I agree that “conservative” does not equate with “responsible”, especially when one is discussing finances.
Not that I’m going to discuss anything with you, since you’ll simply redefine the terms to mean whatever you want. (whatever, “discuss”, “redefine” or “you” means)
Edit to add: Oh, and it’s possible to put more than one thought in a post ya know. Just keep typing before you hit the “submit” button (whatever “submit” means)
OK, so one of us sold you a bag of oregano. Time to move on.
I mean non-morons.
So . . . you agree with me . . . or something?
Didn’t edit to add: I don’t have time to fuss around with opening and closing quote tags. I’m trying to spread my wisdom on the intarwebs in the little time I have between making this world a better place through doing productive work.
buuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrnnnn!!
So instead of typing out quote tabs, you waited a whole minute just to make the world a better place with “buuuuuuuuurrrrrnn”? To save time?
You’re fucking dumb.
Yeah, “Obama taint lickers” is much more witty."
Have you checked the polls lately? This election is shaping up to be an old fashioned. You don’t even want to SEE where the state by state polls are at tonight. If you’re counting on some trivial slip of the tongue by Joe Biden to turn this thing, you’re going to be quite disappointed.
A word of advice. Don’t jerk off in the morning. You’ll need to save it up so you have some way to console yourself once the debate is over.
I think that many of the libertarians who are now supporting Obama, but were Republicans before are being affected by the same mental process that causes the Uncanny Valley in CGI animation and robotics; McCain is just different enough for them to see his flaws, while Obama is on the other side of the valley where his likable positions stand out among the mass of unlikable ones.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
OK that one was pretty good. Problem is I haven’t felt the need to jerk off since meeting your mother (buuuurrrrnnn?).
And I’m not a big poll guy so your link doesn’t bother me. Many don’t even give an option for “none of the above,” so there are serious questions regarding whether they really measure true voter sentiment. And plus I never said anything like I was counting on Biden to fuck up to turn this thing, I was just showing how ridiculous the Palin threads are by trying to seriously discuss the chances of something stoooopid happening.
But we’re getting sidetracked from teh buuurrrrnnn, so I digress.
Alright, this will take a little bit of proving…
Okay, so we all know that 20th Century Fox owns the FOX television network, which canceled Firefly, and also owns Fox News. Fox News is widely reputed to be funded through back channels by wealthy persons who support the GOP’s political ideas, as a sort of bizarre extreme test of the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment. Anyhow, they’re in the tank for Palin.
So then it’s obvious, but Fox News has been showing lots of Palin clips. None with a direct connection. But Fox always demonstrates the truth of its central proposition by pointing out that they’re the only ones reporting on a given story besides the brave bloggers like Drudge. The leftie MSM won’t touch truth THIS powerful. Now, pay attention closely: Here we see that, while FOX was running Firefly, there were no occurrences of Sarah Palin mentioning the show at all. I don’t think I need to connect the dots for you: it’s SHOCKING.
Now, anyone who’s any good at math can follow this part. Sarah Palin was born in 1964, in about the middle of the 20th century. She may deny it and claim that she is now in the 21st century, but her ties to the 20th century are indisputable. And of course, it is widely reported that she is a fox. Watch a few clips of her on Fox, and I’m sure you’ll agree. You may need to turn the volume down.
So there’s the evidence. I’ll put it together for you: 20th Century Fox canceled Firefly. Sarah Palin is a 20th Century Fox, who happens to be supported by a corporate subsidiary of that very conglomerate! You won’t see this story in the New York Times, pal. It’s TOO DANGEROUS.
This is interesting as hell. Thanks for the link.
That’s an astute point. During the Democratic primaries, lots of people who were for one candidate or another looked over at the Republicans and said, “Hey, if my candidate doesn’t win, that guy over there looks better than the other Dems!” while focusing only on a few data points about “that guy over there.”
For example, me in a moment of pique saying I’d vote for Giuliani since, well, at least he’s pro-choice! And my husband, also in a moment of pique, saying he’d vote for McCain because at least he’s pro-gun!
We snapped out of it eventually, but I think a lot of people con themselves into voting for really silly reasons and later regret their impulses.
Pure awesome. Thanks for this. Hope the Loose Change mofos don’t hear about this, they’ll be all over it.
Witness: Bricker saying he would vote for Obama because he ran a clean campaign, then changing his mind after realizing that no one else would take the lesson.
Meh. That just struck me as grandstanding of a very silly sort. I never believed he would vote for Obama.
But if he had, he would have regretted it (or would have been one of those terrifying people who are incapable of admitting error).
They don’t need to be more fiscally conservative. Here’s my thesis:
When the Republicans are in charge, there is no one to keep them from overspending (since Democrats, will by nature, overspend).
When the Democrats are in charge, they will overspend, or try to, but Republicans will block them at every opportunity in an attempt to vilify the Democrats. They will run against Democratic spending.
Thus, when there is a Democratic president and a relatively balanced Congress, the Congress will check the spending proclivities of the President. If the spending starts to get out of control then the Congress and/or the White House will eventually swing back to Republican. At first the Republicans will pretend to be conservative, since it got them elected, but eventually they’ll screw it up as badly as their forerunners. Then it’s time to switch back.
This creates a sort of dynamic equilibrium. This is a necessary evil, since people are naturally greedy. Politicians will claim that they want to be fiscally responsible and reform the system, but their constituents demand pork barrel spending to keep the politician in office.
It’s easy to vote against theoretical national excesses yet still want lots for your own backyard: exhibit A on this is Sarah Palin, who “said no to the Bridge to Nowhere” once it became politically expedient, yet still kept the money to spend on other cool stuff. Now Alaska is spending MUCH, MUCH MORE to build a bridge to Wasilla, a cool $600,000,000. This is pure porkbarrel, connecting a town of 5-10,000 to Anchorage so it cuts down their commute. Let’s be generous and say that there are ten thousand people in Wasilla: that comes out to spending $6,000 for every man, woman and child there so that real estate owned by a Republican House member’s son will be worth more, er, so constituents will spend less time driving in to work.
Sure, $600 million is nothing, just a drop in the bucket. But it is about 1% of what the Wall Street bailout will cost. Another 100 or so of those projects would pay to help fix things on Wall Street and ostensibly keep us from another Depression.
Anyway, where Democrats are perhaps more CONSERVATIVE is actually only spending money that they have. That’s old fashioned nonsense. And fiscally responsible.