, 2008 8:19 pm

Tom In VA wrote:We're no different when we're consumers of a service and I suspect anyone in here who is in management has been in a similiar situation of having to get rid of employees that aren't delivering.

Which is exactly what voters will be doing this fall when McCain's attempt to serve out Bush's 3rd term fail.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Sun May 11, 2008 11:07 pm

If the majority of voting Americans think like you, you are correct. But we'll see. IF continuing to assist Iraq build their country is in the best interests of the United States, Obama will come up empty on his promise to "bring the boys back home", just as all the members of the house and senate elected two years ago have. Of course he'll never actually SAY, it's because it is in the best interest of the U.S., he'll play it off and have people such as yourself continue to blame Bush. Iraq will stabilize in a few years, under his term, and he'll - rightfully get credit. Bush might or might not be somewhat vindicated in history.

IF he is not sold on the idea that is in the best interests of the U.S., he will pull the troops out and it will resemble Saigon - 1975 (if we're lucky). Bush will be to blame and Dems will congratulate themselves that they were right along, global violence will increase and the U.S. will be rendered impotent throughout the world.

Those are my two predictions.

I hope for the former as I do believe it is in the best interest of our country and western civilization.

My primary concern with Obama as president is the vulnerability to internal violence it might cause. Some parallels are being made to John F. Kennedy. A "first" (Irish, Catholic), and a very charismatic and dynamic man filled with the vitality of youth. Obama is such a man and the parallels hold water in my opinion. The problem is if some numbnut is able to kill him as JFK was killed. I view it as a point of vulnerability, one that I do not put past our enemies - forgeign and/or domestic to exploit.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon May 12, 2008 12:44 am

Tom In VA wrote: Bush might or might not be somewhat vindicated in history.

Please. Just stop already. It's over.

"Never reinforce failure. Failure reinforces itself."

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon May 12, 2008 12:46 am

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:We're no different when we're consumers of a service and I suspect anyone in here who is in management has been in a similiar situation of having to get rid of employees that aren't delivering.
Which is exactly what voters will be doing this fall when McCain's attempt to serve out Bush's 3rd term fail.

McCain will thump Obama in November. I'm talking landslide. Hillary would lose, but at least keep the race respectable.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon May 12, 2008 12:50 am

Martyred wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Bush might or might not be somewhat vindicated in history.
Please. Just stop already. It's over.

Bush will be vindicated by history, just like Truman and Reagan were.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:35 am

War Wagon wrote:
Martyred wrote:
Tom In VA wrote: Bush might or might not be somewhat vindicated in history.
Please. Just stop already. It's over.
Bush will be vindicated by history, just like Truman and Reagan were.

Oh, horseshit, Whitey. He will go down in history as one of the three worst presidents ever. Given time, he just might be recognized as THE worst.