T1B

The politcal ass kissing and boot licking kicks off in full gear as of last night.

Charlie gets Billary on the National News to get her a free bully pulpit, and proceeds to prostrate himself before the Queen Bitch of the Democratic Party in early pandering to the liberal bent of the the national news media.

Of course this happens the night before the STU address, to give the liberals extra time to jack off on TV. Charlie tried to ask her a couple of questions that the dyke dodged, and she fucking ignored him when he wanted her to give simple yes or no answers.

I will be watching a lot more Court TV, History, Military Channel, Discovery and spending a LOT more time working on my bluegrass guitar work.

Fuck the news media, fuck the upcoming elections, fuck Charlie Gibson and his liberal homies, fuck them all. Bad enough that the Dems will likely landslide in November 2008, but to have the charge led by a cunt like Hillary makes it worse. I call dibs on the biggest shower rod.....

This is damn near as bad as the " Two black coaches in the Super Bowl ever" drivel that the fucking media spews about every 15 seconds...

What if we had ..... 2 Latinos...or 2 Jews.... or 2 cock sucking fagots .....or 2 pussy eating bull dyke butchs .....or God forbid...2 white men ??

If that ever happens again....the horrraahhhh....

Derron interests nobody on the message board.

Hillary wont win in '08. I dont get the National News Media's infatuation w/ her.

So is she a squirter ?

Okay, look, I'm as big of a conservative Republican hardass as anybody on here, but if we're going to smack Hillary, and we are, copiously from now until the election, I think we need an absolute moratorium on any sexual imagery involving her. I don't need to read about Charlie Gibson tickling the Hildebeest's love button. I really don't need to read about Hillary and Greta Van Susteren tearing each other's clothes off and sixtynining each other, as somebody wrote on .net. Da horrah. Some things just need to be off limits. Enough, already.

I'd prefer Chelsea in boots but I have to admit, done up real sexy like and wearing boots Hillary would probably be very sexy.

But still when ole Charlie was "flippin' the bean" as it were, did old Shrillary squirt ?

Derron wrote:I will be watching a lot more Court TV, History, Military Channel, Discovery and spending a LOT more time working on my bluegrass guitar work.

The Evening News ran Derron.

poptart wrote:

Derron wrote:I will be watching a lot more Court TV, History, Military Channel, Discovery and spending a LOT more time working on my bluegrass guitar work.

The Evening News ran Derron.

Must not be too hard.

Rich Fader wrote:Okay, look, I'm as big of a conservative Republican hardass as anybody on here, but if we're going to smack Hillary, and we are, copiously from now until the election, I think we need an absolute moratorium on any sexual imagery involving her. I don't need to read about Charlie Gibson tickling the Hildebeest's love button. I really don't need to read about Hillary and Greta Van Susteren tearing each other's clothes off and sixtynining each other, as somebody wrote on .net. Da horrah. Some things just need to be off limits. Enough, already.

Apparently you have not seen the wytched picture of Hillary sucking off Ted Kennedy in the Oval office... it's all over the e mail circuit... it is a bad thing....

Thanks for not following "the rules"...

:D

I have always been a loyal republican. I see the future and trust me..It's Hillary. I doubted her when she ran in New York and she kicked ass. She's the real deal. She is and always was the brains behind Bill.

I plan on switching to Democrat in Jan '08 and will actively work in this district to help her get elected.

Rich Fader wrote:Okay, look, I'm as big of a conservative Republican hardass as anybody on here...

Huh? What is that supposed to mean? That you "support" the ludicrous incompetancy of this (unelected) cabal/administration? Or, that you "support" huge tax breaks for gluttonous corporations whose business models increasingly resemble those of the 1920's? Or that you "support" Faith-Based "initiatives" and all "science" promoted therein? Or--let's be honest--that you are in a state of tense fear at the prospect of some post-WWII paradigm of John Wayne America being remanded to the scrapheap of demented illusions.

Wake the fuck up, clown. There IS NO "Republican" anything. What, you think Jeff Sessions and John Croynin and Brownback are REAL (just cuz they're not under investigation or indictment?) in any practical sense?

Look, the "Republican hardasses" like Rove and his vile perverted ilk have set in motion the Quagmire of the century which will--matter-of-factly--cost the GOP basically every single seat it still has. You really aren't getting it are you?

Well, buck up, "hardass," because your Commander In Chief is polishing his pathetic drivel one more time to rally YOUR support.

BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaa

WW

...zzzzzzzzzzzz*snort*whadafuc...

Oh. Never mind. It's just LTS B TRDS again.

...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Well, buck up, "hardass," because your Commander In Chief is polishing his pathetic drivel one more time to rally YOUR support.

What and or who do you suggest we support ?

Tom In VA wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Well, buck up, "hardass," because your Commander In Chief is polishing his pathetic drivel one more time to rally YOUR support.

What and or who do you suggest we support ?

http://www.threefloyds.com/

Tom In VA wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Well, buck up, "hardass," because your Commander In Chief is polishing his pathetic drivel one more time to rally YOUR support.

What and or who do you suggest we support ?

That dude is almost as scary as the "Burger King" guy.

Tom In VA wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Well, buck up, "hardass," because your Commander In Chief is polishing his pathetic drivel one more time to rally YOUR support.

What and or who do you suggest we support ?

Well, like everyone else, I'm very unsatisfied with the menu of candidates being offered. I don't like Hillary, though not as fearfully and terrified as the knee-jerk Dittoheads here. And Obama, while obviously a very intelligent and Nice guy, is absurdley unprepared. Edwards is too slick.

I'm going with Hegel. He had the balls to call out the Chimp 'n Cheney several years ago as to what EVERYONE now--including Hardass Republicans--is acknowledging with terrified immediacy, namely that this (unelected) administration is BY FAR the most incompetent and out-of-control in our nation's history. I think he's sane, decent, and electable.

As for Hegel's running mate, this could be a problem, especialy if Major McCain gets in the mix.

I'm talking about RIGHT NOW.

Who is looking out for the U.S. best interest in the world and whose policies are "hopefully" geared towards that ?

Who ?

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I'm going with Hegel. He had the balls to call out the Chimp 'n Cheney several years ago

You really are a pathetically stupid one trick pony.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)


Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

:?

And we've got 18 months of this shit.

Ugh! The informative voting record reveals some very unpleasant traits, no question. Forget the NRA and Abortion stances, these are standard for anyone trying to stay elected in the GOP Nebraska headspace. But the environmental and How Deeply Can I Blow China approach to free trade would make Ayn Rand want to blow Harry Bridges. Here's the thing. I really don't see an electable Democrat at this point. Not even close. And Hagel seems electable and SOMEWHAT palatable. That's what I meant, and grudgingly and reluctantly maintain.

T-in Va, unfortunately no one right now in any position of consequence is really looking out for our best interests. Clearly the catastrophic Quagmire of this (unelected) administration has come about just as much through "good men doing nothing" as the various machinations entailed in the 30-year plan hatched by Rummy, Cheney, Bush and the subsequent Project For The New American Century back in 74.

PL wrote:I have always been a loyal republican. I see the future and trust me..It's Hillary.

I see the sarcasm here, but serious question for anyone: Does this mean that the partisan bullshit is going to get worse before it gets better? I've always felt that Hillary wouldn't get elected because she's way too polarizing, and people are ready for a more moderate candidate to take office. But, with the current administration so far in the dog house, it seems like the platform the Democratic party is running on is, "At least we're not Bush and Cheney." And they'll probably win on that, since they pretty much did it that way a couple months ago. And the Republican platform is, "We're fucked, so it's a rebuilding year."

My problem is I need more. I would like to hear some real answers to real problems, not the incessant finger pointing and mudslinging that we've all gotten used to. I'd hate to think that Hillary or any candidate gets elected simply because she's a woman or worse, simply because she's not a Republican. Shouldn't we have higher standards for electing a commander in chief?

What a clusterfuck politics has gotten to be.

Hmmm, point taken, but was it Lincoln's lifelong ambition to be POTUS?

Seems like today politicians are cultivated into what they are, and are less about the good of the country than they are about getting and staying elected and about getting the $$$$ and power associated with an elected office.

And ol' Honest Abe was elected with the lowest popular vote of any president in history, promptly started a ghastly civil war, suspended habeus corpus, locked up anyone who voiced dissent, and when he finally achieved through horrid attrition a vanquished foe, he visited upon the South an Old Testament vengence that would have made Ghengis Khan nod with some approval. He got what he deserved--a few years too late.

Soooooooooooooo..............he should've allowed the Confederacy to succeed?

Mustang wrote:Soooooooooooooo..............he should've allowed the Confederacy to succeed?

I think you meant secede, but succeed is pretty much the same thing. I think the southern states had a clear constitutional right to secede, and the issue of slavery would have been theirs to answer for. And they would've suffered quite a bit for it, no doubt. (And fuck that recent British "documentary" about If the South Had Won, it was ludicrous.)

But it wasn't nearly that cut and dried. A protracted negotiation accompanied by international pressure--on both sides--and the War could have been avoided. THAT should have been the priority of the president. More to the point, when the South was for all practical purposes defeated--and certainly open to negotiantions highly advantageous to the North, Lincoln was bent on the ghastly decimation of the entire "culture" of the South, and caused tremendous unnecessary damage to the nation--basically retarding the entire South for about one-hundred years. Lincoln was certainly the best poet ever to hold the office, but he was a dreadful failure ultimately as president.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Lincoln was bent on the ghastly decimation of the entire "culture" of the South, and caused tremendous unnecessary damage to the nation--basically retarding the entire South for about one-hundred years.

RACK the fuck out of that.

Yeah because the rest of the country was so "open" and advanced, especially in terms of race relations.


Sincerely,
No it Wasn't and Still Isn't.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: I think the southern states had a clear constitutional right to secede...

Link?

he was a dreadful failure ultimately as president.

Link?

Tom In VA wrote:Yeah because the rest of the country was so "open" and advanced, especially in terms of race relations.


Sincerely,
No it Wasn't and Still Isn't.

Maybe so, but it isn't because we aren't trying.

Tom In VA wrote:So is she a squirter ?

only when i give her the 2 finger jones, with a magillicutty twist.

Tom In VA wrote:Yeah because the rest of the country was so "open" and advanced, especially in terms of race relations.

Sincerely,
No it Wasn't and Still Isn't.

The rest of the country that had abolished involuntary servitude was a hell of a lot more advanced than the south.

William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!

You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...

Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.

You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

BSmack wrote:
The rest of the country that had abolished involuntary servitude was a hell of a lot more advanced than the south.

Wonderbread says what ? But seriously, yes the north's ability to figure out other ways to exploit people, read free labor in the form of child labor and the steady flow of despairing Euros ... the first fruits of industrialization enabled them stop slavery and indentured servitude on the surface. But they just learned more clever means of exploitation.


At issue was LTN's statement and SCREW_MICHIGAN's racking of that statement of the South being set back for 100 years. The North was no saint, as evidenced by their carpetbagging and "divide and conquor" exploitation they learnt from the Brits. It was a much different story when they brought that down to the South. Formerly rich and cozy slave owners didn't cotton to it like good dogs, like those yankee shanty Irish did (my gram from Brooklyn is gonna kill me :) ).

BSmack wrote:
The rest of the country that had abolished involuntary servitude was a hell of a lot more advanced than the south.

William Tecumseh Sherman wrote:You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!

You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...

Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.

You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

[sarcasm]Whatever, B. Pity Lee didn't get it.[/sarcasm]

They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:The rest of the country that had abolished involuntary servitude was a hell of a lot more advanced than the south.

Wonderbread says what ?

That the southern states have always lagged behind the more civilized areas of this fair country. And that was so even before Sherman laid waste to Georgia.

Yeah the "Five Points" were REAL civilized. And gee look at what all that "civilization" brought us now ...... err it's alleged it brought us .... global warming and an addiction to oil that's gonna get more and more people killed.

Really B, your "Yankee" elitism is about as tired as the "South Will Rise" types, I wouldn't be surprised you both have a lot in common.

Cue ... Chuck D

Tom In VA wrote:Yeah the "Five Points" were REAL civilized. And gee look at what all that "civilization" brought us now ...... err it's alleged it brought us .... global warming and an addiction to oil that's gonna get more and more people killed.

Really B, your "Yankee" elitism is about as tired as the "South Will Rise" types, I wouldn't be surprised you both have a lot in common.

Cue ... Chuck D

I thought you folks didn't buy into global warming or the myth of oil addiction? Aren't free markets supposed to sort these things out? You know, like the ones in New York City and Chicago?

And no, I don't mean these kind of markets.



BTW: The Five Points couldn't hold a candle to well... anywhere in New Orleans when it comes to crime, filth and disease.

Oh sure blame everything on the poor Irish