57 States?
10 prisoners for 4?
How much of this utter stupidity do we need?
Or...is that okay?
Printable View
57 States?
10 prisoners for 4?
How much of this utter stupidity do we need?
Or...is that okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I know about the prisoner exchange but what is the 57 states about Kev? Was it something he said on Heinzight?
During his presidential run, he campaigned in "all 57 states".
Neither side claimed it was a Freudian slip - I don't wonder why.
A (alleged) misstatement from two years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Thanks for the breaking news.
Oh, right...that's history.
Btw - why does your guy still talk about Bush.
"History"...why, because you said it happened?
Didn't know I had a guy.
Do you contend that it did not?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
So, Obama said "57" instead of "47".
And you contend that he doesn't know how many states comprise the Union?
Talk about reaching........Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Is it not a fair deal?
Is one American spy worth 2.5 Russian ones?
Would it be desirable to execute six for a 1:1 deal?
Or...should no one get their spies back?
:shuriken:
They should put all the spies in the world in a really big bowl, and then each head of state could yank out a spy.
And whatever country that spy belonged to, that's the country the head of state gets to sleep with :yes:
By your standards, then, since the correct answer is not 57, then "...I've been in (57/47) states so far, and....two more states, and I 'll have been in them all (59/49....Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You said this guy was "bright/intelligent/etc."
It's numbers and it's people, MN, and people keep score of such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
I'd have more respect for him if he'd gotten 4 spies, the State recipe for borscht, and five nice beets to cook, but, noooooooooooo...
You mean Obama gets to sleep with Russia, or Medvedev/Putin double-team America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snee
They both sound icky, truth.
Listen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Except for misspeaking fifty instead of forty, he's absolutely correct.
He says his staff vetoed the idea of visiting Alaska and Hawaii due to expense and has one state left to go.
That brings the total to 50 (or 60, if he misspoke again).
I realize this doesn't matter to you at all, since being a Republican means that Obama can do no right but it's worth pointing out to the less hidebound.
As for the 10>4 spy trade.
Let's see, we get four military/intelligence operatives and Russia gets 10 morons who could barely access the internet.
Again, in the black/black world of the right, Obama can't win but the stupidity of such a simpleminded approach is typical and totally expected.
Can't wait to hear what next burns your chaps, it's always good fun.
These chaps don't burn.
As to the other, I don't know about you, but I have never in my life made such an error - I here note the undeniable fact of my ex-wife's damage-path - and again, I remind you of your paeans to his intelligence.
Good God, either of us eclipses him easily, even given your ideological dis-advantage.
You've never been in his position either.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Of course, it's telling that for the eight years of Bush's reign you never decried his obvious- and more frequent- displays of stupidity, but a two year old YouTube clip of an Obama slip still merits your attention.
Why is that?
What position was that - candidate?Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerYou've never been in his position either.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Why is what?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Why are you still talking about Bush?
It's Barry who's in the barrel, not Bush.
It's instructive to keep Bush/Cheney in focus because their venality and stupidity are the template for today's right wing.
oh right because obama fucked everything up right? before he came into office the world was sooooooooo perfect.Quote:
Why are you still talking about Bush?
It's Barry who's in the barrel, not Bush.
your willful ignorance amazes me.
Venality? Stupidity?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Instructive?
Says who?
Capitalization and punctuation, my boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by l33tpirata13
You need to try harder to cover your stupidity, and you need a starting point, as well.
I have given you one.
That would be me, Kev.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Impeccable logic.
Hmmm, something happened here.
Indeed.
What, then?
Well, either a post I responded to vanished or I was talking to ghosts.
Can you reproduce this correspondence.
I will review and pronounce upon it.
No, I can't- sorry.
It was gibberish, hence my reply.
Strange it just disappeared though.
Speaking of being bad at math...
Republicans refuse to extend unemployment benefits because it would add $30-some billion to the deficit but are adamant about retaining Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy which would add nearly $700 billion to the deficit. There also doesn't seem to be any Republican interest in offsetting the costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars either (approx. $2 billion/week).
They're not just bad at math, they're bad at being human.
Yet you assert that liberals are more human just because they hew to a precept that says Rules and money, THAT'S the ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You literally reject freedom.
And you, hiding in the corner...pirate-person - what have you to add?
"Reject freedom"?
What nonsense is this?
The only freedom that the GOP and the right advocate is the freedom of corporations to corrupt and despoil while enriching themselves.
The Tea Party has no platform at all, save the inchoate wail of losers and wingnuts.
Yes, you reject the freedom to fail, favoring government intervention.
You concurrently surrender the freedom to excel.
Tripe.
Tell me, how was allowing BP to fail a good thing?
i find it kinda hard to call DEMS more human, since they are pretty much spineless.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Yet you assert that liberals are more human just because they hew to a precept that says Rules and money, THAT'S the ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You literally reject freedom.
And you, hiding in the corner...pirate-person - what have you to add?
But, getting back to the point, how can you defend the republican party being the "fiscally conservative" party? or for being the "party of moral values"? Do you remember Fall '08? The stock market crashed and the "big bailout" was applauded by ALL republicans. 'Member? Or how about all the republican candidates "pretending" to be "Moral" for their christian conservative constituents while RENTING OUT gay men for pleasure? Defend it, please do.
That's a totally losing argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by l33tpirata13
For every depraved Republican, there's a Dem to match...they're all just people, subject to the same moral lapses.
The point I was raising is the incredible discrepancy between what Republicans claim and what they do...the opposition to extending unemployment benefits due to "deficit" worries while simultaneously pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy which would increase the deficit by 20 times the amount.
I'm sure that once Kev has finished his Ayn Rand Cliff's Notes he'll chime in.
I did point out the first Bailout didnt I? The moral argument is more of a side note.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerThat's a totally losing argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by l33tpirata13
For every depraved Republican, there's a Dem to match...they're all just people, subject to the same moral lapses.
The point I was raising is the incredible discrepancy between what Republicans claim and what they do...the opposition to extending unemployment benefits due to "deficit" worries while simultaneously pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy which would increase the deficit by 20 times the amount.
I'm sure that once Kev has finished his Ayn Rand Cliff's Notes he'll chime in.
is it a losing argument? maybe so, but i dont see many dems running on Moral standards like republicans. republicans bank on appeal to Chrisitian Conservatives. you think they'd have a chance in hell to win if they were socially liberal like their dem counterparts? I doubt pat robinson would endorse if that was the case. I also doubt many republican voters understand ANYTHING in regards to the financial system. they vote for who they think Jesus would vote for. Republicans know that, and play the part.
I agree, but I don't see Democratic platforms wanting to criminalize those moral lapses, like the GOP wants to here in Texas, not all moral lapses, just the homosexual moral lapses. Not to mention countrywide candidates for Republican nominations.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Which is another glaring inconsistency in the Right's agenda.
"Keep government out of my life except to enforce the moral code I approve of".
They will froth at the mouth defending their (perceived) 2nd Amendment rights but gladly cede habeus corpus or secret electronic monitoring without qualm.
They are a wacky group, those right-wing folk.
Gee, I don't know...why don't you google it and see.