T1B

"Barak Huseien Obama has just won the Westminister dog show! The first time a non-canine has ever been nominated!"

I hear Obama has been nominated for the Bud Light Real Men of Genius award. Can't wait to here the honorary jingle.

Bud Light Presents...Real. Men. Of. Genius.

Real Men of Genius

Today we salute you, President Barack Hussein Obama.

I'm not really a Muuuuuuslim.

Only you, a man who has never really accomplished anything, can win the Nobel Peace Prize

At least I'm not Dubba-U!

That's right. While us Americans are busy paying off bad loans and bailing out the auto industry, you and your lover Mike are jetting off begging for the Olympic games. BRILLIANT!

Don't forget Ooooooprah!

So crack open an ice cold Bud Light and remember...the only things guaranteed in life are taxes and death panels.

Health insurance toooo.

Anheiser Busch, St. Louis, Missouri.

Rack this thread.

There will come a day in the not too distant future when people will wistfully remember W's presidency as being the last time we, as a nation, had adult supervision.

That's actually a pretty good line!

with all the trouble you guys have taken to convince obama is just like bush, i suppose that means you like obama. awesome.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of taxing those who pull their own weight more, cut welfare for those who aren't. Don't think Bush advocated taxing more to those who actually work hard and earn rather than leech.

And the comparisons to Bush are more along the lines of Obama promising one thing and resigning to do "more of the same" as opposed to "hope and change". Maybe he meant "home TO change" and still a FAIL on that too.

M Club wrote:with all the trouble you guys have taken to convince obama is just like bush, i suppose that means you like obama. awesome.

Who said anyone liked W ? Respecting someone and "liking" someone are two entirely different things.

IndyFrisco wrote:Here's a novel idea. Instead of taxing those who pull their own weight more, cut welfare for those who aren't. Don't think Bush advocated taxing more to those who actually work hard and earn rather than leech.

And the comparisons to Bush are more along the lines of Obama promising one thing and resigning to do "more of the same" as opposed to "hope and change". Maybe he meant "home TO change" and still a FAIL on that too.

There are only two things to remember about GWB...
1)Too much of a uniter, not enough of a divider.
2)Everything will still be his fault 20 years from now.

Tom In VA wrote:

M Club wrote:with all the trouble you guys have taken to convince obama is just like bush, i suppose that means you like obama. awesome.

Who said anyone liked W ? Respecting someone and "liking" someone are two entirely different things.

excuse my semantics. how about: if obama's policies mimic bush's then most of you should be rabid supporters.

M Club wrote:with all the trouble you guys have taken to convince obama is just like bush, i suppose that means you like obama. awesome.

Apparently, Obama likes Bush, that's why he's validated the former administrations policies by doing the exact same thing.

But of course to libtard world nation, anything Bush did = bad but if Obama does it, it's all good.

Double Standard? Maybe.

Hypocritical douchebags? Most definitely.

M Club wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

M Club wrote:with all the trouble you guys have taken to convince obama is just like bush, i suppose that means you like obama. awesome.

Who said anyone liked W ? Respecting someone and "liking" someone are two entirely different things.

excuse my semantics. how about: if obama's policies mimic bush's then most of you should be rabid supporters.

I don't hate what he is doing (which is no different that what we had). I hate what he claims he wants to do.

M Club wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

M Club wrote:with all the trouble you guys have taken to convince obama is just like bush, i suppose that means you like obama. awesome.

Who said anyone liked W ? Respecting someone and "liking" someone are two entirely different things.

excuse my semantics. how about: if obama's policies mimic bush's then most of you should be rabid supporters.

Depends, as it did with Bush.

Tom In VA wrote: Who said anyone liked W ? Respecting someone and "liking" someone are two entirely different things.

I liked Dubya', I still like Dubya'. And I respect him. Dude was as honest as the day is long, didn't pull any punches, and always had the best interests of his country at heart. I believe he was and is an honorable man and a great U.S. president. That's what I believe, and anybody who thinks different can suck my enormous dick.

What I don't like or respect is bitch ass punks talking out of both sides of their mouth trying to win a popularity contest.

Tom In VA wrote:

M Club wrote:excuse my semantics. how about: if obama's policies mimic bush's then most of you should be rabid supporters.

Depends, as it did with Bush.

i was actually laughing at the shitdicks in here falling all over themselves to point out the similarities between obama and bush. i wouldn't classify you as such. despite indy's clarification, it doesn't really matter what context the comparisons were made.

IndyFrisco wrote: I don't hate what he is doing (which is no different that what we had). I hate what he claims he wants to do.

i'm the opposite. then again, i rode equestrian on a unicorn.

M Club wrote: i'm the opposite.

Translation: "I'm as queer as a $3 dollar bill."

Good spot for THIS re-set.


Btw, FlagWagon, Bush didn't have the best interests of the country at heart.
He pissed in the face of taxpaying citizens by leaving our borders wide azz open.

Mexifornia is flat fucking BROKE.

War Wagon wrote:

M Club wrote: i'm the opposite.

Translation: "I'm as queer as a $3 dollar bill."

ever consider stand up?

MClub is too stupid to comprehend what's been posted by "us". I was pointing out that it doesn't nake sense for the Nobel Cmte to give Obama the priize for being the other than Bush. It doesn't make sense because on foreign policy matters Obama has been and is maintaining the most important Bush policies - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, rendition, Gitmo, etc. Noting such similarities though is neither criticism nor approval you idiot, MClub. It's making an observation.

BTW, I disagreed with Bushs approach with Iran and the broader strategy re: the war against terrorism.

But don't let actual words and facts get in the way of yet another ignorant conclusion that you've drawn.

JMak wrote:MClub is too stupid to comprehend what's been posted by "us". I was pointing out that it doesn't nake sense for the Nobel Cmte to give Obama the priize for being the other than Bush. It doesn't make sense because on foreign policy matters Obama has been and is maintaining the most important Bush policies - Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, rendition, Gitmo, etc. Noting such similarities though is neither criticism nor approval you idiot, MClub. It's making an observation.

BTW, I disagreed with Bushs approach with Iran and the broader strategy re: the war against terrorism.

But don't let actual words and facts get in the way of yet another ignorant conclusion that you've drawn.

yet another wanker who defines ignorance as the opposite of his opinions.

why don't you go fly off the handle and type yourself into more circles, homo.

88 wrote: I don't know what the answer is.

Give me a choice when I go to the polls. And not a choice between two equally shitty douche bags.

Good lord, not you too, 88?

There is an answer and you have a choice.

They're called "primaries", did you vote in yours?

Enough with the unproductive self-flagellation over the American electoral system.

The two party system has worked for over 200 years, it still works.

The founders intentionally set it up this way.

M Club wrote: ever consider stand up?

No.

Ever consider trying to frame a political arguement outside the context of a flaming liberal agenda?

Go marry your boyfriend already. At least abortion isn't one of your issues.

War Wagon wrote:

M Club wrote: ever consider stand up?

No.

Ever consider trying to frame a political arguement outside the context of a flaming liberal agenda?

Go marry your boyfriend already. At least abortion isn't one of your issues.

good. i'm still trying to understand the thought processes of a honkey retard whose first impulse toward response is "hurr, hurr, yr gaaay!" pity if you actually had to cycle through a few drafts to come up with that gem.

who even says i'm a liberal?

ever try to frame a political argument outside the context of your sheer ignorance:

The two party system has worked for over 200 years, it still works.

The founders intentionally set it up this way.

JMak wrote:The only difference re: foreign policy is that with Bush you knew where he stood. He didn't announce a major change in strategy in April following major deliberations only to say in October that he's reviewing the situation again and stalling.

Of course not. Bush would just keep pursuing the same disastrous policy for 8 years without ever once admitting he was dead wrong. That is why he will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents in American history. Well, that and his utter lack of intellectual curiosity, his bullying personality and his utter cluelessness about even the most basic facts.

War Wagon wrote:The two party system has worked for over 200 years, it still works.

The founders intentionally set it up this way.

Huh? Read the Constitution. You won't find any mention of political parties. In fact, many of the framers were extremely distrustful of political parties (although that fact didn't stop many of them from later joining a political party).

That having been said, I will agree with you that the Electoral College is the single biggest insitutional protector of the status quo two party system. But it hasn't always been that way. See the Election of 1800. It wasn't until after the Twelfth Amendment tweeked the Electoral College setup a bit that it's been conducive to the two party system.

mvscal wrote:You do realise that he's an idiot, don't you?

This coming from somebody who eschews the American spelling of "realize" and whose avatar is



I suppose I should take that as a compliment.

JMak wrote:But don't let actual words and facts get in the way of yet another ignorant conclusion that you've drawn.

I, for one, am not. "Rack Dubya" ring any bells? How many times did you post that as Dr. Detroit, just cuious?

War Wagon wrote:The two party system has worked for over 200 years, it still works.

The founders intentionally set it up this way.

What kind of fucked up history do they teach in missouri?

So are you a Federalist or a Democratic-Republican? Since third parties have no place in our two party system, those are still running right?

Anytime WW posts this song should play...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YZdJRDpLHbw&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YZdJRDpLHbw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

that fat, toothless fuck is just like every other worthless hillbilly who happens to know the bible and constitution were written by jesus himself yet have never read either because they're too busy railing on about the real america.

88 wrote:We had essentially a one-party system when the founders were setting up the joint. Read up. The Federalists basically ran everything. We've had a two-party system (with many different versions of the two parties) since 1824. And there are many other minor parties in this country. Many people consider themselves to be independents these days. All it will take is for a good person to come forward and actually lead, and people will abandon the D's and R's in droves. Hell, the elf from Tejas nearly pulled it off in 1992.

Actually...

1)When the founders were setting up the joint we had a zero party system, they were opposed to the entire concept. It became a two-party system over the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans arguing over who hated John Adams more. And the Federalists sank into obscurity after stabbing him in the back.

2) There have always been third parties-and they've always been irrelevant at best, harmful at worst. Forget the little pscho with the big ears managing to get Clinton into the White House. In 1912, we had a popular former POTUS running as a third party candidate and actually out polling the incumbent. Outcome? President Tommy Wilson, possibly the worst of all time. All third parties do if anything at all is ensure the most extreme and usually worst candidate actually wins.

3) The only time a third party gains viability is when one of the two major ones breaks up. And they inevitably become a weak minority. Even the Republicans in 1860 only won the Presidential because the opposition split the vote three ways-and they had minorities in both houses of Congress until the dumbass Southerners decided to take their ball and go home.

4)...

88 wrote:There hasn't been a good choice for president in years. Even as horrible as Obama has performed the first nine months of his administration, no one has emerged from either party to inspire me that they could do much better. They all suck.

Pretty much what the Germans thought about Weimar in the 30s. Just because nobody is up to your standards doesn't mean they are all equally bad.

Germany got their Hope and Change. And eventually their rightful place on the dustbin of history.

Welcome to deja vu all over again.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

JMak wrote:But don't let actual words and facts get in the way of yet another ignorant conclusion that you've drawn.

I, for one, am not. "Rack Dubya" ring any bells? How many times did you post that as Dr. Detroit, just cuious?

Almost without fail someone will criticise a spelling situation and then totally crap all over themselves. That it was a braindead moron like this idiot makes it that much more entertaining.

Figure out 2 + 2 yet, Corky?

rozy wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

JMak wrote:But don't let actual words and facts get in the way of yet another ignorant conclusion that you've drawn.

I, for one, am not. "Rack Dubya" ring any bells? How many times did you post that as Dr. Detroit, just cuious?

Almost without fail someone will criticise a spelling situation and then totally crap all over themselves. That it was a braindead moron like this idiot makes it that much more entertaining.

Figure out 2 + 2 yet, Corky?

My God and GOD, you are one stupid Texan (oops, my bad, redundancy).

Mine was a typo. I didn't criticize a spelling error. I in fact acknowledged that there are two accepted spellings of the word "realize." Just found it curious that mvscal eschews the American spelling, as you do of the word "criticize."

See what I mean? Situation does not necessarily equate to error in this context.

Nice job...... attorney.

2 + 2

Please quote for me where I indicated that you criticised a spelling error.

Dadgum but you are as dumb as a 3 day old wet spot.

U of Phoenix called. They want your law degree back.

rozy wrote:See what I mean? Situation does not necessarily equate to error in this context.

Nice job...... attorney.

2 + 2

Please quote for me where I indicated that you criticised a spelling error.

Dadgum but you are as dumb as a 3 day old wet spot.

U of Phoenix called. They want your law degree back.

My bad, you said spelling "situation" x infinity

That you don't recognize the difference between a typo and a conscious spelling decision speaks volumes about you, none of it good.

What are you rolling your eyes at? The fact that this thread was about as effective for you as your last trip to "confession"?

LV, your deleted mudshark comment about Obama's mom had more oomph.

Why'd it appear alongside her avatar?

Ah, I get it. You deleted her post, then her subsequent post.

I thought maybe she deleted her own post and replaced it with another one which didn't include the "mudshark" reference. I forgot that you're deleting all her posts.

Gotcha. Thanks.