The Democrats Gloat Thread

Quote, "I don't know, CI, what?"

This is the same congress that approved of Bush's initiatives that got them to where they are today, and now they're distancing themselves from being the party in power. What hypocrisy!

0 Replies

http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/?nav=mpp

The Three Stooges....Pelosi, Reid, and Dean.

Just a bit of the fun on Pelosi and Reid. The article also discusses Dean.... Smile

.....

Nancy Pelosi epitomizes this problem. To understand her politics, think Huffington Post without the flashes of wit. Here is a typical Bush-bashing, cliché-ridden quote of hers: "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back!" Pelosi dismisses people who disagree as hoodwinked or stupid. She's not exactly Hillary Clinton herself, though. A five-minute interview is usually sufficient to exhaust her knowledge on any subject. And she can flop around like a fish. When Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., proposed a pullout, or "redeployment," of U.S. troops from Iraq in November, Pelosi's first reaction was to isolate him. "Mr. Murtha speaks for himself," she said. But after taking a drubbing from left-wing bloggers and her anti-war constituents, she announced that she supported Murtha after all.Most of the time, he's a study in gray, except when he livens it up with a spasm of random aggression. Reid has called Alan Greenspan a "hack," Bush a loser and a liar, and, in one off-the-mark, vaguely racist-sounding rant, charged that Clarence Thomas' opinions were poorly written. (You can criticize Thomas' opinions for lots of things, but Slate's legal correspondent, Dahlia Lithwick, tells me they are quite well written.) After calling for more Supreme Court justices as brilliant as Antonin Scalia, he recommended that Bush nominate his undistinguished flunky Harriet Miers. Moreover, Reid's own pork-barreling and lobbyist-courting suggest that making him majority leader would merely replace the Republican hackocracy in Congress with a Democratic hackocracy. Reid has declined to repudiate contributions from Abramoff-linked Indian tribes, and his own family includes so many lobbyists that after some nasty press coverage, he had to ban them from his office.

....

0 Replies

The Bush Lightbulb Joke!

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to replace
a lightbulb?

The answer is 10.

1. One to deny that a lightbulb needs to be changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the lightbulb
needs to be changed;
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the lightbulb;
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they either favor
changing the lightbulb or support darkness;
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for
the new lightbulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor,
standing on a step ladder under the banner "Lightbulb Change Accomplished"
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting
in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark";
8. One to viciously smear #7;
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush
has had a strong lightbulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference
between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.

(...and finally, after the lighbulb is screwed in, it's burned out and Halliburton has billed them $20,000. for it -lw).

0 Replies

Lightwizard, Many of us know you're in the lighting business, but it's a bit of a stretch to equate "light" in any way to Bush; he's a dimwit.

0 Replies

Well, how about "light-headed?" That is, after beer and pretzels.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/?nav=mpp

The Three Stooges....Pelosi, Reid, and Dean.

Didnt someone else already post this on the Bush supporters thread, like, a week ago?

I remember saying I kinda agreed with it...

It was a lot easier to read without all the baroque bolding and underlining, though.

0 Replies

"Light-headed" fits just fine.

0 Replies

non compus mentis suits him better!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/?nav=mpp

The Three Stooges....Pelosi, Reid, and Dean.

Didnt someone else already post this on the Bush supporters thread, like, a week ago?

I remember saying I kinda agreed with it...

It was a lot easier to read without all the baroque bolding and underlining, though.

Had this been singularly designated for you, your comment would have been appropriate.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Had this been singularly designated for you, your comment would have been appropriate.

Oh, I think most of the folks who visit this thread visits the Bush thread too, and vice versa ... not just me <shrugs>.

Plus, I'm pretty confident that Gloating Democrats find multiply bolded and underlined texts as eye-boggling as Bush Supporters.

I mean, really. Do people really think that making a riot of fonts out of a text is going to make people more likely to read it? Personally, I find that a poster engaging in such 'screaming' of different types in general is a pretty good indicator of how whacked-out his/her writings are.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

It was a lot easier to read without all the baroque bolding and underlining, though.

Why do we have the italics and underline feature? Should you be consulted before they're used? Should you mount an act of civil disobedience to protest these modes of emphasis?

nimh wrote:

Oh, I think most of the folks who visit this thread visits the Bush thread too, and vice versa ... not just me <shrugs>.

Yet,

nimh wrote:

I remember saying I kinda agreed with it...

Well. That's all that matters, I'm sure. It is all about nimh.

nimh wrote:

Personally, I find that a poster engaging in such 'screaming' of different types in general is a pretty good indicator of how whacked-out his/her writings are.

Shouting is designated by caps, as everyone knows very well. Unless of course, you assume authority to rewrite the rules, when you don't like their results.... Meanwhile, I'm sure Slate will be brokenhearted to learn of your opinions of their whacked out little publication.

You reached pretty far for this one.

0 Replies

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend any of those three, however, one thing I noticed in both posts of this slate article is a missing paragraph which is kind of positive about two of the "stooges" mentioned in the article.

Quote:

Pelosi and Reid do deserve credit for getting the Democratic troops in line. Both are former party whips, and since their promotions they've continued to wield the scourge effectively. In Bush's first term, when the too-nice Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt ruled the roost, Democratic defectors let the president pass his tax cuts. In the second term, by contrast, the congressional minority has maintained discipline, winning a few morale-boosting victories and forcing some uncomfortably close votes. Bush was not able to peel off centrist Democrats to negotiate with him on Social Security, which meant a well-deserved defeat for his half-baked privatization plan.

0 Replies

Not only was Bush's social security plan half-baked, but he lied about it going bankrupt. Yes, he lied!

0 Replies

His tax cuts were also poorly thought out and a gimmick to gain support from the very wealthy in buying votes. Because it worked doesn't condone it although Machiavelli would probably think he is a star pupil.

0 Replies

Bush also helped the pharmacists; they're going broke/bankrupt. I wonder who he's planning to "help" next?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:

It was a lot easier to read without all the baroque bolding and underlining, though.

Why do we have the italics and underline feature? Should you be consulted before they're used? Should you mount an act of civil disobedience to protest these modes of emphasis?

Act of civil disobedience? What are you on about?

Next up you're going to invoke the right of free speech or something.

Hon, you're absolutely free to use as many underlines, italics and bolds as you want too.

And any of us is absolutely free to comment on how whacked out it makes a post like that look.

<shrugs>

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
Oh, I think most of the folks who visit this thread visits the Bush thread too, and vice versa ... not just me <shrugs>.

Yet,

nimh wrote:

I remember saying I kinda agreed with it...

Well. That's all that matters, I'm sure. It is all about nimh.

<shrugs> If you got hung up on that line, just ignore it. I only added it at the last moment. Take it out and you're left with the two points I was making.

Lash wrote:

nimh wrote:
Personally, I find that a poster engaging in such 'screaming' of different types in general is a pretty good indicator of how whacked-out his/her writings are.

Shouting is designated by caps, as everyone knows very well.

Yes, by using caps or by TRYING to make your posts stand out in other such ways that look like you're yelling.

Lash wrote:

Unless of course, you assume authority to rewrite the rules, when you don't like their results....

Oh give it a rest. Nobody said you're not allowed to do it or that its against the rules - you're free to do it, others are free to comment on it <shrugs>

Lash wrote:

Meanwhile, I'm sure Slate will be brokenhearted to learn of your opinions of their whacked out little publication.

LOL! I already said I actually kinda agreed with the article!

Try to read my last paragraph again - it doesnt refer in any way to the article. It refers to the impressions that posters who do the whole riot of bold, italic and underline in general evoke.

Since Slate's publication didnt actually come in a riot of fonts, and the only thing I've said about the content of the article is that I actually kinda agree with it, I dont think they need to be too concerned. :wink:

You're the one who's really reaching with your response ... You sound more like Italgato/mele with every post that you address to me.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Lash wrote:
nimh wrote:

It was a lot easier to read without all the baroque bolding and underlining, though.

Why do we have the italics and underline feature? Should you be consulted before they're used? Should you mount an act of civil disobedience to protest these modes of emphasis?

Act of civil disobedience? What are you on about?

Next up you're going to invoke the right of free speech or something.

Hon, you're absolutely free to use as many underlines, italics and bolds as you want too.

And any of us is absolutely free to comment on how whacked out it makes a post like that look.

<shrugs>

Lash wrote:
nimh wrote:
Oh, I think most of the folks who visit this thread visits the Bush thread too, and vice versa ... not just me <shrugs>.

Yet,

nimh wrote:

I remember saying I kinda agreed with it...

Well. That's all that matters, I'm sure. It is all about nimh.

<shrugs> If you got hung up on that line, just ignore it. I only added it at the last moment. Take it out and you're left with the two points I was making.

Lash wrote:
nimh wrote:
Personally, I find that a poster engaging in such 'screaming' of different types in general is a pretty good indicator of how whacked-out his/her writings are.

Shouting is designated by caps, as everyone knows very well.

Yes, by using caps or by TRYING to make your posts stand out in other such ways that look like you're yelling.

Lash wrote:
Unless of course, you assume authority to rewrite the rules, when you don't like their results....

Oh give it a rest. Nobody said you're not allowed to do it or that its against the rules - you're free to do it, others are free to comment on it <shrugs>

Lash wrote:
Meanwhile, I'm sure Slate will be brokenhearted to learn of your opinions of their whacked out little publication.

LOL! I already said I actually kinda agreed with the article!

Try to read my last paragraph again - it doesnt refer in any way to the article. It refers to the impressions that posters who do the whole riot of bold, italic and underline in general evoke.

Since Slate's publication didnt actually come in a riot of fonts, and the only thing I've said about the content of the article is that I actually kinda agree with it, I dont think they need to be too concerned. :wink:

You're the one who's really reaching with your response ... You sound more like Italgato/mele with every post that you address to me.

You deflect criticism by attempting to reduce your critic to a Italgato caricature. Don't think you can be wrong?

You created this whole thing by submitting to the overwhelming urge to tell me someone posted this before, and you don't like me to use italics or underlinings.

A bit anal, wouldn't you say? Laughing

Have you completely lost the ability to pass by when you really have nothing useful to say? Ask yourself why you felt the urge to even address my post.

0 Replies

It is a shame we don't have better leadership on both sides. Frist, Delay and Hastert? Not exactly The Three Musketeers.

0 Replies

I'll give you that.

I can't stand them.

0 Replies

Gridiron Club speech by Sen Obama.
This is good. If you haven't seen it yet, you should.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/obama_on_bush_b_1.html#more

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know