T1B

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:40 pm**

I'm torn between peanut butter and turkey breast...maybe I shoud have both?

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:55 pm**

orcinus wrote:
lk_pick1 wrote: my posts get edited by a mod of some sort.
It's me, Margaret.

^^^^^^ self admitted culprit.........

you should be all over this lk......

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 pm**

Still looking for the amusing part of this thread. My best bet is to keep looking, find my keys and drive outta here.

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:25 pm**

lk_pick1 wrote:Yet, you edit what I post, you comment on what I post -

Next thing we know, you all will be the guys screaming "PRO LIFE, PRO LIFE". Might not be a bad thing, for a bunch of pathetic lefties.

Who edits your posts? Me? Keep lookin' chica. And just for the record, I'm a regsitered member of the GOP.

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:28 pm**

Felix wrote:
orcinus wrote:
lk_pick1 wrote: my posts get edited by a mod of some sort.
It's me, Margaret.
^^^^^^ self admitted culprit.........

you should be all over this lk......

^^^blissfully untouched by Judy Blume resets...

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:44 pm**

Toddowen wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:

UnWAR Sherman for not hitting enough paydirt

Funny stuff.

rack his genuine "wood" paneling......

Posted: **Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:59 pm**

Toddowen wrote:I try to shelter my kids from the sight of people like this as best as I can until they can at least differentiate between nightmare and reality.

Perhaps you should attempt to shelter your kids from your desires to have sex with them.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:07 am**

Felix wrote:
Toddowen wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:

UnWAR Sherman for not hitting enough paydirt

Funny stuff.
rack his genuine "wood" paneling......

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:08 am**

PSUFAN wrote:

UnWAR Sherman for not hitting enough paydirt

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:16 am**

lk_pick1 wrote:Still, I'm right. Un ban Katy.

Katy was run.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:38 pm**

Felix wrote:
orcinus wrote:
lk_pick1 wrote: my posts get edited by a mod of some sort.
It's me, Margaret.
^^^^^^ self admitted culprit.........

you should be all over this lk......

Oh, you mean, Are You There God? It's Me Margaret. Yup, I read it in my youth. All preteen girls read it.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:14 pm**

thanks for that double post "Bart".......

we didn't get it the first time.........

be sure and tell everybody that Felix says hi......

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:08 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
lk_pick1 wrote:post over here with the liberals
there are three dems and 50 GOP types over here.

More like 3 dems, five GOP types, and 30 'independents' who hate everything that the GOP and Bush stand for.

Who all vote dem, of course.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:33 pm**

Diogenes wrote:More like 3 dems, five GOP types, and 30 'independents' who hate everything that the GOP and Bush stand for.

Carol doesn't have that many trolls.

The Taco Cabanas here suck. Much better in San Antonio.

Btw, Larry-lover, Katy isn't banned. She just dropped a bobby pin in her taco and is trying to blame management.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:14 pm**

lk_pick1 wrote: Un ban Katy.

Yeah bring that dumb, gravy training cunt back in here so I can run her stupid hick ass again.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:41 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:More like 3 dems, five GOP types, and 30 'independents' who hate everything that the GOP and Bush stand for.
Carol doesn't have that many trolls.

I'm pretty sure Bace does.

And they all master at the art of suckage.

Posted: **Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:56 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
RadioFan wrote:Carol doesn't have that many trolls.
I'm pretty sure Bace does.

Sorry, Susie. I don't have any. You'll have to find some other excuse as to "why everyone here runs Dio's ass".

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:17 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
lk_pick1 wrote:post over here with the liberals
there are three dems and 50 GOP types over here.

Rack. While your numbers may be a little low (particularly on the GOP side), anyone who thinks this board is dominated by liberals is either extremely delusional, badly in need of a remedial reading comprehension course, or both.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:20 pm**

The Liberal population is far greater than the other boards.

PSUFAN
Bizz
Bsmack
TiC
Felix
Diego
Bushice
Goob
Lst Trn 2
Martyred

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:24 pm**

Cicero wrote:The Liberal population is far greater than the other boards.

PSUFAN
Bizz
Bsmack
TiC
Felix
Diego
Bushice
Goob
Lst Trn 2
Martyred

That's about 1/5 the amount of dittotards around here.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:25 pm**

Cicero wrote:The Liberal population is far greater than the other boards.

PSUFAN
Bizz
Bsmack
TiC
Felix
Diego
Bushice
Goob
Lst Trn 2
Martyred

Hardly a united front there, Crown. Just sayin'.

And you can't exactly compare Perk or Phibes to any of the American liberals here.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:34 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:American liberals

Any more, these threads read like a roll call for fucking retards.

George W Bush is the most liberal politician of prominence right now.

The list above sure doesn't look like a Who's Who of Bush supporters.

ONCE AGAIN -- maybe learn what them big fancy words mean, BEFORE attempting to use them in a sentence.

Talk show hosts are about as reliable for spoon-feeding you your vocabulary as they are reliable for being truthful and accurate about...anything.

So, I'd love to see a new version of this discussion...AFTER certain peole learn what the word "liberal" means...obviously doesn't mean what most of you seem to think it does.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:35 pm**

No, you guys are allowed to think a certain way, I just think you guys def have a strong voice here, unlike some of other boards.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:40 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:American liberals

Any more, these threads read like a roll call for fucking retards.

George W Bush is the most liberal politician of prominence right now.

The list above sure doesn't look like a Who's Who of Bush supporters.

ONCE AGAIN -- maybe learn what them big fancy words mean, BEFORE attempting to use them in a sentence.

Talk show hosts are about as reliable for spoon-feeding you your vocabulary as they are reliable for being truthful and accurate about...anything.

So, I'd love to see a new version of this discussion...AFTER certain peole learn what the word "liberal" means...obviously doesn't mean what most of you seem to think it does.

Ok, Dins, I'll play your game . . .

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

Most of those definitions don't really apply to W, now do they? Here's another definition of liberal, btw, same source . . .

liberal

adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Only the last definition above applies to W.

When you say that he's not a conservative, I get what you're saying in that he's not exactly a Calvin Coolidge-type conservative (neither, for that matter, was Ronald Reagan -- just sayin'). But it's a pretty big leap of faith to go from that to painting him as a liberal.

Basically, W's neither a liberal or a conservative. He's more of a "I care about myself and the rest of my silver-spoon buddies, and fuck all the rest of y'all" type.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:46 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Ok, Dins, I'll play your game . . .

Then play it.

Not with a "dictionary" definition, but a political one.

A "liberal", as a general rule, supports progressive, often broad-sweeping changes to effect a certain goal.

I challenge you to name ONE president in American history that has thrown out more norms and instituted new policies to acieve certain goals than W?

No-bid contracts to facilitate pre-emptive wars, complete gutting of the Bill of Rights, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ....

I can't think of a more "liberal" policy than those.

But, don't tell the self-proclaimed "conservatives" this...their world will come crashing down.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:55 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Ok, Dins, I'll play your game . . .
Then play it.

Not with a "dictionary" definition, but a political one.

A "liberal", as a general rule, supports progressive, often broad-sweeping changes to effect a certain goal.

I challenge you to name ONE president in American history that has thrown out more norms and instituted new policies to acieve certain goals than W?

No-bid contracts to facilitate pre-emptive wars, complete gutting of the Bill of Rights, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ....

Herein lies the difference between W and self-proclaimed "liberals": the goals that liberals try to promote through sweeping changes are goals that will promote progress for all, and move society forward. What W is trying to do is a "Back to the Future"-type approach that, if ever fully implemented, would push most Americans back to the sort of life described in Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle (I strongly recommend that you read that.)

As for the Bill of Rights, it was self-described "liberals" who helped give it the meaning it has today. There was a time when most "conservatives" thought the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And recently, Scalia -- who styles himself as an "originalist" -- has floated the idea that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't apply to the States.

FDR was a liberal. And there's really no comparison between FDR and W. Like I said, W isn't really a liberal or a conservative, more of a "I care about myself and my silver-spoon buddies, and fuck all the rest of y'all" type.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:42 pm**

Yep, definitely a Democrat board

Of course, the notion that the majority here aren't conservative-leaning is right in line with most of lk's and Sissy's takes.

Posted: **Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:21 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:And recently, Scalia -- who styles himself as an "originalist" -- has floated the idea that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't apply to the States.

It quite clearly doesn't.

Read on:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment14/

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment has been held to incorporate the Bill of Rights, or at least most of it, and make it applicable to the States. Scalia's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, the entire First Amendment has been held, at least thus far, to be so incorporated.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:19 am**

mvscal wrote:You can huff and sputter all you want, but it's right there in black and white.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Congress already did with the DOM Act in '96.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:44 pm**

mvscal wrote:You can huff and sputter all you want, but it's right there in black and white.

Huffing and sputtering? I think not.

But you can't read the Bill of Rights without reading it in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:07 pm**

Btw, Dins, if you're looking for a good description of Bush, from a political standpoint, here's one that does the trick far better than "liberal."

Reactionary

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:14 pm**

Crippling Imbecility would be a great name for a rock band.

Sincerely,

Dave Barry

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:17 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Btw, Dins, if you're looking for a good description of Bush, from a political standpoint, here's one that does the trick far better than "liberal."

Reactionary
Further proof of your crippling imbecility.

Responding to Dins' reference to W as a liberal. He's far closer to a reactionary than he is to a liberal.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:23 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
mvscal wrote: Further proof of your crippling imbecility.
Responding to Dins' reference to W as a liberal. He's far closer to a reactionary than he is to a liberal.
That belief, among others, is what makes you a Grade A, irremediable dumbfuck.

Care to back up your take, or are you only willing to grace us with your GED-level pontificating?

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:25 pm**

How in the world is this thread four pages long? Shouldn't it have died during delivery?

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:27 pm**

See You Next Wednesday wrote:How in the world is this thread four pages long? Shouldn't it have died during delivery?

Yeah, but lk's offhand remark that this was the "liberal" board kept it going.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:30 pm**

If it was really a liberal board, George W. Bush would post here.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:40 pm**

One who believes that the New Deal is "socialism," according to at least one of his Business School professors, then seeks to advance a domestic agenda designed specifically to undo the New Deal, is, by definition, engaged in reactionary political behavior.

While we're at it, his contempt for the U.N. is also reactionary.

It's obvious you don't have a clue, once again.

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:56 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:One who believes that the New Deal is "socialism," according to at least one of his Business School professors,
Needless to say, it clearly is.

then seeks to advance a domestic agenda designed specifically to undo the New Deal, is, by definition, engaged in reactionary political behavior.
Attempting to fix a broken Social Security system is "reactionary". Guess again, dumbshit. The fact that you don't agree with his proposed fix is irrelevant.

Privatization is a "fix" for a program that runs a surplus?

Guess again. It's a rather transparent attempt to zero-fund Social Security by an end-around, rather than head-on. He loses if he tries it head-on, and he knows it.

While we're at it, his contempt for the U.N. is also reactionary.
Speaking of clueless. Contempt for an ineffective, unresponse, bloated, do nothing bureaucracy is "reactionary"?!? Pull your head out your ass, idiot.

Once again, he is moving forward and leaving the relics of the past behind while dragging reactionaries like you kicking and screaming.

Are you trying to troll here or are you really this stupid?

The U.N. has been around only 60 years. In the greater scheme of things, that's a pretty short period of time. W is not moving forward, he's going back to the old days, i.e., before the U.N. existed, in terms of how he settles his disputes.

Are you really that dense?

Posted: **Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:09 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Privatization is a "fix" for a program that runs a surplus?
For how long? Do we just sit around, do nothing and wait for inevitable trainwreck? The reactionary says, yes.

No. I myself have suggested raising the retirement age to 70. Common-sense solution, or at least it seems one to me, and far less risky than privatization.

T1B

How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing

Re: How Amusing