Anyone who did that much destruction to the South automatically gets put in the top 20.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Eh, Grant's flaws were somewhat overblown (his administration was corrupt, but not Teapot Dome corrupt). The south just despise(d) him, for obvious reasons.
George W. Bush's re-election platform was "9/11." And Obama taking credit for ordering the strike to take out Bin Laden--a strike that Mitt Romney explicitly said he would never order--is "tasteless?"
Seriously, "I killed that bitch" could be Obama's campaign motto, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near as tasteless as what the Republicans did under Dubya.
0
Options
BaronSamediSame dude as yesterday.The AlamoRegistered Userregular
Republicans are whiny babies, some authorities say.
"Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit, and your shit is stuff?"--George Carlin
George W. Bush's re-election platform was "9/11." And Obama taking credit for ordering the strike to take out Bin Laden--a strike that Mitt Romney explicitly said he would never order--is "tasteless?"
Seriously, "I killed that bitch" could be Obama's campaign motto, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near as tasteless as what the Republicans did under Dubya.
Yeah, Arianna Huffington was whining about it this morning. Again, it's okay for Republicans, but Democrats should play fair and never take credit for anything.
WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) -- The economic plan issued last year by presumptive Republican U.S. presidential nominee Mitt Romney isn't chiseled in stone and is meant to evolve, an aide says.
Elements of the 59-point plan have changed since its release in September, such as proposed tax rates, USA Today reported Monday.
A Romney economic adviser said the document, "Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth," was never meant to be set in stone and specifically acknowledged several areas where "more work needed to be done."
"It's absolutely intended to be a starting point," the adviser said.
Gogo backtracking.
Nono, not backtracking, moving forward!
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
George W. Bush's re-election platform was "9/11." And Obama taking credit for ordering the strike to take out Bin Laden--a strike that Mitt Romney explicitly said he would never order--is "tasteless?"
Seriously, "I killed that bitch" could be Obama's campaign motto, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near as tasteless as what the Republicans did under Dubya.
WaPo has lost most of its credibility as a non partisan hack rag. Another article they recently ran was "Top Five Liberal Cliches"
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
George W. Bush's re-election platform was "9/11." And Obama taking credit for ordering the strike to take out Bin Laden--a strike that Mitt Romney explicitly said he would never order--is "tasteless?"
Seriously, "I killed that bitch" could be Obama's campaign motto, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near as tasteless as what the Republicans did under Dubya.
Wasn't Bush's 2004 motto "We have to kill those bitches!"? "Those bitches" meaning...Iraq.
When you factor in M/V Maersk Alabama and the rescue of Jessica Buchanan, it's kind of remarkable how many people Barack Obama isn't taking credit for killing in Special Forces raids.
Like, this is the sort of President that Dick Marcinko thinks about while he masturbates.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
George W. Bush's re-election platform was "9/11." And Obama taking credit for ordering the strike to take out Bin Laden--a strike that Mitt Romney explicitly said he would never order--is "tasteless?"
Seriously, "I killed that bitch" could be Obama's campaign motto, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near as tasteless as what the Republicans did under Dubya.
WaPo has lost most of its credibility as a non partisan hack rag. Another article they recently ran was "Top Five Liberal Cliches"
It's basically the home for torture enthusiasts and other hacks.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
Yeah, you know what really makes finding a job easier for women? The inability to control their own health decisions.
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and responding with something that was patently bullshit.
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and responding with something that was patently bullshit.
I mean, fuck, why even bring these people on?
David Gregory is an ineffective tool that is representative of everything that is wrong with media today.
Proclaimed Gregory, with a straight face: “Questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. Not only those of us in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the media landscape did that.” Most revealingly of all, Gregory said:
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role."
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and responding with something that was patently bullshit.
I mean, fuck, why even bring these people on?
David Gregory is an ineffective tool that is representative of everything that is wrong with media today.
Proclaimed Gregory, with a straight face: “Questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. Not only those of us in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the media landscape did that.” Most revealingly of all, Gregory said:
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role."
To which I'd have to ask, "Jesus, then what the fuck do you think your role is?"
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and responding with something that was patently bullshit.
I mean, fuck, why even bring these people on?
David Gregory is an ineffective tool that is representative of everything that is wrong with media today.
Proclaimed Gregory, with a straight face: “Questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. Not only those of us in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the media landscape did that.” Most revealingly of all, Gregory said:
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role."
To which I'd have to ask, "Jesus, then what the fuck do you think your role is?"
Their role is to go to cocktail parties and rub elbows with the rich and powerful, begging at their feet for favors, of course.
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and responding with something that was patently bullshit.
I mean, fuck, why even bring these people on?
David Gregory is an ineffective tool that is representative of everything that is wrong with media today.
Proclaimed Gregory, with a straight face: “Questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the President. Not only those of us in the White House Press Corps did that, but others in the media landscape did that.” Most revealingly of all, Gregory said:
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role."
To which I'd have to ask, "Jesus, then what the fuck do you think your role is?"
To leach as much money out of actual voters as possible by turning the process into an oppositional sporting event?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
To tell the truth, I think the media system in the US is completely backwards in its goals, which are namely to gain as many viewers as possible through whatever means fits your political agenda.
David Gregory's job isn't to call Ed Gillespie a liar, or to even point out when he's being wrong or purposefully obfuscatory. Gregory's job is to give the illusion of non-partisanship in providing a platform for all arguments from all sides, because to act otherwise would be to incur displeasure from an offended group.
And that's bad for the advertising dollars.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I hate when we (they) decided non-partisan meant accepting obvious lies without questioning them. Hell, you should question EVERYTHING.
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
What's intriguing is that they don't have properly thought out responses for obvious questions about polarizing subjects which could hurt Romney in the general, from David Gregory of all people.
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and responding with something that was patently bullshit.
I mean, fuck, why even bring these people on?
To make the show improve they'd have to replace Gregory with someone with brains and the will to not take their BS. Maddow's perfect only she's busy with her own show.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I watched Romney's flapping-gums mouthpiece, Ed Gillespie, on Meet the Press this week.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
What's intriguing is that they don't have properly thought out responses for obvious questions about polarizing subjects which could hurt Romney in the general, from David Gregory of all people.
In fairness, Gillespie was totally ready for the question. His response to Romney's women's issues was obviously well-practiced, it just didn't make any sense. It's only real job was to deflect the real question being asked while simultaneously making it look like President Obama was the one with the problem people are trying to lay on Romney, a la:
Gregory: "What is the Romney Camp's response to allegations that Mitt Romney turns into a werewolf every full moon and brutally murders virgins?"
Gillespie: "David, why don't we talk about what's really going on here: President Obama's opposition to abstinence-only sexual education is an open assault on family values."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
To make the show improve they'd have to replace Gregory with someone with brains and the will to not take their BS. Maddow's perfect only she's busy with her own show.
Gregory (and others) chief problem is that he legitimizes purposeful obfuscation and elusivity be simply not acknowledging it.
His only response to any statement, no matter how obvious its falseness, is, "Great, next question . . ."
There should be a word for simultaneously wanting to and not wanting to watch something this badly. I want to see Krugman destroy Paul's arguments, but I don't want to have to listen to Ron Paul to do it.
There should be a word for simultaneously wanting to and not wanting to watch something this badly. I want to see Krugman destroy Paul's arguments, but I don't want to have to listen to Ron Paul to do it.
whatever the word is, Krugman was feeling it through the entire interview
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There should be a word for simultaneously wanting to and not wanting to watch something this badly. I want to see Krugman destroy Paul's arguments, but I don't want to have to listen to Ron Paul to do it.
So on the one hand, we've got one of the world's leading experts on economics. Debating him is a crazy old man who wants us to run our economy with shiny yellow rocks.
I hope future history books note how ridiculous this is.
Posts
George W. Bush's re-election platform was "9/11." And Obama taking credit for ordering the strike to take out Bin Laden--a strike that Mitt Romney explicitly said he would never order--is "tasteless?"
Seriously, "I killed that bitch" could be Obama's campaign motto, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near as tasteless as what the Republicans did under Dubya.
Yeah, Arianna Huffington was whining about it this morning. Again, it's okay for Republicans, but Democrats should play fair and never take credit for anything.
I love Maddow's face in the freeze frame.
Nono, not backtracking, moving forward!
WaPo has lost most of its credibility as a non partisan hack rag. Another article they recently ran was "Top Five Liberal Cliches"
Wasn't Bush's 2004 motto "We have to kill those bitches!"? "Those bitches" meaning...Iraq.
Like, this is the sort of President that Dick Marcinko thinks about while he masturbates.
David Gregory: "Your candidate supports legislation that restricts women's access to birth control, abortions, and health insurance. How does the Romney campaign address this and still appeal to female voters?"
Ed Gillespie: "You know what's really hurting women? Slow. Economic. Recovery. And that's 100% President Obama's fault. Why don't we stop fussing around with trivialities and political opportunism, and simply address the real problems: President Obama making America a worse place for women."
I've never wanted to murder someone more than when I heard that verbal diarrhea.
It's basically the home for torture enthusiasts and other hacks.
Looks like the White House threw this guy under the bus. I don't know why what he said was so controversial, all I know is it's getting crowded under there.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11472508-senior-epa-official-resigns-over-crucify-strategy-with-oil-industry?lite
I'm sure it will help get women on their team if they call women's health issues "trivial." That's a sure-fire strategy right there.
Yeah, you know what really makes finding a job easier for women? The inability to control their own health decisions.
I was more than a little pissed at David Gregory for letting the guy off the hook despite A) the guy completely (and intentionally, obviously) avoiding the question being asked, and
I mean, fuck, why even bring these people on?
David Gregory is an ineffective tool that is representative of everything that is wrong with media today.
To which I'd have to ask, "Jesus, then what the fuck do you think your role is?"
Their role is to go to cocktail parties and rub elbows with the rich and powerful, begging at their feet for favors, of course.
To tell the truth, I think the media system in the US is completely backwards in its goals, which are namely to gain as many viewers as possible through whatever means fits your political agenda.
David Gregory's job isn't to call Ed Gillespie a liar, or to even point out when he's being wrong or purposefully obfuscatory. Gregory's job is to give the illusion of non-partisanship in providing a platform for all arguments from all sides, because to act otherwise would be to incur displeasure from an offended group.
And that's bad for the advertising dollars.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
What's intriguing is that they don't have properly thought out responses for obvious questions about polarizing subjects which could hurt Romney in the general, from David Gregory of all people.
To make the show improve they'd have to replace Gregory with someone with brains and the will to not take their BS. Maddow's perfect only she's busy with her own show.
In fairness, Gillespie was totally ready for the question. His response to Romney's women's issues was obviously well-practiced, it just didn't make any sense. It's only real job was to deflect the real question being asked while simultaneously making it look like President Obama was the one with the problem people are trying to lay on Romney, a la:
Gregory: "What is the Romney Camp's response to allegations that Mitt Romney turns into a werewolf every full moon and brutally murders virgins?"
Gillespie: "David, why don't we talk about what's really going on here: President Obama's opposition to abstinence-only sexual education is an open assault on family values."
Gregory (and others) chief problem is that he legitimizes purposeful obfuscation and elusivity be simply not acknowledging it.
His only response to any statement, no matter how obvious its falseness, is, "Great, next question . . ."
There should be a word for simultaneously wanting to and not wanting to watch something this badly. I want to see Krugman destroy Paul's arguments, but I don't want to have to listen to Ron Paul to do it.
whatever the word is, Krugman was feeling it through the entire interview
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So on the one hand, we've got one of the world's leading experts on economics. Debating him is a crazy old man who wants us to run our economy with shiny yellow rocks.
I hope future history books note how ridiculous this is.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1