So Fnord.... Are you going to vote for Obama?

...this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s.

Has it occurred to you, Orrin, that "activist government" might have fallen back into public favor?  And that you neocon idiots have only yourselves to blame for that?  You got everything you ever wanted--virtual complete control of the government via a lopsided Congress--and you have fucked things up so badly that the electorate is too disgusted to vote for you, even though the other guys' candidate is a darkie.

Your side is going to lose to a darkie, Orrin.  The pain this is causing you and your cronies is a joy to me.

*sniff*  *sniff*

Smell the desperation.

Dmtdust wrote:

So Fnord.... Are you going to vote for Obama?

I’m afraid so.  Sociopaths like Bush, McCain, and the ayatollahs of the Religious Right dominate the Republican Party.  These people are too stupid to limit their theft from the public coffers to sustainable levels that ensure the host will be able to support its parasites over the long term.

Obama stated during the Democratic debates that he would allow his advisors to run the government.  The party has installed Biden as his primary keeper; I trust the rest of his handlers will be of similar caliber.

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

So, last time there was all-out liberal control was 1965? So the 70's were the product of that era's genius?

lulz...

You really are a fucking moron. 

The Democratic party didn't become the party of liberals until the 70s.

Are you seriously claiming that there are - In fact - liberal-minded individuals in the Democratic party?  I defy you to name one.

No-Thing personal;  But, you ignorant, petty, little, believe-what-you're-told, divisive fucks disgust me.  I'm sure that it's simply a condition of your societal up-bringing; Still, . . .  (And, yeah, I'm obviously "in one of my moods" this evening - What of it?)

Last edited by Decadence (2008-10-19 03:04:00)

Decadence wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

So, last time there was all-out liberal control was 1965? So the 70's were the product of that era's genius?

lulz...

You really are a fucking moron. 

The Democratic party didn't become the party of liberals until the 70s.

Are you seriously claiming that there are - In fact - liberal-minded individuals in the Democratic party?  I defy you to name one.

No-Thing personal;  But, you ignorant, petty, little, believe-what-you're-told, divisive fucks disgust me.  I'm sure that it's simply a condition of your societal up-bringing; Still, . . .  (And, yeah, I'm obviously "in one of my moods" this evening - What of it?)

"Liberal" is a relative term, obviously.

Emmeran wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

For a man who championed a 3/4 Trillion dollar nationalization bill, McCain sure is loose with the Socialist accusations.

Fucking nimrods with their catch phrases.  Socialism is deeply ingrained in the American culture.  We are a country of public utilities, public schools, public retirement, public healthcare (yes we already have that); the list goes on and on.  Fuck even public roads are socialism.

And to be honest I don't trust any greedy businessman to manage institutions or resources that are the foundation of our economy.

I agree...I'd still rather have government mismanagement over corporate raping and pilaging.  I can't think of one government function that worked better after it was contracted out or privatized.

Emmeran wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Fucking nimrods with their catch phrases.  Socialism is deeply ingrained in the American culture.  We are a country of public utilities, public schools, public retirement, public healthcare (yes we already have that); the list goes on and on.  Fuck even public roads are socialism.

And to be honest I don't trust any greedy businessman to manage institutions or resources that are the foundation of our economy.

I agree...I'd still rather have government mismanagement over corporate raping and pilaging.  I can't think of one government function that worked better after it was contracted out or privatized.

Are you still whining about Enron?

Government mismanagement isn't a foregone conclusion, we (as a people) have and still do a number of things very well.  Of course we do have issues with our labor laws managing government employees; hell the only ones you can fire or layoff are the military.

Not Enron -- Haliburton.  The US basically gave them license to steal. 

Also, I think mismanagement is a foregone conclusion, but it's the degree.  I'd rather have the (relatively) small losses via government mismanagement than the large (and largely unaccounted for) theft from privatization and contractors.

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

So, last time there was all-out liberal control was 1965? So the 70's were the product of that era's genius?

lulz...

You really are a fucking moron. 

The Democratic party didn't become the party of liberals until the 70s.  Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1964, and Jesse Helms was a Democrat until 1970.  Southern Democrats in 1965 were the same as today's Republicans.  In 1965, the Democrats were still the party of southern racists.  The big switch didn't occur until 1972 when many jumped ship to vote for Nixon.  That was part of the "southern strategy."

So the problems of the 70s were purely a vestige of the (Southern) Democrat controlled congress, who were all (future) Republicans.

More accurately, there was a defining moment that changed the Democratic party for good, the Democratic National Convention of 1968.  They celebrated that day with riots, overturned cars, in fighting, and idle threats.  Afterward, the conservatives in the party were all pushed out systematically as no one is allowed to have a descending idea in today's party.  Oddly enough, the convention was in Chicago, within walking distance of where Obama plans to have his election night party.

Dmtdust wrote:

So Fnord.... Are you going to vote for Obama?

He's a racist, not a moron, Dusty.

Of course he's voting for Obama.

fortinbras wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

So, last time there was all-out liberal control was 1965? So the 70's were the product of that era's genius?

lulz...

You really are a fucking moron. 

The Democratic party didn't become the party of liberals until the 70s.  Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1964, and Jesse Helms was a Democrat until 1970.  Southern Democrats in 1965 were the same as today's Republicans.  In 1965, the Democrats were still the party of southern racists.  The big switch didn't occur until 1972 when many jumped ship to vote for Nixon.  That was part of the "southern strategy."

So the problems of the 70s were purely a vestige of the (Southern) Democrat controlled congress, who were all (future) Republicans.

More accurately, there was a defining moment that changed the Democratic party for good, the Democratic National Convention of 1968.  They celebrated that day with riots, overturned cars, in fighting, and idle threats.  Afterward, the conservatives in the party were all pushed out systematically as no one is allowed to have a descending idea in today's party.  Oddly enough, the convention was in Chicago, within walking distance of where Obama plans to have his election night party.

WRONG, on many levels.  The riots were the result of Mayor Daley being overzealous in attempting to suppress peaceful protesters, who were tear-gassed and beat by the police.  People were divided on the issue. Many sided with Daley against the "yippies" simply because they didn't like the anti-war movement.  Many Democrats left the party because they were racists who were not happy with Johnson and his push for civil rights, not because they were pushed out.  Also, there are plenty of dissenting voices in the Democratic party, like Kucinich, for example, who always seemed more than a little bit nutty to me, but is a champion as far as my left leaning liberal friends are concerned.

headkicker_girl wrote:

like Kucinich, for example, who always seemed more than a little bit nutty to me, but is a champion as far as my left leaning liberal friends are concerned.

I'd vote for Kucinich for President JUST so I could stare at his wife for four years.  Yowza!

Dmtdust wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

fortinbras wrote:

More accurately, there was a defining moment that changed the Democratic party for good, the Democratic National Convention of 1968.  They celebrated that day with riots, overturned cars, in fighting, and idle threats.  Afterward, the conservatives in the party were all pushed out systematically as no one is allowed to have a descending idea in today's party.  Oddly enough, the convention was in Chicago, within walking distance of where Obama plans to have his election night party.

WRONG, on many levels.  The riots were the result of Mayor Daley being overzealous in attempting to suppress peaceful protesters, who were tear-gassed and beat by the police.  People were divided on the issue. Many sided with Daley against the "yippies" simply because they didn't like the anti-war movement.  Many Democrats left the party because they were racists who were not happy with Johnson and his push for civil rights, not because they were pushed out.  Also, there are plenty of dissenting voices in the Democratic party, like Kucinich, for example, who always seemed more than a little bit nutty to me, but is a champion as far as my left leaning liberal friends are concerned.

I have come to believe over the last few years that Foot-in-Ass is dumb and uneducated as a sack of hammers.  Stupid is as stupid writes, I'd say.

I just hope your embargo of Oliver Stone films continues and you won't waste your time seeing "W" after those restaurant incidents you told me about.

but dude had a cameo in Repo Man (he's the laudromat dude with the pistol holder.) You can make a million JFKs and still be a cool motherfucker if you can say "I was in Repo Man."

And I liked Nixon.

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-10-19 16:06:41)

I haven't seen all his movies, but from what I have seen, the only good movie the man ever made was Salvador, and that was a fuck of a long time ago.

Alas, poor Rick.

headkicker_girl wrote:

...and who watches Oliver Stone movies and thinks they are documentaries?  That would be like listening to Rush Limbaugh and confusing it with journalism.

I don't, and never have.  They're movies, and I judge them by their quality as movies, and IMO they're just not that great.  (I admit I was riveted by all eight or whatever hours of JFK, but while it was full of great performances, it really wasn't that good a movie.)

jesusluvspegging wrote:

I tried really hard to watch JFK a couple of times, but that movie knocks my ass right out.  I'll get through a reel or two of it and then wake up during the credits soaked in my own drool.

It's not short attention span either: 2001 is my favorite movie.

I specifically remember Kevin Bacon as a really jittery repulsive 50s faggot, and Joe Pesci as whatever crazy sonofabitch he was playing; and especially Gary Oldman as Oswald.  I love the fuck out of Gary Oldman.  I would watch him do anything.

But no--if you actually try to follow "plot" of the thing, or try to get it to make any sense, you'll just get a headache.

Jesus, tojo, actually reading those posts puts you at risk for brain damage--be careful.

square wrote:

Alas, poor Rick.

Cry me a river. My brother was on Senator Wofford's campaign staff. Everything bro warned us about golden boy Santorum and the support he was building in the GOP came to pass. Had this man continued to rise in power with his Presidential ambitions, we would long for the gentle halcyon days of Bush.

He arrived by unseating Harris Wofford in 1994. Mr. Wofford was a brainy but hard-to-pin-down academic who won the post amid a voter uprising over a sour economy, middle-class insecurity and his opponent's association with an unpopular president....

...Mr. Santorum's reputation as a giant-killer and go-for-broke rhetorician landed him a spot in the Senate leadership.

In due course, he was unseated by Bob Casey Jr., the pleasant but hard-to-pin-down young man preferred by voters unhappy over a sour economy, middle-class insecurity and Mr. Santorum's association with an unpopular president....



..."I think the media went about portraying that in a particular light that was not favorable to me in the state of Pennsylvania. I gave them every opportunity to do so because I was out there," he said.

He was out there. And then he was out.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-10-19 22:34:01)

I sort of miss Mr. Frothy.  Few politicians have the nerve, the bold stupidity, to say the kinds of things Rick would say. 

SANTORUM: . . . In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

Emmeran wrote:

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

I saw in a Post article that the Bush/Cheney Admin  have increased the privatisation of our intelligence services to the point where 85% of all employees in the agencies are outside contracters. To whom we are paying much more for then before. I think the figure was about 40%. Average pay for these contract employees was stated as rising to $120,000.

A lot of people get confused about the pay of contractors.  If we were using independent contractors they would be correct; but that would be competitive economics - not a hallmark of the Bush administration.

Instead we hire contractors from a contracting agency to whom we pay that $120k, the contracting agency then takes a fee (let's say 30% for fun, actual mileage may vary) and pays the remainder to the worker.  Worker does not accrue benefits such as sick days or vacation.  Contracting company with correct political ties sits back and clips coupons.

On a side note:  $120k seems a trivial amount to pay for a quality intel analyst.

For an added bonus some of the contracting companies are running out of a shell company in the Caymans so they don't have to pay payroll taxes.

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

So, last time there was all-out liberal control was 1965? So the 70's were the product of that era's genius?

lulz...

You really are a fucking moron. 

The Democratic party didn't become the party of liberals until the 70s.  Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until 1964, and Jesse Helms was a Democrat until 1970.  Southern Democrats in 1965 were the same as today's Republicans.  In 1965, the Democrats were still the party of southern racists.  The big switch didn't occur until 1972 when many jumped ship to vote for Nixon.  That was part of the "southern strategy."

So the problems of the 70s were purely a vestige of the (Southern) Democrat controlled congress, who were all (future) Republicans.

So Carter wasn't a liberal? You're saying that Nixon, who ran throughout the 60's WAS a liberal?

Bobby and Robert Kennedy were conservative, and so was Johnson, then? So the conservatives were responsible for civil rights? Ok...

Gotcha... thanks for the edumacation there, HKG.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-10-20 16:16:37)

Shit.  I forgot we fielded a candidate.