$2/gal gas - not in our lifetimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
http://cartalk.com/blogs/jim-motavalli/?p=1116
Printable View
$2/gal gas - not in our lifetimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
http://cartalk.com/blogs/jim-motavalli/?p=1116
Um, somebody's sure got a warped view of our current President ...
No one ever said Universal Health Care - even those proponents of it - was gonna be free!
Never mind all the other stuff ...
That cartoon says a lot. Here in the heartland it is time for a change because people are feeling :( with the present situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
If you're upset with the way things are going, vote 'em out. Not the President, but Congress.
Over 80% of congressional reps are reelected. Change isn't going to happen with the same gang of fools in charge.
President Obama can't lead period. He has tried lets give someone else a chance to take the reins.
It is a do nothing bunch of idiots in Congress we need to clean house there too. Get rid of the whole lot & start over. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonny
You're right. It's hard to lead when all you have to work with is a" bunch
of idiots" who are determined to see the current President fail.
Amen!Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Pres. Reagan had to work with a much more divided house (The closest division was a 50 seat deficit) and still accomplished much of his agenda.
Agree with his policies or not, the amount a true leader can accomplish is staggering, even if Congress is against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Reagan never met the wing nuts of the Tea Party. He never was asked
to show his birth certificate. He was never questioned about his love for
America. Obama ,as the first African American President had to face blatent
prejudice never before experienced by a major political candidate.
Thank you for proving how utterly ignorant and, a factor that is worse IMO, dogmatic you really are. And you accuse those who hold a different opinion of the exact same thing....Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
Lets put it in language you might understand Liz. Barack Obama's domestic/economic policy is the same as George Bush... on steroids. No? Please elaborate on the differences.
EDIT - Hint <Be sure to consider which party controlled Congress at the time certain variables were put into play. It would be neat to see if you understand how that matters.>
Every President has to deal with name calling and opposition from both the fringes of their own party and the entire opposition party.
Pres. Reagan was derided as senile, a lightweight, an Actor with no background, ad nauseum. He still accomplished much of the agenda he ran on despite his detractors and taking office during a massive recession.
Pres. Clinton was derided as a hick from Arkansas, his presidency was rife with scandal, and he still accomplished much (love it or hate it) on the legislative side.
The first President Bush never got out of the shadow of Reagan, and was an appeaser, never showed a backbone on domestic policy, and didn't communicate well.(read my lips.......)
The second President Bush ran as a conservative initially, had a strong foreign policy (love it or hate it, you knew where he stood) but domestically he tried to be everything to everyone, from No Child Left Behind to the medicare prescription drug benefit disaster. We will pay dearly for both of those.
When Presidents LEAD, they do well. When they appease or go to childish bullying, they do poorly.
If you mean people voted for him because he is half African American, you would be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
IN MY BRIEF RESEARCH INTO THIS SUBJECT . I AM HAPPY TOO SHARE MY FINDINGS. I DO THIS AS A PUBLIC SERVICE.
THANK YOU.
Now we know the complete story!
The English language has some wonderfully collective nouns for the various groups of animals.
We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of fish and a Gaggle of geese.
However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows (as well as their cousins the rooks and ravens), an Exaltation of doves and, presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls.
Now consider a group of Baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates.
And what is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?
Believe it or not ....... a Congress! :D
Don't insult baboons. At least they have a purpose to their....displays.
I am sure there are also people who didn't vote for him for the same reason. Neither position makes much sense, but humans are not always as rational as they could be!Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
Edit.
That was the point Liz was trying to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
If you voted for someone because of their race its just as raciest as if you voted against them because of their race.
Darned if you do! Darned if you don"t!
I remember seeing a poll that women voted for Clinton because he resembled Robert Redford.
But of course voting for someone because they are black is good, and voting against the same person is bad, is a perfectly rational argument.
Robert Redford? Never heard that one before! Oh, well.. could be..
And how about men who voted or would vote for Sarah Palin because they think she's good-looking, former beauty queen and all?
Nobody voted for Sarah Palin for President.
No, but they voted for her for Governor in Alaska, and voted for her for Vice President ...Quote:
Originally Posted by blue
That is the glory and the pain of democracy - there's no need to tell anyone WHY you are voting for someone, so you can have reasons that are good, bad, ridiculous or sublime, and anything in between.
And by the way, anyone who voted for Bill Clinton because they thought he looked like Robert Redford needs their eyes examined. Yes, they are both Caucasian males with blue eyes, there the resemblance ends!
Hey, the same happens here.
Last election we had a rock singer, and a popular news reader who won seats.
Since then, nobody has heard a peep from the news reader, but the rock singer gave everyone in the country free ceiling installation, which backfired into his own face....haven't heard much from him since either.
Nobody should be voted in on popularity, but more so on policy. The sad fact is that a lot of people wouldn't know a good policy from a bad one, so rather than have someone who is experienced and knows what they are doing, the seat is usually filled by....
1) A Marlon Brando lookalike if the majority of voters have purple dyed hair.
2) BO, if a great deal of the voters depend on welfare because they don't like work, and the rest of his votes by those who feel sorry for the plight of BO's coloured folk because they feel sorry for them.
Not much to build a country on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Of course peter garret would want to insulate the ceilings....He's 7 feet tall!
Heat rises. ;)
Peter Garrett is a bloody idiot. He should be doing what he does best, entertaining drunk druggies at pubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
He's like Al Gore. Thinks that everyone who has a BBQ in their backyard are destroying the planet. ;)
Only if they don't know how to grill! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Don't see a picture. The URL shows up in the quote text but not in the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
You need glasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
I can see the pic perfectly clearly.
It's a little box with a red X in it. :D
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!!
WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
Yep....I'll be on his side of the fence. ;)
Dear Australian Laborites, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Ms Gillard, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realise that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of Australia cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the ACTU, the Fabian Society and every member of Emilys List. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep the ABC left wingers (particularly Kerry O'Brien) and Bob Brown. You are, however, responsible for finding an electric vehicle big enough to move all of them.
We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Woolworths and the Stock Exchange. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, dole bludgers, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and boat people. We'll keep the budgie smuggling, bike riding, volunteer firemen and lifesavers, greedy CEOs and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and the churches and give you SBS and the Greens.
You can make peace with Iran, Palestine and the Taliban and we'll retain the right to stand up and fight when threatened. You can have the greenies and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judaeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Penny Wong.. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill..
We'll keep the 4WDs, utes and V8s. You can take every hybrid hatchback you can find.
We'll keep "Waltzing Matilda" and our National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to keep in tune with Peter Garrett as he sings "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya", "We Are The World" and his recent big solo hit Beds and Batts are Burning.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it so often offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded conservative Australians and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John Wall
Australian Law Student
P.S. Also, please take Lindsey Tanner, Wayne Swan, Alan Griffin, John Faulkner, Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin with you.
P. S. S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
Thanks for that, Wom.. I see you have the same kinds of things going on in Australia as we have here.
Har :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wombat2u2004
Government reminds me of The Three Stooges. Wish we could bop their heads together. :D
Well yeah. Every now and again the Idiot Party gets elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by phesina
All of the usual backstabbing and "What kind of grass will we put a ban on mowing this year because trimming it is bad for the environment and is destroying the planet" discussions are the all that goes on in Parliament House.
But that's ok.....The South shall Rise Again. ;)
Awww give them a break Anne.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
Being in the Government is proof that someone has already bashed them senseless.
The Three Stooges were acting....in the case of Government it's incompetence, occasionally willful incompetence.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspunkysmom
Hmmmmm. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
So what you are saying is that imbeciles actually DO exist ????
Interesting Political Poll question. I wonder if Congress cares how we feel?
Quick vote
Should members of Congress get a pay cut as part of efforts to cut the federal deficit?
Yes 94% 329432
No 6% 20444
Total votes: 349876
This is not a scientific poll
No. I think we should double their pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
And tomorrow, sack them.
Does anyone see a problem here ???
I do...but...maybe it's just me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...Ej0sM&vq=large