August 2, 2010

"I busted my chops getting them elected, and they caved. They're all lily-livered wimps, and Obama has the backbone of a worm."

The special pain of left-wing (erstwhile) Obama supporters. 

79 comments:

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

So what are they going to do in 2012? Vote for Palin?

Who do they support in 2010? Republicans?

That is not so far fetched as it might seem on first glance. I supported, reluctantly, Obama because I was so totally disgusted with the Repos. I thought a couple years in the wilderness might do them some good.

It looks like I was right. The Tea Party has brought out new voters and new candidates and we might just nudge the country in a better direction.

Would we have had the Tea Parties had McCain been elected?

Or would we have just continued the Repo policy of letting things slide leftward, "But more slowly please"

Those pols that identify themselves as conservative are not interesting in stopping the decline, much less reversing it. They accept everything the Demmies want, just a bit more slowly and not so much.

Going to Hell slowly in a plush lined handbasket is no improvement over going to Hell quickly in a tumbrel.

That is why I am proud to call myself a liberal (or libertarian of minarchist, if you prefer)

A pox on conservatives.

Caveat: Many who call themselves conservative do so out of ignorance. They are really more liberal/libertarian than conservative. No pox on them. They are my kind of people.

John Henry

Scott said...

"The Republican base is part of a conservative movement. The Democratic base, by contrast, is a loose coalition that elects a new president and then goes home, expecting the new president to deliver miracles."

Progressives will never be able to create the kind of movement that conservatives have. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can look around the world at the wreckage caused by leftish movements -- the millions of unbelievers enslaved; the millions purged, their blood crying out from the ground in China and Cambodia and the grounds of the concentration camps, the result of the Socialist genocides in Germany -- and rationally reject the philosophical underpinnings that drive the progressive movement.

With that kind of disadvantage, no wonder progressives can't get any traction in US politics.

SMGalbraith said...

A $1 trillion stimulus package, the most extensive healthcare legislation in history (affecting 1/6 of our economy) and the most far reaching financial reforms since the Great Depression.

And it's still not enough.

Nothing is enough for ideologue (on the left or right).

Methadras said...

Dear Lord poor President Kick-Ass can't a break from leftards can he. He isn't leftard enough for them it seems. lol.

HDHouse said...

I'm gonna miss this guy when he sinks back into the shadows.

HDHouse said...

and by the way, we aren't in pain. the party of "no" has yet to state a case and that actually matters this fall.

I say "no" all the time but that doesn't for an instant move things forward. I just stops things in their tracks.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Progressives to Obama: "Which word of 'and a pony' didn't you understand?"

Pogo said...

Screw "forward".
I want to move things backward.


Build a bridge to the 18th century.

Kirk Parker said...

I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning...

bagoh20 said...

"the party of "no" has yet to state a case and that actually matters this fall."

"NO" is the message. It's exactly what is needed.

"I say "no" all the time but that doesn't for an instant move things forward. I just stops things in their tracks."

Exactly. In other words, stop digging.

ricpic said...

Hard leftists are only happy when they're angry.

k said...

Kirk, that's so big of you. Thanks, not.

The Ghost said...

John ...

so what disgusted you about the Repos that you thought voting in Obama would solve ?

Spending ??? seriously ? you thought Obama wouldn't spend like a drunked sailor ?

National Security ? what did the Repos do that you objected to ?

The Economy ? What did the Repos do with the economy that you objected too ? The bailouts, ok ... agreed ... anything else ? If you go off on de-regulation you will only prove that you are anything but a libertarian ...

So in the end I doubt you ever were really disgusted by the Repos but wanted to vote for the cool kid ... and now you are trying to justify that vote with some sort of rationalization about your superior position as opposed to the conservatives who "really are liberals/libertarians" ...

Concerned troll ...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

A $1 trillion stimulus package,

That mostly benefited unions and government workers, about 18% of the population. That didn't stimulate the economy and has been wasted on pet projects in blue states.

the most extensive healthcare legislation in history (affecting 1/6 of our economy)

That no one wanted in the first place and that will increase costs of insurance and will ration availble health care. That turns medical professionals into slaves of the state and forces the people to purchase elaborate coverage that they don't want or don't need (for young people) or just plain can't afford.

and the most far reaching financial reforms since the Great Depression.


That created enormous layers of bureaucracy and gave sweeping powers to unelected officials to be able to take over and destroy businesses. Huge intrusions into every aspect of not only business but also our personal affairs.

jayne_cobb said...

"I say "no" all the time but that doesn't for an instant move things forward. I just stops things in their tracks."

If you are headed down the wrong path then isn't the one who stops and moves backwards the most progressive?

If the govt. is truly flawed then the first group to say "no" and begin rolling back the failed programs is the group that will be moving us truly forward.

shoutingthomas said...

... and by the way, we aren't in pain. the party of "no" has yet to state a case and that actually matters this fall.

You really don't understand, do you?

Saying "no" to more government and more taxation is precisely what's needed.

Saying "yes" would mean accepting the notion that expanding the role of government and increasing taxation is what's needed.

The Republican Party's problem is that it keeps telling voters that it's the party of "no," then, once it gets in power, it also expands government and increases taxation.

The Republicans have lost the trust of voters that they are really the party of "no."

AprilApple said...

Leftists are never happy. It's impossible. Like a child chasing bubbles, it must be frustrating to watch promises of utopia go pop.

The left get ObamaCare - and they are still not happy. It's not the full-on government controlled tax-payer funded "single Payer" utopia they were promised. Plus, The giveaways to large drug companies confuses them. Frustration.

The left get "financial reform" -- but it's another 2000 page mess filled with insider corporate favoritism. Utopia is still an illusion. Frustration.

The left were promised a vibrant green-economy with lowered sea levels. Instead? They get an oil spill. Frustration.

The left were promised that the evil "Bush tax cuts for the rich" would be repealed. They were promised that if only we could "tax the rich", America would be perfect. Now, if tax cuts expire, the obvious harm to the economy and the left's election prospects are inevitable. (Nevermind the left's/Steny Hoyer's attempt to paint an "up is down" liar situation regarding taxes.) Frustration.

The left were promised a swift departure from Iraq. Guantanamo would be closed too. Frustration.

Utopia is hard.

roesch-voltaire said...

As a Wisconsin "progressive" in the mold of Robert M. La Folletate, Sr. I focus on those issues of ethics and social justice, and therefore I am disappointed in some of Obama's policies, but long ago dropped my idealistic hope that one person can make a change in the well monied and tangled web of DC politics--the lack of oil industry regulation which was lobbied against by over 400 insiders is a good example. But as a progressive I can push for specific issues like appointing Elizebeth Warren, and work with conservatives to enforce the clean water act here in Wisconsin.

Daniel Fielding said...

Suckers!!!!!
Serves you all right, liberal retards!!! :):)

America's Politico said...

No one is going any where. The President/VP will stay for the total 8-years. Palin who quit is not getting to WH. Romney needs to find a job. The GOP is going nowhere.

AJ Lynch said...

"Goal of social justice".

Does that have a goal line so when it is crossed you would say "Ok my work is done, the taxpayers have given enough. Now I can go home and do something else".

AJ Lynch said...

I am having a hard time envisioning the little munchkin, Robert Reich, "busting his ass" in any job. Except perhaps if the Wicked Witch was chasing him.

Duncan said...

I doubt that anyone voted for Barry because they wanted Mr. Macho. Didn't they know what they were getting?

If the label "commie faggot" fits, wear it with pride.

edutcher said...

What they want is a Joe Stalin who will rule (the word they used so often in '08) by fiat and those who object end up in Alaska (or Wyoming, etc.).

Lucien said...

One does not "bust [one's] chops", one busts the chops of others. One does, however, bust one's hump.

Such dinky dao chazerai should not be allowed in colloquial speach.

JayC said...

Well of course the Left is angry - Obama hasn't killed any kulaks yet.

Yet.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

I say "no" all the time but that doesn't for an instant move things forward. I(t) just stops things in their tracks.

So House is a 'Stay the Course' guy. Who knew?

The Crack Emcee said...

Bwaaaaa-haaaa-haaaa-haaaaa-haaaaa-haaaa!

The Crack Emcee said...

John Henry,

"Many who call themselves conservative do so out of ignorance. They are really more liberal/libertarian than conservative. No pox on them. They are my kind of people."

The ignorant are your kind of people? Whatever floats your boat, dude,...

Robert Cook said...

Methadras said,

"Dear Lord poor President Kick-Ass can't a break from leftards can he. He isn't leftard enough for them it seems."

It might help him "catch a break" if he were "leftard" at all, rather than the meek, smalltown, centrist Rotarian he is.

DBQ said, of the stimulus package,

"That mostly benefited unions and government workers, about 18% of the population."

Hahahaha! It benefitted solely the banks and financial houses (and the thieving gangsters who run them) who have bankrupted this country and who nearly caused a collapse of the Global economic system--which is not to say it still can't, or won't. (Collapse, that is.)

It's too rich, such willful obtuseness and persistent hatred of "da unions" (i.e., working people), who appear to such ignorami to be the tryants of the economic system (even as their numbers shrink precipitously each year), yet who, in truth, are the primary victims of it.

Big Mike said...

Deos the Left ever do anything besides whine?

Maybe they could bring a nice brie.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hahahaha! It benefitted solely the banks and financial houses (and the thieving gangsters who run them) who have bankrupted this country and who nearly caused a collapse of the Global economic system--which is not to say it still can't, or won't. (Collapse, that is.)

At the risk of bringing facts into the discussion, the stimulus didn't go to the banks and financial institutions. That was TARP and was a fraction of the stimulus price tag.

ricpic said...

"...those who object end up in...Wyoming."

I wouldn't mind ending up in Wyoming...cept for winter acourse.

Robert Cook said...

Hoosier, point taken, I sloppily used the shorthand term "stimulus" when referring to the TARP program.

Nonetheless, my semantic carelessness does not render any more valid DBQ's supposition that "unions and government workers" have been beneficiaries of any tax dollar payouts.

Neither does it render invalid the reality that the government has transferred billions of taxpayer dollars from the hands of working Americans and into the pockets and offshore accounts of the thieves who head up the banks and Wall Street firms, who have enjoyed an orgy of giving themselves bonuses with our money during a time when many Americans are in desperate straits.

shoutingthomas said...

It might help him "catch a break" if he were "leftard" at all, rather than the meek, smalltown, centrist Rotarian he is.

Jesus Christ! About all I can get out of this Robert Cook, is that you are somewhere between a Maoist and a devotee of the Khmer Rouge.

You should live in Woodstock. We've still got a hard core of Stalinists who haven't lost the faith. Apparently, you haven't either.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The quoted rant comes across better if you read it aloud in the voice of the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket. You can add the part about the reacharound or not, as the spirit moves you.

Jeremy said...

Then this idiot should vote for the Newt/Palin/Romney/Beck/Limbaugh (or whatever it turns out to be in 2012) ticket and see what he gets.

Our entire country has become a nation of whining and bitching pussies.

Jeremy said...

Hey Crack - The next time the GOP has one of their famous "Big Tent" affairs...see if they'll even let you in the door.

I always get a kick out of minorities who fancy themselves "conservatives"...as if the GOP could give a flying fuck about anything you have to say.

As for this dipstick's complaints: as I said before...then he should vote the GOP ticket and see how they deal with what he deems important.

GFL

Juba Doobai! said...

Well, Governor Palin did say Obama has no balls, didn't she?

John said...

Crack Emcee,

Most people, inclusing myself, have no idea what the label "conservative" means. Ask 4 people who identify as conservatives and you will get 5 different definitions.

Ask someone on the left and they have no idea. It is just a general all purpose epithet.

In my experience, when I talk to people who call themselves conservative and get into what they really want, I find that they are really liberals/libertarians.

Much less government, less centralized and more local, only attempting to do a few functions such as police and military. Naturally less taxes would be needed.

So yes, if they believe the above, I don't think they are conservative so much as liberal.

The above applies pretty much to the Tea Partiers.

They are not ignorant in general, most of them seem pretty sharp. They are just ignorant of the proper word to describe themselves.

I don't really care what they call themselves or why. What matters to me is what they believe.

John Henry

Juba Doobai! said...

Jeremy, you racist Democrat (sorry to repeat myself) piece of shit. I've met more racism from Democrats (oh, you poor person of color! You can't achieve xyz unless we he'p you! (yeah, you buncha plantation overseers, you!) than from GOPers who lay down the talk hard and clear like good wood and expect you to bust your arse getting what you want outta life.

John said...

Ghost asked what disgusted me about the Repos on a number of topics. Lets take them in order:

Spending

Seems to me that the Repos have been almost as guilty of overspending as the Demmies.

Would be be better off overspending by half a trillion than a full trillion? (or whatever the numbers might be)

I would say worse off. Half a trillion might not be enough to get people pissed off enough to do anything about it.

Would the Repos have bailed out GM and Chrysler? Yes, I suspect that they would have. Perhaps spent less money. They still would have spent far too much of money we don't have. If it had been less blatant, would the American people have gotten pissed off enough to rise up as the Tea Parties have and as they give every indication of doing in November?

National Security?

We could argue about some of the details. Should we be sending more troops to Afghanistan. Overall though, contrary to his pledges as a candidate, it doesn't seem like Obama is doing anything much different than Bush did or McCain would have. We are still in Iraq, Gitmo is still open, we have more troops in Afghanistan and so on.

The Economy ?

Bailouts and general interference with the economy.

"If you go off on de-regulation you will only prove that you are anything but a libertarian"

I don't know what you mean here. I am for abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Banks, SEC, Commodities commission etc.

We might have gotten a bit less additional regulation under the Repos but only a bit less and it would have been every bit as harmful.

"I doubt you ever were really disgusted by the Repos but wanted to vote for the cool kid ... and now you are trying to justify that vote"

First, I live in Puerto Rico and we have no electoral votes. So, no, I didn't vote for Obama.

But I am not looking to justify my support for Obama. I was for him specifically because, as I have said for a long time, going back to the 80's at least "Worse is Better" (as Lenin said) I run a discussion group called NIOT and if you want to go back and look at some of the 50,000 or so notes since 1999, you will find I have said that there, with much greater elaboration, plenty of times over the years.

I was not old enough to vote in 1968 but supported Wallace because I wanted to destroy Washington. Or take it back. I was no fan of Wallace but he seemed like it might be helpful to have him as prez.

I have never, cast a ballot for an incumbent.

The US is busted. Our Constitution is nothing but a scrap of paper signifying nothing. We need an Obama to stir up the American people to take back our country.

I don't like him. I think he is incompetent and in the short run has done and is doing enormous damage.

But I also think he is just what we need and would vote for him tomorrow if I could.

I draw the line at contributing money. But then I almost never give pols money unless I am trying to bribe them. Legally, of course. We call them campaign contributions.

John Henry

Scott said...

Don't waste your time arguing with Jeremy. When the conservatives take over, we'll just send him to a reeducation camp.

John said...

I meant to say that bad as Obama is short run, he is just what we need in the long run.

John Henry

Jeremy said...

Juba Doobai! - Yeah, right.

Show me the stats to back up your claim that the "libs" or the "Dems" have a real problem with minorities.

Show me how many votes the GOP garners from minorities.

Show me how many people of color even belong to the GOP.

You're just another tea bagger trying to defend a party that supports racism and is having a real tough time dealing with the fact that we have a president who is not lily white...and doing a better job that little Georgie.

Jeremy said...

Scott - I've always got a kick out of your moniker. Does it illustrate the fact that your intellect is equal to a bunch of broccoli?

As for the "reeducation" camp to which you refer: little Georgie gave everybody a pretty good idea of what happens when you have a man of limited intelligence, and maturity running the show.

shoutingthomas said...

You're just another tea bagger trying to defend a party that supports racism and is having a real tough time dealing with the fact that we have a president who is not lily white...and doing a better job that little Georgie.

Get a job, Jeremy. That is, if you can.

You really need something to do with your time.

The race huckstering is stupid and boring.

c3 said...

from Carl Bialik, WSJ 1/7/09

But, had Blacks and Hispanics voted Democratic in 2008 at the rates they had in 2004 while whites cast 43 percent of their vote for Obama, McCain would have won.

So I have to wonder how much Mr. Reich's friend, David, influenced folks in these two voting blocks.

Assuming Mr. Obama runs again, I assume he'll get the same percentage of black votes, but will they turnout in as high numbers?

As for hispanics, I don't see the Republicans doing much to impact that percentage.

So I'd suggest the '12 election will be driven by swings in white voters.

This is one snapshot of the present situation. Not good for BO but 2012 is far away.

In the meantime, Mr. Reich's friend should consider settling down a bit and speaking a bit more softly. I would wager that the direction he wants to president to head will make these polls head south

TRO said...

"I say "no" all the time but that doesn't for an instant move things forward. I just stops things in their tracks."

Even if it were true that the Republicans were the party of "no", which it is not, what the hell difference does it make when the Dems are in total control of the House, Senate and the WH?

I keep hearing this over and over - the Republicans are keeping Barry and the Dems from doing what they need to do, but that's all bullshit. Every Dem knows it, except the delusional ones. Well, okay most of them ARE delusional, but you get the point.

Michael said...

I think "no" is a great idea for a party's theme. I would recommend that we pay our legislators by the laws they can rescind, say $10,000 to each for every law taken off the books. Hopefully this scheme would cost tens of millions thus saving us billions.

Also, I would recommend that they meet outside of Washington. Anywhere that was at least a three hour drive, one way, from a Palm restaurant.

And the "progressives" who voted for Obama? Pound. Salt.

Jeremy said...

shoutingthomas - Sorry, dickweed, but I merely state the facts of the matter.

Anybody who thinks the GOP is the part that favors people of color needs to read more and talk less.

With the exception of the idiot who is running the RNC...why not take the time to name the top ten blacks who you feel represent the GOP.And don't leave out that ONE black Senator.

Michael said...

Jeremy: In regard to the stupid George Bush one can look up his grades and his SAT scores. As to the brilliant Obama such research is impossible because the grades etc are sealed. Strange modesty for a man who has "written" two, (2), autobiographies before turning 50. Odd, eh?

Jeremy said...

shouting asshole - Aren't you the bigoted fool who hates gays, while at the same time representing yourself as a musician...and who's wife was an artist?

Now that's something you don't run into very often.

And aren't you're also the dickhead who's always screaming to high heaven about how people should be punched out for posting comments you disagree with?

I suggest you grow up.

Jeremy said...

Michael said..."Jeremy: In regard to the stupid George Bush one can look up his grades and his SAT scores...."

Blah, blah, blah...I know all about little Georgie's grades.

Now YOU tell me how someone who you think is so fucking smart...got us into two wars, and after inheriting a massive "surplus,"...fell asleep while the real estate market melted down, the financial houses of the country bilked millions of Americans out of billions of dollars...then signed an 800 billion dollar bank bailout (bet 90% of the tea baggers here and everywhere don't even know that)...then left behind an unemployment rate of 7.7% and a trillion dollar deficit when he headed off for the "ranch."

If that's what you call "smart"...you've got a real problem.

Jeremy said...

Michael - Looks like you're having a rather tough time defending little Georgie's "smart thingie."

Fen said...

Libtard: Now YOU tell me how someone who you think is so fucking smart got us into two wars

Libtard Jeremy thinks we shouldn't have invaded Afganistan after 9-11.

Libtard Jeremy thinks rogue nation states like Iraq (and Iran now) should be allowed to develop WMDs for proxy attacks against the West.

Libtard Jeremy has to go look up "proxy"

and after inheriting a massive "surplus"

Libtard Jeremy doesn't understand the massive suplus Clinton inherited came from Bush. See "Peace Dividend"

fell asleep while the real estate market melted down

Libtard Jeremy is ignorant that Bush went to Congress TWICE to warm about Freddie and Fannie. Racist Democrats played the race card to keep the house of cards up.

bet 90% of the tea baggers here

Libtard Jeremy is still begging to suck our balls. Go away sicko perv.

If that's what you call "smart" -

Libtard Jeremy doesn't understand the meaning of "smart"

Jeremy said...

Fen:

"Libtard Jeremy thinks we shouldn't have invaded Afganistan after 9-11."

I had no problem invading Afghanistan...but instead, we invaded Iraq, moron. And since that moment in time, we lost over 4,000 Americns and got another 30,000 wounded...in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Explain that

"Libtard Jeremy thinks rogue nation states like Iraq (and Iran now) should be allowed to develop WMDs for proxy attacks against the West."

Show me any evidence of WMD found in Iraq. For you to continue that lie is another indication of your ignorance.

"Libtard Jeremy has to go look up "proxy" and after inheriting a massive "surplus""

Bush inherited a "surplus...period.


"Libtard Jeremy is ignorant that Bush went to Congress TWICE to warm about Freddie and Fannie."

Well, if that's so...and considering the GOP held the "majority" for 6 of his 8 years...what happened...Fen?

"Libtard Jeremy is still begging to suck our balls. Go away sicko perv."

It was the tea baggers who came up with the name, asswipe: "The term "teabagger" was introduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders: The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.”

Stop lying and read before posting tea bagger drivel.

Jeremy said...

Fen - Here's another one of your tea bagger buddies illustrating exactly what you people believe:

http://duanegraham.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dale-robertson.jpg

Jeremy said...

Fen - Educate yourself for a change:

FactCheck.org:

Q:During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A:Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.

Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted.

But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Fen said...

Libtard: I had no problem invading Afghanistan

Bullshit. You got your panties in a wad because "he got us into two wars". Make up your fucking mind, idiot.

Libtard: Show me any evidence of WMD found in Iraq

I didn't say that. I said "prevent rogue nation states from developing WMDS". Do you deny that Iraq had a WMD program?

[waits for Libtard to look up "WMD"]

It was the tea baggers who came up with the name, asswipe:

Not the way you use it, bitch.

Stop lying and read

Lying? Hell, you cant even comprehend the basic argument. And then you try to weasel out of words you made just one post upthread.

before posting tea bagger drivel.

And you STILL can't suck my balls, sicko pervert Jeremy.

Fen said...

Libtard: Fen - Educate yourself for a change: FactCheck.org

Oh thats hysterical. You think because something has "fact" in its URL that its the final say on truth.

You're such an easy mark. No wonder you're so pissy all the time.

Fen said...

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion...


...Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus."


http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Fen said...

/more

"The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."

I'll wait while you wrap your head around that.

Try not to injure yourself again.

Fen said...

[jeapody theme]

.....

Should we call a medic?

Or are you just switching to one of your other sock-puppets?

I find it hard to believe you are unaware Iraq had a WMD program. Are you this stupid or just corrupt?

Bruce Hayden said...

In the words of the sainted Bill Clinton:

I feel your pain.

Jeremy said...

Fen - "Bullshit. You got your panties in a wad because "he got us into two wars". Make up your fucking mind, idiot."

The fact that he got us mired down in TWO wars doesn't mean I didn't think we should go after Osama Bin Lade. You're skewing my comment to fit your delusional bullshit. And he DID leave us with two wars...did he NOT?

"I didn't say that. I said "prevent rogue nation states from developing WMDS". Do you deny that Iraq had a WMD program?"

I know what you said, but what does our current military plans have to do with NOT denying such countries to develop WMD? Bush olied us into Iraq and you know it, but don't have the guts to admit it.

"Not the way you use it, bitch."

I provided you with proof and there are plenty of signs at rallies (even at the very first rally) that used the term; "tea bag" the Democrats. (Take a shot at doing some research.)

"Lying? Hell, you cant even comprehend the basic argument. And then you try to weasel out of words you made just one post upthread."

I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. Try that one again.

"And you STILL can't suck my balls, sicko pervert Jeremy."

You appear to know quite a bit about this ball sucking thing.

I wonder why...

Jeremy said...

Fen - I realize being a tea bagger is getting a tad old, and it's always been embarrassing, not only for you, but the entire country...but why not read a few books...and hey, maybe even a NEWSPAPER...so you can argue with any real credibility.

You're trying to defend George W. Bush, the worst president in our nation's history by dragging out the same bullshit the GOP has been throwing out for the last 8 years plus.

It's too late...the world already knows the kind of job the man did.

Bruce Hayden said...

More realistically though, these progressives just don't understand the Democratic party that they are in bed with. These ruling Democrats aren't "progressives" really, but rather statists who have adopted crony capitalism of the Fascist vintage.

All you have to do is watch how this Administration and this Congress have ruled over the last year and a half. They passed a massive "stimulus" bill that was designed primarily to benefit their most power constituencies, and then adopted financial "reform" that effectively leaves the firms that are too-big-to-fail still unregulated. The 2,000 pages of the bill will likely result in 10s of thousands of pages of regulations, that will most just hamper the smaller banks and financial institutions, while benefiting the biggest financial institutions.

What is going on there and why aren't the progressives being rewarded? Because that isn't where the money is. The unions are at the table (though they still haven't gotten card check) because they provide a lot of money to campaigns, as well as the Democrats' foot soldiers. Big companies are at the table because they have a lot of money to spread around, and the Democrats know that they will get a lot of it, either directly as campaign contributions, but even more so as lobbyists, consultants, and board members.

What has been notable about most of the fraud and corruption that we have seen over the last couple of years with the ruling Democrats is that it mostly involves special favors and being bought off. Usually not as blatant as what William Jefferson was doing, but rather, the sort of sweetheart deals that Rangle, Dodd, and, yes, even President Obama have gotten.

The "progressives" who are complaining here just don't have much that the Democrats need right now, except for their votes, and the progressives are not about to vote Republican. And they don't have enough votes to keep the Democrats in power, esp. in the House, come November. So, no surprise that they have ended up as junior members in the ruling coalition.

Bruce Hayden said...

Neither does it render invalid the reality that the government has transferred billions of taxpayer dollars from the hands of working Americans and into the pockets and offshore accounts of the thieves who head up the banks and Wall Street firms, who have enjoyed an orgy of giving themselves bonuses with our money during a time when many Americans are in desperate straits.

And it was all done with the full collusion of the ruling Democrats. It is called "crony capitalism", and is one part of Fascist socialism. Everyone is equal, but there are some, at the top of government, the top of big companies, and those that interface between them, that are far more equal.

shoutingthomas said...

shouting asshole - Aren't you the bigoted fool who hates gays, while at the same time representing yourself as a musician...and who's wife was an artist?

Yawn... another idiot.

Fen said...

Libtard: I realize being a tea bagger is getting a tad old -

I'm not a member of the Tea Party. Learn to read. And no, you still cant suck my balls.

You're trying to defend George W. Bush

No. I didn't like Bush. But your criticism is so ignorant that I had to set the record straight. Hell, you didn't even know Iraq had a WMD program.

the worst president in our nation's history

is still Carter and soon to be Diversity Hire Obama.

And you will always be a pathetic little partisan shill.
DHOTUS

Scott said...

Wow. I think Jeremy's little nutrino hate brain just exploded.

Truthfully, I think Jeremy is in fact Ann Coulter who comes over here as an agent provacateur, pretending to be a foaming-mouth leftard in order to make liberals look bad.

And it's working!

Scott said...

Wow, Jeremy as Ann Coulter in man drag. There is a certain symmetry to that.

Jeremy said...

Fen - "I'm not a member of the Tea Party. Learn to read. And no, you still cant suck my balls."

Can I buy you a dictionary?

You can pass it around the next bagger meeting.

Jeremy said...

Scott said..."Wow, Jeremy as Ann Coulter in man drag. There is a certain symmetry to that."

You revere Ann "The Human Trash Can" Coulter.

Aren't you afraid she'll hear about this?

Fen said...

Geez Jeremy, you're not even a decent troll.

Trooper York said...

AlphaLiberal is not as pleasant when he posts in his Jeremy persona.

Jeremy said...

Fen - Still want that dictionary, dumb-ass?

Trooper - Fuck off.