Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rampage on December 13, 2003, 05:02:39 pm
-
Here, these are funny cartoons of the Gore Endorsement of Dean.
God Bless the Republican Party! :D
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/Gore-Dean/best/breen2.gif)
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/moreGore-Dean/bok.gif)
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/Gore-Dean/2/marlette.gif)
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/Gore-Dean/stayskal.gif)
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/Gore-Dean/ohman.gif)
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com//news/DeanMorris2/Gore-Dean/streeter.gif)
Cheers!
Rampage
-
I don't get it. Guess I'm not suppossed to, though.
Is that suppossed to be kilt in the first one? If so - why?
-
I really don't know what to say. So I won't.
-
Those are quite good! I get them and I'm not even American :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I don't get it. Guess I'm not suppossed to, though.
Is that suppossed to be kilt in the first one? If so - why?
ITs a schoolgirl showing a doctor her doll, Aldo.
Overall, I'd have to say that none of them are terribly funny. Of course, I don't care who Gore endorses. I'll vote for Vadar_1 before I vote for Bush.
-
Uh... let's see, accusing Dean of "anger" because he's not fellating Bush enthusiastically while Bush methodically ****s over everyone not himself and his cronies as he's been doing since the last election, complaining about Lieberman's "betrayal" even though he's a **** and there's really no reason for Republicans to give a damn except that everyone knows nobody'd vote for a **** like Lieberman, and a reference to a scene from the last election better left forgotten for our wounded collective psyche.
If this is the funniest Republicans can get, I gotta say, it's no wonder you lot get so much joy out of slaughtering foreigners and starving the poor. 'S all you've got. When the opposition party manages to be harsher, and infinitely funnier, towards its own candidates than you can summon up you're in trouble.
-
Those are good.
Explain this to me: Just because GW won't fall on his knees before the EU(particularly the French and the Germans(how quickly we forget?)) and all of a sudden he's a ####up?
GW is acting like what he is, the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and leading by example.
Is it going to take a nuke in Paris or Berlin to get you guys to realize that this is a them or us war?
-
Uhm... how about managing to raise taxes while at the same time killing social services? How about planning a better health care and education system for the occupied Iraqis than was ever in place here while slashing education and health care budgets to basically nothing? How about bringing the economy down to depression levels?
How about declaring a wholly unnecessary war grounded on blatant and insulting lies, then pretending those lies never existed? How about exposing a CIA operative as revenge when her husband pointed out that they were, in fact, lies?
How about setting up the first concentration camps since WWII, denying all who fall under the incredibly vague term "suspected terrorists" of any form of judicial rights at all, installing oppressive near-Orwellian security measures including wiretapping and suspension of fifth-Amendment rights to harass the populace while simultaneously torpedoing national security as a whole?
How about rejecting nearly all of our international alliances, establishing the US as a de facto imperialist nation, thus exposing it to far more terrorist attacks, killing our soldiers on a daily basis for no real reason he has satisfactorially explained, bogging us down in a situation that is, as predicted, very nearly as bad as Vietnam was and certain to get much worse should he continue, rejecting every single environmental protection we ever put in place on the failed pretext that they were bad for industry, and then turning around and demanding every other nation back him up in all his actions again?
What, exactly, has he done right, aside from giving Halliburton and the lot millions of dollars of our tax money, and breaking down the separation between church and state? Everything he's done out of any motivation other than sheer greed and hate has been a total failure- education's a mess, the cities are a mess, infrastructure's a mess, the new Department's a mess, and this from a President who was supposed to be all about education and national security.
Hell, he sucks so bad he's basing a large part of his campaign on hating gays. We haven't had a president this horrible almost in the entire history of the United States. Nixon was far and away better than this.
-
and the fact that nobody else stands a chance of beating him is almost funny
-
Bob, I think the word you're looking for is "pathetic", not "funny".
Its pathetic how easy it is to tell lies and make the populace at large believe them. Look at the way the guy's original presidential campaign: he took credit for introducing an education bill in Texas. Just two tiny little problems. It wasn't his bill, and as governor, he vetoed the bill. Examine his anti-terrorism record BEFORE Sept11. The Bush administration, at Bush's urging, tore down almost the entire apparatus the Clinton administration had put in place for combatting terrorism. It was a "waste of taxpayer money". Post Sept11, Bush brought back a Clinton administration plan to create the Office of Homeland Security--and then he claimed credit for creating it after originally preventing its creation (a pattern, I think).
And yet, somehow, this is the guy we're going to be stuck with for another four years? I promise, if he gets elected (or re-appointed, really), I will leave the country before the inauguration.
-
I'd vote for Lieberman, he is the only democrat that I think has a snowballs chance, but he won't be given the shot
-
He's very nearly as bad, anyway.
-
"GW is acting like what he is, the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and leading by example."
If he's an example for how the whole world should act then the creationists are right. There is no evolution, but devolution! :shaking:
Good thing I get to vote the son of a ***** out of office :)
-
The Rockwell painting...
(http://www.progressiveart.com/rockwel/doctor_and_doll.jpg)
I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of the thread.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Explain this to me: Just because GW won't fall on his knees before the EU(particularly the French and the Germans(how quickly we forget?)) and all of a sudden he's a ####up?
GW is acting like what he is, the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and leading by example.
Is it going to take a nuke in Paris or Berlin to get you guys to realize that this is a them or us war?
Sounds like the brainwashing really worked here. Since when has America been at war with France or Germany? In fact WHEN has the US ever been at war with France?
All France and Germany have done is excercise there democratic right to say no. But then Bush has never believed in democracy.
-
I think he meant that they arn't takeing the threat seriusly and that it will take a Al Qeda nuke in Paris to get them to pay atention.
and while Gemany did little more than express there extreem dissatisfaction at our actions (I'm cool with that), France was activly working aganst us (I don't eat yoplait any more)
-
I'd like to say this reminds me why I hate parties in democracy, but I can't say I've ever forgotten.
Tribalism is so much fun. Wait, no, it isn't.
-
Um, France and Germany had no problem when we went bin Laden huntin'. They were behind us 100%, as were all sane nations. They drew the line at the baseless attack on Iraq, which had nothing to do with terrorism or indeed anything else of that nature.
I mean, come on. All of our major evidence was known to be a fraud in Europe only a coupla months after the whole movement got rolling. It'd be hard to say anyone in Europe did the US in an offense in any way, while we've acted nothing but disgustingly from the start (demanding that France turn over the bodies of US soldiers buried overseas, striking the name "French" from anything in the Congressional cafeterias, the huge number of insults we've officially leveled at both countries, banning companies from said countries from the "reconstruction" in Iraq on the grounds that they'd "compromise security"? If this were grade school like Bush seems to think it is the US'd be getting its ass kicked by everyone by now).
-
'compromise security'?
I thought we flat out said it was becase they were opposed to us going in in the first place, and still are.
-
No, that'd be a different story. That'd be Bush being flat-out vindictive, this is more a "we think you're potential terrorists" sorta thing.
Also, it just struck me... isn't the portrayal of Sharpton in the second one down just a tad racist? As in, quite a bit? I guess it could be a really obscure quote, but I've never heard him sing James Brown or anything of the sort.
-
Who's Dean?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think he meant that they arn't takeing the threat seriusly and that it will take a Al Qeda nuke in Paris to get them to pay atention.
Well that's equally stupid. As everyone else has said the evidence of Saddam having WMDs was faked anyway so the best saddam could do is pretend to plant a bomb in France or Germany.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
(I don't eat yoplait any more)
darn, my world shatters!
Bah, I'll reply to that anyway: why would we have a nuke in Paris or Berlin? If Al Quaeda can put a nuke somewhere, that'll be on the US soil, sucka, coz you give them more and more reasons :p
What, you expected me to post a serious answer?:nervous:
So, who is Dean?
-
A candidate in the upcoming election.
-
Its the democratic party trying to figure out who will be leader for the election coming up next year. So while you have, what 7-8 candidates, Canada's liberal and conservative parties had maybe 2-3 real candidates...someone got in and that was it.
We even have a new Prime Minister and it didn't seem to have taken nearly as long as the democrats in the states have taken. Seems overly long and drawn out.
-
1. Economists have traced the begginng of the recession to the middle of the second Clinton term.
2. GW has CUT taxes.
3. GW has reinvigorated the intelligence apparatus(CIA/NSA) that Clinton gutted.
-
Bill Hicks said it best.
How far does this guy's dick have to be up your ass before you realise he's ****ing you?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
1. Economists have traced the begginng of the recession to the middle of the second Clinton term.
2. GW has CUT taxes.
3. GW has reinvigorated the intelligence apparatus(CIA/NSA) that Clinton gutted.
1) Really? Funny how the economy was still growing at a still increasing rate until Clinton's last year in office. If Bush had done NOTHING, the worst that would have happened to the economy was that it would have returned to equilibrium at a no-growth/no-loss state. However, due to BUSH policies, we see the budget surplus not just shrink, but actually reverse into the fastest growing deficit in the history of the nation.
2) You're absolutely right. He did cut taxes. And he also said that "the vast majority of this tax cut will benefit the lowest earning 60% of the nations tax payers". Except it didn't. It benefitted the top earning 25% of the tax payers, leaving the bottome 75% with mere pennies. So yes, he cut taxes for his rich cronies and lied about it to all of us.
3) It should be noted that the Clinton White House handed Bush a comprehensive intelligence apparatus when Clinton left office. Republicans in Congress fought the funding of Clinton's intelligence apparatus in the same way they fought everything Clinton did. It was declared a waste of money. When Bush took control of the White House, he let the funding slip. In fact, during the time between the inauguration and Sept11, Bush did nearly nothing regarding intelligence gathering and antiterrorist operations. The programs floundered. AFTER Sept11, Bush reincarnated a Clinton era plan to create the Office of Homeland security.
Before you lay out the "facts" Liberator, I'd suggest getting them straight.
-
so you realy don't think that loseing 3000 people and a major world finantial center, not to mention the whole 'were under atack' mind set had nothing at all to do with the economy going down, not to mention that the down run in the economy started about 6 months before the 2000 elections (interestingly it seemed to start when it seemed that Bush was going to get the republican nomination), and that a whole bunch of economic scandals blew up that had been simmering sence well into the clintan administration, now I'm not saying that his policys are godlike in there amazing powers to restore the economy, but I don't think the tax cuts were the major factors in the economic downturn we experienced over the last few years, especaly seeing as the economy has recovered and stablised for the most part (I think his polocys had little to do with that)
now as for the 'tax cuts for the rich' thing, it was basicly a flat tax cut, the rich people got the same percentage of there taxes back as the poor people, wich yes means that they get more grose money back, but I don't think that means that they got more of there money back, given that it was about the same percentages, if I'm wrong give me some numbers to corect me
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Those are good.
Explain this to me: Just because GW won't fall on his knees before the EU(particularly the French and the Germans(how quickly we forget?)) and all of a sudden he's a ####up?
GW is acting like what he is, the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and leading by example.
Is it going to take a nuke in Paris or Berlin to get you guys to realize that this is a them or us war?
Maybe if you knew who 'them' was.......so far it's a case of screwing up one war after another whilst creating martyrs. The situations's worse, not better - Afghanistan is falling apart (only Kabul is safe, the Taliban is regrouping and the UN is considering leaving due to insecurity) and Iraq has become a destination of choice for foreign terrorists looking to shoot Americans.
And on top of this, we get criticism of european nations for excercising free speech that is anti war. Surely Germany & France of all nations are able to understand the ultimate cost of unilateral war?
-
Realistically, a recession was due anyway. We're just lucky that it wasn't even worse, since the 1990s were roughly analogous to the 1920s.
However, the primary problem right now is the fact that Republicans have a majority in both houses, and have the presidency. For any of the checks and balances to actually work, there needs to be roughly equivalent numbers from each party in each house. Otherwise, you get either a Congress who passes every bill the President tells them to, or blocks everything.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so you realy don't think that loseing 3000 people and a major world finantial center, not to mention the whole 'were under atack' mind set had nothing at all to do with the economy going down, not to mention that the down run in the economy started about 6 months before the 2000 elections (interestingly it seemed to start when it seemed that Bush was going to get the republican nomination), and that a whole bunch of economic scandals blew up that had been simmering sence well into the clintan administration, now I'm not saying that his policys are godlike in there amazing powers to restore the economy, but I don't think the tax cuts were the major factors in the economic downturn we experienced over the last few years, especaly seeing as the economy has recovered and stablised for the most part (I think his polocys had little to do with that)
Let us consider this line of reasoning.
Sept11 caused the downturn in the economy. Hey, I can buy that. The 3000 people were inconsequential financially, but the loss of business might have had something to do with the downturn. Arguably, had Bush not cancelled funding for Clinton's intelligence and anti-terrorism programs during his first week in the White House, we would still have the World Trade Center. The FBI knew about foreign nationals in American flight schools. They had actually arrested Zacharias Mousoui before the planes hit the towers. The Republicans fought hard against Clinton's anti-terrorism programs when they were proposed after the first attack on the WTC (does anyone else remember that one tower was a story or two shorter than the other because of a truck bomb). They fought the funding even after the USS Cole was hit. Bush just followed party line when he killed the program and ignored antiterrorism activities entirely until Sept 11.
HOWEVER, that still does not answer how an accellerating budget surplus was turned into an accellerating budget deficit. Bush took charge of the White House with a surplus of over 200 BILLION USD. The following year, he had cut that back to just over a 100 BILLION USD. In 2002, he furthered this trend by taking us to a deficit of over 150 BILLION. 2003 saw it drop down to a 350 BILLION deficit. The projection for 2004 is nearly 500 BILLION dollars. That's half a TRILLION. This is the biggest single year budget deficit in the history of the country (even if you adjust for inflation) and the FASTEST growing deficit in the history of the country. Even World War 2 AND the reconstruction of Japan and Germany didn't rape this country's economy the way Bush Jr. has done. Besides anything else: if the WTC was so entrenched in the world economy, why has no other country seen as great a per-capita downturn in its economy as the US? I really think it is disingenuous to claim the WTC is enough to explain a 600 BILLION USD shift in the budget, or the massive loss of jobs we saw over the last three years.
now as for the 'tax cuts for the rich' thing, it was basicly a flat tax cut, the rich people got the same percentage of there taxes back as the poor people, wich yes means that they get more grose money back, but I don't think that means that they got more of there money back, given that it was about the same percentages, if I'm wrong give me some numbers to corect me
Interesting concept: a flat rate tax cut. There's just one problem: It wasn't. The bottom 60% of the nation (for those keeping score, that's 171 million people) took back an total of 39.9 billion dollars. The top 1% of the nation (2.85 million people) took back a total of 91.1 billion dollars. When you compare these number to the pre-cut numbers some interesting things emerge. The bottom 60% of the nation recieved a tax cut of about 17%. That's a pretty nice number. The top 60% however, recieved a total tax cut of about 62%.
Now, where I went to school 17% and 62% do not work out to a "flat tax cut". By far and away, the top 1% of the nation saw nearly FOUR TIMES as much tax relief (percentage wise) over the bottom 60%.
These numbers take into account more than just income tax cuts though. They take into account estate tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts as well. Lets take these numbers away and just look at pure income tax cuts. If we do that, the bottom 60% of the nation recieved a nice 22% cut from Bush. Again, not a bad number. However, the top 1% of the nation recieved a 50.2% tax cut. That's still nearly twice as much as the bottom 60% recieved. Somehow, this doesn't seem to add up to a flat tax cut either. 22% != 60%.
I'm sorry, Bob, you're wrong on both counts.
-
You know, moderation doesn't really seam to have it's advocates on this board.
-
Generally, I am a moderate. I sit just a bit to the left of center and with some socialist and libertarian tendencies (which are not, as some would have it, mutually contradictory).
I'm just no fan of Bush. In truth, I'm not much of a fan of his predecessors either. I just prefer that if people are going spew rhetoric, they spew reasonably accurate rhetoric. ;)
-
I've never been able to tell whose retoric was real with the tax cuts thing as no one ever puts up numbers, surely the law is posted somewere for public viewing,
however there is no way that bush could have ****ed things up enough in the short amount of time he was in office as to make 9/11 more likly to happen, even you say it took him two years to turn our surplus into a deficit, had Clinton been elagable for a thrid term (and he would have been reelected) we still would have lost the towers, and we still would have had a recesion, I remember the economy droping like a rock BEFORE Bush was elected, I remember thinking during the months before the election 'well it's about time the economy came back to it's sences', I was waiting for about four years for the investment opertunity so I was paying atention, and granted the individual lives of the 3000 people probly didn't contribute that much to the GNP directly, the rather spectacular way in wich they were killed could not have helped things.
for the record I was, and to a large extent still am, opposed to the tax cuts, it's nice to see some numbers being presented, but I still have no idea were they came from, for all I know you got them from moveon.org
-
Given that Clinton antiterrorism record is absolutely peerless, Bob, I have to disagree. Had Clinton--or Gore--been in power, the WTC would still be standing. Unlike the Bush administration, Clinton did not ignore the threat that Osama and his cronies represented. He was, in fact, criticised for ignoring Saddam Hussein in favor of Osama, repeatedly. Its in the Congressional record.
You say that Bush couldn't "have ****ed things up enough in the short amount of time he was in office as to make 9/11 more likely to happen". Well that's just not true. Ignoring warnings from the FBI and the CIA and dismantling the existing antiterrorism infrastructure that Clinton handed him on a silver platter is quite enough to do exactly that. Its like firing the cops and then being surprised when a burglary occurs. Only its worse.
As for the economy dropping like a rock, it hadn't. It had certainly slowed, especially with the bursting of the tech bubble. I do not think, however, that you can blame Clinton (or Bush) for that debacle. We geeks in the industry did that one to ourselves.
As for the numbers for the tax cuts I got them from this chart (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm) on the "Citizens for Tax Justice" web page. They bill themselves as " a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and advocacy organization dedicated to fair taxation at the federal, state, and local levels". About.com gives an interesting breakdown. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201b.htm)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
moveon.org
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Given that Clinton antiterrorism record is absolutely peerless...
He never did anything but drop a couple of Tomahawks at any given time and most of the time he did it to distract the press from his various monkeyshines.
But I suppose you think his impeachment, failed though it was, was a partisan attack on the part of the Republicans?
-
Funny, I seem to recall it was the Clinton administration that brought to justice the men who bombed the World Trade Center the first time. And Clinton did that without having to send American troops to invade foreign countries. His administration actually did something, unlike his predecessors, Bush and Reagan, who actively funded the terrorists we deal with today. That might be a bit before your time though.
Actually, I thought Clinton's impeachment was a waste of money. Given that it wasn't exactly what you would call a broadbased attack (it was mostly republicans, yes) it was the very definition of a partisan attack. I really don't see how a blowjobs were relevant. Now if you want to talk about impeachable offenses, how about getting American troops killed by lying about the "intelligence" you have as a justification for war. But hey, what's several dozen American lives compared to a few hundred thousand presidential sperm, right? Its really funny how much more important some blowjobs are than men dying in war, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Funny, I seem to recall it was the Clinton administration that brought to justice the men who bombed the World Trade Center the first time. And Clinton did that without having to send American troops to invade foreign countries. His administration actually did something, unlike his predecessors, Bush and Reagan, who actively funded the terrorists we deal with today. That might be a bit before your time though.
Well put Mikhael. Let's not forget that it was the republicans who created Osama Bin Laden and armed Saddam.
-
Hey, you people at least have free media...
Try looking at what Berlusconi, Bush's little friend is doing in italy...
He's got all major public and private TV's and around 60% of the whole media in his hands...
-
Yeah, but Berlusconi is at least entertaining. When he told the (I think) Danish ambassador that he (Berlusconi) should introduce the ambassador to his wife because he was handsome enough for her to have an affair with, I just about drove off the road laughing.
Actually, Italian politics always makes me laugh. Remember, this is the country that elected Cicciolina (the italian porn starlet) to their version of Parliament. :D
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Yeah, but Berlusconi is at least entertaining.
only because you don't live here:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Its really funny how much more important some blowjobs are than men dying in war, isn't it?
:lol:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Generally, I am a moderate. I sit just a bit to the left of center and with some socialist and libertarian tendencies (which are not, as some would have it, mutually contradictory).
I'm just no fan of Bush. In truth, I'm not much of a fan of his predecessors either. I just prefer that if people are going spew rhetoric, they spew reasonably accurate rhetoric. ;)
I was more or less referring to Rampage's and Liberator's fanaticism.
Me, personally, I'm all over the board in my political philosophies :p
-
Originally posted by mikhael
But hey, what's several dozen American lives compared to a few hundred thousand presidential sperm, right? Its really funny how much more important some blowjobs are than men dying in war, isn't it?
Keep in mind Mik, that it's pro-life people you're talking about.
Those hundred thousand sperm could have been a hundred thousand children that Clinton ruthlessly and brutally murdered by not having them enter the genitals of a female!
He's so brutal by destroying that potential life, that the destruction of the twin towers and the attack on the pentagon pale in comparison! :)
-
Ace, you have finally made sense of the entirety of the Starr investigation. Thank you! :)
-
Originally posted by Ace
Those hundred thousand sperm could have been a hundred thousand children that Clinton ruthlessly and brutally murdered by not having them enter the genitals of a female!
Lol, if we had to save them all, we'd need a lot more women :D
I guess I'm eligible for crime against humanity :nervous:
-
We all are, Venom. We all are. We should turn ourselves in. ;)
-
:lol: