I Hate Republicans

[Balloon guy 158]

This is true of about 90% of small businesses in the country.

Not mine.I got a call from a salesperson today and they asked if the owner was in.I told them: "No she is not"

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You know, the MSM that treated GWB like an idiot for his actions for 8 years, but now that Obama is doing the EXACT SAME THING, is acting like it's no big deal.

Now that I think about it, it was weird when George Bush signed universal health care into law.

[Balloon guy 158]

Now that I think about it, it was weird when George Bush signed universal health care into law.

How about when he waited 60+ days to suspend the Jone's Act?

[brvheart 1,752]

Not mine.I got a call from a salesperson today and they asked if the owner was in.I told them: "No she is not"

Well, to be fair to myself, I was implying "spouse" as interchangeable with "wife".Also, whenever we get sales calls for "the owner", I just say, "This is a corporation. Do you need me to get the board together?"

[LongLiveYorke 38]

How about when he waited 60+ days to suspend the Jone's Act?

Some pundits are really grasping at straws with this whole Jones Act thing. Is there any evidence that the Jones Act is in any way slowing down the cleaning process? Did Bush's suspending of the Jones' act actually help out with Katrina? Isn't this the exact sort of stupid media mumbo jumbo that causes unnecessary division and polarization?Or maybe it would have been faster to get boats from Belgium (!), sail them across the Atlantic (!), and have them do the job for us. This is not to imply that the Jones' act is the only thing preventing that from happening.

[strategy 4]

Some pundits are really grasping at straws with this whole [ANYTHING THEY EVER TALK ABOUT]

[hblask 1]

Some pundits are really grasping at straws with this whole Jones Act thing. Is there any evidence that the Jones Act is in any way slowing down the cleaning process? Did Bush's suspending of the Jones' act actually help out with Katrina? Isn't this the exact sort of stupid media mumbo jumbo that causes unnecessary division and polarization?

I've seen stories that several countries volunteered to send oil skimmer ships, but were rebuffed by the DoT because of the Jones Act. I haven't verified those stories in any way, because, well, I don't care enough.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I've seen stories that several countries volunteered to send oil skimmer ships, but were rebuffed by the DoT because of the Jones Act. I haven't verified those stories in any way, because, well, I don't care enough.

I've heard people claim that certain countries have offered AND have been turned down AND the Jones Act is potentially in place, but I haven't heard of anyone saying, "We would have used help from this country, but the Jones Act prevented us."Also, I really don't care either.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

I've heard people claim that certain countries have offered AND have been turned down AND the Jones Act is potentially in place, but I haven't heard of anyone saying, "We would have used help from this country, but the Jones Act prevented us."Also, I really don't care either.

How is this any better?(I third the not caring, I've lost the ability for sustained rage after obamacare passed)

[LongLiveYorke 38]

How is this any better?(I third the not caring, I've lost the ability for sustained rage after obamacare passed)

Look, I'm not going to question every last decision made during the clean up process. I have absolutely no way of judging whether bringing in boats from other countries would help or whether it would confuse things more. How could I possibly know?I have a certain responsibility as a citizen to be critical of my government, but that responsibility doesn't mean I have the impossible task of double checking every last decisions in the chain of command. I'm willing to accept the fact that the US Navy and Coast Guard's combined efforts is enough so as to not need to sail over boats from Europe to help and, in doing so, alter the chain of command and add more confusion.Now, if someone can show me evidence that commanders on the ground believe that we desperately need these foreign boats to assist in the clean-up process, and the only thing preventing us from having them is a decision by President Obama with no apparent reasoning behind it, then yes, I'm willing to get angry. Until that becomes clear, however, I'm going to worry about the 99,999 other things in my life that need my attention.

[mk 11]

Don't confuse the MSM with reality, though. Surely you know that by now.

a libertarian lecturing people on what's realistic is comical, to be sure

[hblask 1]

a libertarian lecturing people on what's realistic is comical, to be sure

Oooh zing! I get it, it's opposite day! LOL OMFG HUMOR!

[strategy 4]

I'm choosing to let sleeping dogs lie re: rand paul. if he gets into office and follows through on his promises, I'll eat my words. right now, to these eyes, the tea party - or at least the portion of it that gets media coverage - looks like a steaming pile.hb's right that there's no central tea party authority, as I learned today:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_mov...of_the_movement

[85suited 0]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/levin-bl...-act-from-vote/Democratic Sen. Carl Levin blocked the bi-partisan EarmarkTransparency Act from coming to a vote during a committee hearingThursday after expressing concern that posting all earmarks onlinewould be too complex.“This is a transparency bill,” the bill’s author, Republican TomCoburn, said at Thursday’s hearing of the Senate Committee on HomelandSecurity and Government Affairs, pointing out that President Obamacalled for publishing all earmark requests online during his 2010State of the Union address.“This is a bill President Barack Obama asked for,” Coburn said.“He did not ask for this bill,” Levin countered, claiming that thebill goes “way beyond” having just one searchable website forearmarks.Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested during the hearing that Coburn and Levinwork out their differences, with the hopes of bringing the bill to avote at the next hearing.An earmark is an item inserted by a member of Congress into a bill toallocate funds to a specific recipient, and critics decry its lack oftransparency. Coburn’s bill would mandate posting information onearmarks in bills — like what member is requesting it —online.Coburn referenced as letter from the Secretary of the Senate, NancyErickson, who concluded that aggregating all the earmark requests ontoa website is “technically feasible.” Along with Republican Sen. JohnMcCain, Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold and Democrat Sen. KirstenGillibrand, 26 senators are co-sponsoring the bill.Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/levin-bl.../#ixzz0rvRP2cbI

[85suited 0]

http://www.popmodal.com/video/5684/Milwauk...Lower-Our-TaxesBiden visits a custard shop in Milwaukee

[AmScray 355]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/levin-bl...-act-from-vote/Democratic Sen. Carl Levin blocked the bi-partisan EarmarkTransparency Act from coming to a vote during a committee hearingThursday after expressing concern that posting all earmarks onlinewould be too complex.“This is a transparency bill,” the bill’s author, Republican TomCoburn, said at Thursday’s hearing of the Senate Committee on HomelandSecurity and Government Affairs, pointing out that President Obamacalled for publishing all earmark requests online during his 2010State of the Union address.“This is a bill President Barack Obama asked for,” Coburn said.“He did not ask for this bill,” Levin countered, claiming that thebill goes “way beyond” having just one searchable website forearmarks.Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested during the hearing that Coburn and Levinwork out their differences, with the hopes of bringing the bill to avote at the next hearing.An earmark is an item inserted by a member of Congress into a bill toallocate funds to a specific recipient, and critics decry its lack oftransparency. Coburn’s bill would mandate posting information onearmarks in bills — like what member is requesting it —online.Coburn referenced as letter from the Secretary of the Senate, NancyErickson, who concluded that aggregating all the earmark requests ontoa website is “technically feasible.” Along with Republican Sen. JohnMcCain, Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold and Democrat Sen. KirstenGillibrand, 26 senators are co-sponsoring the bill.Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/levin-bl.../#ixzz0rvRP2cbI

^ what is this ? ^Relativism? "... oh yeah? Well look at how badly YOU suck, too!"Stop doing that. Pointing out what they're doing and how dumb it might be doesn't articulate a case for any position you might have. Leftists are n*o*t*o*r*i*o*u*s for doing just that, usually in times when the right political course of action is to stand for absolutely nothing, save for flighty, broad ideals and otherwise being opposed to whatever the Republicans stand for. The Republicans have now adopted the position of nattering nabob and it's pathetic to watch them belly-crawl like that, but it's what they've been doing for quite some time, so not shocking.

[85suited 0]

^ what is this ? ^Relativism? "... oh yeah? Well look at how badly YOU suck, too!"Stop doing that. Pointing out what they're doing and how dumb it might be doesn't articulate a case for any position you might have. Leftists are n*o*t*o*r*i*o*u*s for doing just that, usually in times when the right political course of action is to stand for absolutely nothing, save for flighty, broad ideals and otherwise being opposed to whatever the Republicans stand for. The Republicans have now adopted the position of nattering nabob and it's pathetic to watch them belly-crawl like that, but it's what they've been doing for quite some time, so not shocking.

I'll go a step further and say both parties suck... yes both.... The republicans just suck less than the democrats

[AmScray 355]

Yes, that is true, but they both suck so badly that whatever insignificant advantage the Republicans might have is totally negated by sheer magnitude.

[CaneBrain 95]

Some assclown gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee just floated the idea of secession (again). I love (LOVE) that when Democrats opposed a bad war.....we were "un-American" and "un-Patriotic" but a Democrat passes a bad health care bill and the GOP can't wait to talk about secession.My response: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Balloon guy 158]

Some assclown gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee just floated the idea of secession (again). I love (LOVE) that when Democrats opposed a bad war.....we were "un-American" and "un-Patriotic" but a Democrat passes a bad health care bill and the GOP can't wait to talk about secession.My response: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I agree with most of this, except the part of the democrats 'opposing a bad war' being label un-Americans.The ones labeled un-Americans were the scumbags who supported the war before we went in, then pretended to have always been against the war afterward when it didn't end in 3 weeks.You know, the entire democratic house of representatives and senators.They voted for the war, demanded we 'get Saddam' then politicized the war to gain power regardless of how it affected the troops who were in harms way.They called our troops 'jack-booted thugs' equated them to 'stormtroopers' and declared over and over that they had failed, and the final insult was their saliva dripping attempts to put as many soldiers into jail for getting violent while obeying the orders of the very people who put them in harm's way.Luckily the republicans were there to support the troops, cause the democrat would have walked them into a firefight with no bullets and murky rules of engagements, filmed it and sent it to the AG to see how many troopers they could put in jail for their war crimes, and done all this just to get back into control of the house and senate.All those people are welcome to leave because their value as citizens is less than the value of an illegal immigrant who only came to this country to go on welfare. At least at the end of the day the immigrant likes what this country is actually all about.And I hope the door does hit them in the backside. Cause I'll be kicking it closed as fast as possible.

[CaneBrain 95]

I agree with most of this, except the part of the democrats 'opposing a bad war' being label un-Americans.The ones labeled un-Americans were the scumbags who supported the war before we went in, then pretended to have always been against the war afterward when it didn't end in 3 weeks.You know, the entire democratic house of representatives and senators.They voted for the war, demanded we 'get Saddam' then politicized the war to gain power regardless of how it affected the troops who were in harms way.They called our troops 'jack-booted thugs' equated them to 'stormtroopers' and declared over and over that they had failed, and the final insult was their saliva dripping attempts to put as many soldiers into jail for getting violent while obeying the orders of the very people who put them in harm's way.Luckily the republicans were there to support the troops, cause the democrat would have walked them into a firefight with no bullets and murky rules of engagements, filmed it and sent it to the AG to see how many troopers they could put in jail for their war crimes, and done all this just to get back into control of the house and senate.All those people are welcome to leave because their value as citizens is less than the value of an illegal immigrant who only came to this country to go on welfare. At least at the end of the day the immigrant likes what this country is actually all about.And I hope the door does hit them in the backside. Cause I'll be kicking it closed as fast as possible.

Actually it was Bush and Rumsfeld who sent them to war with no IED-proof tanks and a lack of proper body armor because "you go to war with the army you have" ---Donald Rumsfeld.

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually it was Bush and Rumsfeld who sent them to war with no IED-proof tanks and a lack of proper body armor because "you go to war with the army you have" ---Donald Rumsfeld.

Umm..who did he 'inherit' that army from after he slashed their budgets?And there is no such thing as an IED proof tank, Humvee or Aircraft Carrier.

[CaneBrain 95]

Umm..who did he 'inherit' that army from after he slashed their budgets?And there is no such thing as an IED proof tank, Humvee or Aircraft Carrier.

Yeah, they are V-shaped to so the IED explosions are pushed outward away from the people inside.They are called MRAPs I believe. Obviously, they are not truly "IED proof" but they are a lot better than what the troops had in the early stages of the war. I also feel like a good aircraft carrier could take an IED.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, they are V-shaped to so the IED explosions are pushed outward away from the people inside.They are called MRAPs I believe. Obviously, they are not truly "IED proof" but they are a lot better than what the troops had in the early stages of the war. I also feel like a good aircraft carrier could take an IED.

17 sailors killed

[CaneBrain 95]

Was that from the inside or the outside? Not to be insensitive but for this argument it makes a big difference. I am certainly not arguing we have tanks that can stop bombs from the inside.And if that was from the outside, first whoa. Second, how did they get an IED in the water?