If you met Obama what would you say to him and is it the same thing you dream about saying?
Well. Though I have little doubt that he'd listen to nothing I have to say, because he's proven by the lunatics he's surrounded himself with for his entire life and the destructive policies he and his cronies champion that he has a vested interest in the very collapse of a free America, we'll pretend for the sake of this discussion that my having a conversation with Che Barack wouldn't be a complete waste of my time.
Because he would learn something if he really listened to me. Unfortunately, I've never met a liberal who wants to learn a thing.
Well, and this might surprise a lot of you, I'd tell him, "thank you". I, we, you owe Obama a debt of gratitude. No, really.
So I'd shake his hand and say, "Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for killing off the Kennedy dynasty. Thanks for being so radical that even East Coast liberals flocked to the voting booths in record numbers to vote for a Republican in Massachusetts for the first time in thirty years in a (mostly futile, but still) attempt to check your power a little.
Thank you for ending the careers of some pretty prolific (and dangerous) democrats. I mean, let's face it. Reid, Boxer, and Feingold are in pretty serious trouble this November. Kiss 'em goodbye for me, wouldja?
Thanks for exposing the true goals of liberalism - to control as much of the lives of your
I do think Obama's done some good for this country. He's brought more people around to Reagan conservatism than any other leader since Reagan himself. He's exposed liberalism for the whacko, America hating ideology it is. These are good things. These things mean that he's a one termer. A lame duck.
And so I hope that if I do have the opportunity to meet him and say these things that it will be in the spring of 2013, so I can wrap up my tribute of heartfelt thanks with, "Thank you, Mr. President, for leaving office. That's single greatest thing you've ever done for America." Because, after all, it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.
84 People Love My Gucci:
I'd like to know where the fuck my "thank you for not reproducing like rabbits" stimulus package is gawddamnit. Thanks a lot bin laden
"Unfortunately, I've never met a liberal who wants to learn a thing."
ahem
My version of liberalism is tolerance for others, caring for those less fortunate, and sexual and reproductive freedom for all (consenting adults, of course). Maybe that really makes me conservative at heart, but the current Republican party cannot meet my needs. Apparently, neither can the Dems. And obviously, my version of liberalism is very, very different than his.
And is it just me, or is Whoopi's torso like, really long there?
Singlemama - Fucking bin Laden anyway. Sheesh.
Elaina - Grin. You know Sage is going to trip over himself to tell you again you're not really a liberal. And I think Whoopi's torso is freaking legendary. I'm actually not sure she's human.
Could you also thank him for paying off my mortgage and giving me a unicorn that poops rainbows?
Oh wait.
(arg, it's not funny if you screw it up the first time and have to delete your post...)
"It takes a Carter to get a Reagan"
Please don't tease me.
Gini - Oh, it's still pretty funny. ;)
Peedee - It's true! It has to be true.
Oh I'm lovin this! Thank you Gucci, for making my day!
My pleasure, Cowboy. I am to please, of course.
Er, aim to please, obviously. Stupid commenting from my phone.
Also, you forgot to thank him for his wife. She's not only shown us all that our wardrobes aren't nearly as dysfunctional as we thought, but she's also taught me that I have a lot more class than I believed was possible.
A sleeveless top and wrinkled ass skirt to meet the royal family of Spain? Really?
That woman is a poor fucking excuse for a human being. Sorry. I can't even pretend to find something redeemable about her. Ugh.
And she dresses like fucking Sporty Spice.
She's just shameful. Said it.
According to an internet poll that I googled, I'm totally liberal! And if you can't trust google, who can you trust? Seriously, though, individual freedom is seriously one of the most important things to me, and the GOP's recent track record on that has not been to my satisfaction. Against abortion? That's fine, but don't push your morals on me. Don't like gays? That's fine, but is their marriage really hurting you? Are those orphans really going to be better off than going to a couple who could love and nurture them, and happen to be gay? After all, gay people don't accidentally become parents, it's something that they think long and hard about and know that they are ready for. Nobody gets drunk one night and accidentally adopts.
Christian? No problem, but don't act like it's so hard to be Christian in America, where 77% of people identify as Christian. You're hardly in the minority, and no one is going to take your bible away. Want prayer in schools? Fine, pray in schools. Who says you need someone to tell you to pray? Just do it.
Seriously, my uber-conservative friends have let it be known that I do not belong. Liberals are, at least mostly, more accepting of differing views, such as: me being supportive of you/Sage/pretty much anyone having a different opinion, but you guys do not show my views the same respect. I never cut down people who disagree with me, but you guys do...often, even. Want to bring people around? Treat them like their opinions, even if they're different than yours, are just as valid, and realize that they probably have reasons just as sincere as you do for thinking that way.
You know I have mad love you, GM, but you can't deny that you insult liberals, and therefore me, like it's nothing. I know you don't see a problem with it, and I learned a long time ago (being the black sheet lib in a conservative family) to let it slide, but seriously, do you think that you're going to convince anyone to come around to your way of thinking by insulting them?
And whoopi looks like a giraffe there. It's kind of scary.
Elaina - I do insult liberals. Sure. I know. I do it because I want people to read my stuff so they learn something. I could do dry, boring (still stunningly spot on) political analysis, but if I don't make it outrageously funny in the meantime, not as many people will come here for an education. Plus, my diatribes foster such interesting discussion!
If individual freedom is one of the most important things to you, then I have to stand behind my baby cakes Sage and say that you are much more conservative than you are liberal. I don't say that to be insulting or condescending. Really really.
I do want to bring people around because I know I'm right and I want everyone else to be right too. See, the thing is, I don't believe that it's valid to see things differently than I do because, quite frankly, it's not valid to see things the wrong way. It's not valid to look at black and call it white because "that's what's right for you". There is no such thing as "what's right for you". There's just right. And wrong. These things are not relative; they are absolute. And I happen to be absolutely right.
I don't ever want to personally attack anyone who joins in the discussion here and I want everyone, regardless of what side they fall on to be treated with respect. But I will absolutely eviscerate loonies like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, etc. who are actively working against the best interests of America and her citizens. Those people I don't mind insulting because they are an insult to you and me and our very way of life.
Oh, and I have mad love for you too. Whoopi is totally a giraffe.
If the conservative party would go back to its "small government" stance, then I would gladly call myself a conservative again. I didn't really care about abortion rights until I got pregnant unexpectedly. I would never, ever have an abortion myself, but knowing the kind of fear that I felt when I found out was about 0.001% of the fear that someone else who can't afford shoes for her kid feels, made me change my mind. 70% of women in the US who obtain abortions live below the poverty line. 61% of women who have abortions already have one or more children. If the choice is between an existing child having food or a potential child being brought into a situation that is already dire, I'm for the existing child. Plus, I don't think that the government should have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. They can't force us to donate organs, even if someone will die if we don't, so why is it even a question of whether or not we should allow abortion? I think it's trying to control women's sexuality, and I can't support that.
As for gay rights, my sister is gay. Enough said.
And I have to disagree with you about only one view being valid. But still mad love.
Well, our view on abortion is radically different. If we say "I wouldn't have one but I won't tell YOU what to do" we might as well say that about rape and murder and every other human rights violation we can think of. Because when it comes down to it, it's not just the woman's body. A fetus is not an organ. A fetus is a separate being. There are ninety million other reasons, but I don't want this whole comment section to turn into an abortion debate.
I support gays having the same rights as everyone else too, which really works out since they already do. What I object to is creating rights for special interest groups and then painting everyone who opposes the fictitious rights with the "hater" brush.
I have absolutely no patience for someone who would ridicule, condemn, mock, or otherwise disparage your sister for being gay. I find that repulsive. It makes no difference to me who someone chooses to love. Just so we're clear.
Elaina, I get what you're saying.
It's frustrating. I was a delegate to the Texas GOP State Convention last month. It's a really interesting experience and if anyone has the chance to attend as a delegate or an alternate, please do it.
This March, during the Texas primaries there was a proposal on the ballot requiring women to have an ultrasound before a doctor is allowed to perform an abortion. I'm pretty certain it will be on the ballot in November (since a large majority voted yes).
My issue with that is simple. Either the GOP is the party of smaller government or they're not. If they are, they can't pull BS like that. They have to do it all the time or not at all. And, I have a real problem with the hypocrisy in that.
I will say this much. From what I experienced at the convention, it seems like there's a shift back toward the the ideas the Founders fought for. It's not so much a shift to the right or to the left, but maybe more of a "we can all agree that we don't like the way things are going." Hopefully you can find a little bit of solace in that.
Gini - But government intervenes consistently when the sanctity of life is involved. The Supreme Court granted states the right to legislate with regard to morality, so the real answer to the abortion question is to put it to popular vote state by state. Unfortunately, that will never happen because the select few who champion the unrestricted sucking of babies from wombs know that the majority of Americans support much greater regulation on the extermination of our most helpless humans.
I mean, if not the innocent and helpless, whom should the law protect?
Gini, thank you. That's my problem with it. It's not that I'm all "hey everybody, abortion is great, let's all have one!" It's just that I feel that the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do with my body.
I'm not disagreeing with you, GM. It's honestly the most glaring example I could think of.
I think the problem is, a lot of the time we (the collective) tend to forget that we can answers to these questions ourselves. Our (again, collective) first thought is to go to the government and ask them to handle it for us. I also think there are a lot of people out there who don't understand what our basic rights are. The pursuit of happiness is NOT an all-encompassing idea.
Don't worry, I'm not going all soft on ya! I just think that in general, the GOP had better get its act together. Either be the party of smaller government or don't. And, if you're not going to be, the rest of us are gonna take care of things ourselves. Or, at least that's how I'm looking at it.
Elaina - Women do have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. They have complete sovereignty over their lady bits when they're engaging in the very behavior that can get them pregnant. When they then get pregnant as a result of their own choice, they are responsible for a completely different body, which they absolutely should not actually have the "right" to kill for any reason, but especially not for the sake of convenience.
Re: gay marriage - Actually, no one has the right to get married. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. A lot of liberals confuse the two things. Most things are privileges, not rights, and I have a problem with liberals consistently blurring the line between the two. Plus, creating the right for gays to marry restricts the rights of others. It would require pastors/rabbis/reverands/etc. who may morally object to the idea of same sex relationships/marriage to compromise their principals. It would start us down a slippery slope to marriages consisting of all sorts of different relationship contracts. Since gays already have exactly the same rights as straight people, there is no legal precedent for creating special rights for that specific group of people.
I absolutely agree that your sister has the right to be treated equally and not discriminated against, but that's not something we can legislate. Unfortunately, asshole isn't illegal. There are already laws on the books in every state regarding employment, education, etc. discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Gini - I see what you're saying. Makes sense.
Let me throw out the obvious rape scenario...
As for gay marriage, I don't really care if it's a privilege or a right, it's something that I, as a straight person, have that gay people don't. And pastors/rabbis/etc can refuse to marry anyone whose marriage they object to. When my husband and I were getting married, we were actually turned away by one pastor because we were "living in sin" (although it seems that marriage would have solved that problem, come to think of it).
And while there are laws that prevent some discrimination based on sexual orientation, there is not a federal law, and not all states have them:
There are currently thirteen states, as well as the District of Columbia, that have enacted policies to protect against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Seven states, meanwhile, have laws that prohibit employment discrimination solely based on sexual orientation. In thirty states, LGBT citizens can be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity without any legal recourse."
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/a_few_statistics_on_lgbt_issues
The manner of conception in no way diminishes the value of the life conceived. Pregnancy occurs in approximately 1% of rape victims and one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage. Since the rape pregnancy scenario statistically almost never happens, it can't reasonably be used as justification for unrestricted abortion on demand.
You can bet, and gay marriage proponents have said, that clergy who refuse to marry same sex couples will face discrimination suits. There's little doubt of that. And while there is no right to marriage, there is a right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
If you don't have the right to marry, why should someone else because they happen to be gay? Should I have the right to do something illegal just because I really really want to and it hurts my feelings that I can't? No. No one has the right to get married. Not you, not me, not your sister, not anyone. But again I say leave it to the states. If states want to allow gays to marry, great! If they don't, that's great too because that's how America works. Well, how it's supposed to work anyway.
Love it and the ending explained it perfectly "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan."
Well said GM!
"Actually, no one has the right to get married. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. A lot of liberals confuse the two things."
Right, similar to how the Supreme Court apparently confuses the two. For example, in 1967, when the court ruled that, 'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.' (Loving v. Virginia)
Civil right, they said. Not privilege.
Thanks, JoJo!
Elaina - I actually never said that about rape; I just said that it's ridiculous to use the rape scenario as justification for abortion on demand when you and I both know that 99% of abortions are performed for the sake of convenience.
Gay marriage is a states rights issue, period. If Southern states wouldn't allow it it's because that's the will of the people. That's what democracy is supposed to be about. Of course, liberals don't care about the will of the people or democracy, as they just proved in California when an activist judge legislated from the bench and overturned prop 8, despite the overwhelming majority of Californians supporting it.
See, liberals don't want liberty, they don't want equal rights, they don't want freedom. They want control. They want to force feed the public their unwanted, unsupported, destructive agenda. They want a populace completely dependent on the government and they want us to have no say in the way things are done. A government with that much power is a very dangerous one indeed.
Did my last comment disappear??
Mine did too Elaina, I don't know what's up! Neither one popped up in my email even. Can you try resubmitting it?
Damn it, I typed up an awesome response to this, and it disappeared into the ether. Trying again:
If a woman is raped, forcing her to then carry and deliver, at the very least, her rapists child is not allowing HER the freedom that I support for Americans. And I'll leave it at that because I really don't want to retype everything I lost, plus it's not like we're gonna change minds here.
Straight people have the ability to legally marry a consenting, unmarried adult of the opposite sex. Gay people do not have the legal ability marry a consenting, unmarried adult of the same sex. This is not equality, and it is not freedom. And civil rights (for lack of a better term) should not be put to the vote, in my opinion. If that were the case, imagine the scenario my homestate and the surrounding states would be in regarding the rights of blacks to vote, marry whites, etc.
I'm sure some idiot may try to sue a clergymember for refusing to perform their marriage, but I'm also sure that they wouldn't win, just as I would not have won had I sued that minster for refusing to marry me.
Alright, Anonymous, let's split hairs. Straight people do not have the right to marry whomever they want anymore than gay people do. I do not have the right to marry my brother or my cousin. I do not have the right to marry my goldfish or my television set. Gay people have the exact same rights as straight people do. There is no justification for creating rights for a specific group of people.
The Supreme Court also gives states the right to legislate with regard to morality (Bowers v. Hardwick is one example) and so the issue of gay marriage is one of state's rights. Put it to a popular vote in individual states and problem solved. But that's dangerous for liberals to do, because liberals hate it when people are allowed to think for themselves. We saw evidence of that in California recently, when even though the overwhelming majority of Californians supported the ban on gay marriage, an activist judge decided to legislate from the bench.
It really pisses me off when liberals want to do my thinking for me. It's not about the issue, it's about government ramming unwanted policy straight up our ass. It's not just gay marriage. Obamacare also comes to mind.
You do, actually, have the right to marry your cousin in many states. In fact, in many states where first-cousin marriage is legal, gay marriage is illegal. Comparing same sex marriage with marrying inanimate objects or animals is beneath your intellect. Consenting adults is the key here, not anything but heterosexual marriage.
And I do not understand the purpose of your example of Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supreme Court later overruled Bowers with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, stating it was unconstitutional to criminalize that type of an individual's personal and private life. So no, states can't necessarily legislate whatever morality they want.
A year after anti-miscegenation laws were overturned with Loving v. Virginia, Gallup took a poll that showed nearly three-quarters of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. What if we had left that up for the popular vote instead of the courts? I find it absolutely appalling that I could be able to vote on someone else's right to get married to whichever consenting adult they choose.
Did the SCOTUS ram interracial marriage down the throats of the 16 states that had it outlawed at the time? Yeah, I guess they did. I can't feel too bad about that.
(Obamacare is a different story. That convoluted garbage actually affects the system and affects all of us in a bad way. Gay marriage does not harm anyone.)
Anonymous, interracial marriage is a completely different issue. Gays are a special interest group, not a race of people.
Quite frankly, it's debatable whether gay marriage harms no one, as you say. It sets us on a slippery slope toward all sorts of relationship contracts, some of which are arguably detrimental to society.
I will say again, gays have the exact same rights as straight people. It's dangerous when we start creating rights for special interest groups, especially against the will of the majority of the people.
Again, leave it to the states. It's not the issue of same sex marriage that bothers me; it's the fact that it has to be accomplished by circumventing the democratic process that I have a problem with.
I wouldn't call the courts determining the constitutionality of an issue "circumventing the democratic process." Part of living in a healthy democracy is having a healthy judiciary. Just as the courts knock some sense into certain cities and states about issues like gun rights, they can do the same for issues like marriage.
Again, interracial marriage was legalized by bypassing popular opinion. The concept of the tyranny of the majority has been articulated in western thought for centuries. The will of the people is sometimes hostile to freedom. And no, I don't believe that there is a perfect analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage (or between discrimination against black people and discrimination against gay people). But I do believe the comparison is relevant, in terms of the legal issues, if not the social or political aspects.
I disagree that what gays and lesbians have is equality. The fact that they can't marry their partners if they want is not an equitable situation, in my eyes.
Part of the point of the Prop 8 trial was for the anti-gay marriage side to demonstrate, using facts, the harm that gay marriage has on society. They were unable to do so. I haven't seen any factual material that proves gay marriage harms straight marriage, children, or society as a whole. The slippery slope argument is an unproven fallacy. Other countries that have legalized gay marriage have not been on a downward spiral toward inanimate object marriage or some such nonsense. I see no reason that America would be any different.
Hmmm, werent the Bush's and Bin laden's family friends? Not that Bush tried to take away any freedoms(patriot act). Oh, I know, that was for your own good. Them big bad terrorists were coming to get ya. Face it Republican/Democrat sleep in the same bed. Its called "Gimme your Money you dumbass"
FREEDOM! Freedom! freedom? cough, cough.
Right, but who is the Reagan waiting to take over for Carter II?
LOL. Oh, that made my day.
Russ: good point. Very good point.
TT - Sigh. You always bring up Bush as if I look to him as some sort of bastion of wonderful conservatism. I don't. I absolutely don't. I've said that before. But you do this when you know I'm right about Che Barack and you can't fight me on it. It's alright baby. I still love ya.
Russ - Yes. Excellent point indeed. I think there are a few viable candidates. Let's see how midterms shape up and then make our predictions.
Applaud your facts, not sure I agree with your sentiment. But then again, I am a bleeding-heart liberal from NY. haha. Still love your blog and hate cats!!!!! haha
Copyboy - Well, we'll always have our mutual hatred of cats. That will sustain us. ;)
Mama
I just want you to play fair. Barack is bad, but so was Bush. Reagan was good, but so was Clinton. You make it a liberal/conservative issue, when in reality its just a "person" issue. Some people are just better or worse than others. Though you do keep avoiding the fact that the elite of both sides still talk with "forked tongue". Its all about the money babe. Freedom is just another word for saying "youre my bitch now, hand over your dough"
TT - I talk about Obama because he's here now. Blaming Bush is not only inaccurate at this point, it's also irrelevant.
It is a liberal/conservative issue, especially where Obama is concerned, because his party has the majority and together they have fucked things up beyond recognition.
Reagan was the best president in my lifetime, in my parent's lifetime, in my grandparent's lifetime. No question. Obviously, you and I disagree about Clinton. He was pretty whacko, though his wife is much, much scarier than he ever was.
"You're my bitch, hand over the money"? When did you become so cynical, my love? I thought liberals were supposed to be full of utopian hope and unicorn love. Sheesh, we need to sing "Imagine" or something.
In my dreams his fuck ups pave the way for the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul will win the 2012-2052 presidential elections. But I will settle for keeping the dems out of office for the next billion years. I guess Republicans are the second best thing.
I didn't know Obama had nice legs like that, that must be how he got into office. And what the hell is with Whoopi is she that tall? She looks like she could play basketball with Shaq.
Natalie - If there was a viable third party candidate who wouldn't just be a gift vote to democrats, that would be fabulous. Unfortunately, that's not in our near future. But the republicans could put up my three year old and we'd have better results than four years with this ass clown.
It is a liberal/conservative issue, especially where Obama is concerned, because his party has the majority and together they have fucked things up beyond recognition.(Mama)
Are you honestly implying that the conservatives(republicans) dont share any of the blame for where your country is at? They were cooking the books for christ's sake. I worried that you were only a little bit in denial but it seems youre much deeper than I thought. Kiss, kiss.
Wolfey - I think Whoopi is an alien.
I'm not saying conservatives have done no wrong, TT. But let's look at the Carter/Reagan example.
Obama blames Bush for everything. Nothing has happened that he doesn't lay at Bush's door, calling it what he "inherited".
Reagan inherited a much worse mess from Carter, had a democratic congress, and fought a Cold War and was able to turn things around in two years.
Obama has a congress controlled by people as whacked out as he is and golfs a lot while his wife travels around the world at tax payer expense. Oooh.
Because he's either a bumbling idiot or he hates America (and I believe he's very smart) he did the exact opposite of what Reagan did and the results are disastrous.
So, yes, it is a conservative/liberal issue at heart, though neither side is perfect, one is clearly superior. Guess which one it is.
bravo my friend bravo :) lol
So Mama
Because Reagan was sooooo great during your short life span, does that mean all the other Republicans were better than all the other Democrats? A bigger question is, could you name all your presidents and what their track record was as Republican or Democrat? I figured you could pull this off because of your greatness. ;)
It wasn't just my life span, baby. Reagan was arguably one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. Are all Republicans better than all Democrats? That's debatable. But conservatism trumps liberalism every time. Conservatism always works where liberalism always fails.
Yes I can name all the presidents. What do you want to know and who do you want to know it about? That will be faster than running through the whole list.
I'm simply thrilled you recognize my greatness.
I had something completely different in mind to say after reading your post and then I read through all the comments.
I will only say this... Wow! Your narrow view is so incredibly sad. It is your type of bullshit in this country that keeps us at a standstill instead of growing. It is 2010 not 1950. The fact that you fail to see that is sad. For you. Very sad.
Honestly I feel sorry for your kids. I would be ashamed to have you as a mother.
Big Mama - Hmm. Since you don't elaborate I have to assume that you object to what you think are my views on gay marriage. But see, assuming is dangerous. I've never stated where I stand on the issue. Not one single time. And I do suspect that where I stand would quite surprise you. What I object to, as I've said more than once, is the fact that liberals take their pet issue, whatever that issue happens to be, and when they learn that they cannot succeed with it through established democratic channels, they ram it through the courts. It's the legislating from the bench that I object to, NOT the issue itself.
It's a good thing I'm not your mother, since you find the fact that I have a love affair with facts instead of emotion so objectionable. Though if I was your mother, I'd have taught you better reading comprehension, not to jump to erroneous conclusions because you want to go off on an unfounded tirade, and I'd certainly have taught you much better manners.
I like your line "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan". For an actor Reagan did do a pretty good job of being President. At least with Reaganomics something trickled down to the masses, and everyone prospered.
Lol, two Mama's making judgements, Priceless. :)
I don't make judgments, Titty Tat. I deal in facts and logic. You know that. I can't help it if someone can't find anything in my perfectly stated case to attack so they attack me personally and bring my children into the mix. It's not a judgment to call that rude. It's just stating another fact.
Be nice to me now, Titty Tat. Let's kiss and make up. You know you're on my side anyway, baby love.
Hello! I am a new reader. Please follow me back at The Nutritionist Reviews and Giveaways: http://couponclippingnutritionist.blogspot.com/
Yes, I do admit that was a little a crass of BMC. Though you have been known to be rather disparaging of Liberals. You just hide from that fact by saying its not personal. We both know that is bull cockie. Dont worry baby, I still love ya. Somehow I think you would be pretty liberal after you got a view shots into your system. ;)
Of course I'm disparaging of liberals, baby. But that's not being judgmental either. That's also being factual. Sometimes it's not personal, but sometimes it is. Still not judging. Still stating facts. You'll always love me. I am irresistible. Another fact. See? I'm a fact lover.
A few shots? When are you taking me out for drinks? I'll show you that even conservatives can be a great deal of fun. ;)
Loved it!!
The Liberals should read some Liberal Bloggers, they are not gentle in their words and they have no love for Conservatives!! My point, if you don't like what you are reading you can always find someone with your 'like mind' go search, that is what is so great about the Internet!!
wow I just read thru all these comments I feel like im in history class LOL! I can say im not a real political person I dont know a lot about this or that but I personally dont like Obama because of the shit we are still in, yeah most of this mess began with Bush or whatever but you are a leader now you cant whine that so and so didnt do this or that, your role as a leader is to get in there and make shit happen, turn things around to the best of your ability. I have seen no progress with our nation what so ever, but like I said im not a news junkie or whatever and I dont stay up to date with most of the politics but Im sure hoping for a new President next time around!
As always love your posts Gucci I feel all informed & shit HAHA
Lucy,
There are always going to be people who are rude to others who disagree with them. For me, personally, I read several personal blogs, many medical blogs, and political blogs from both sides, because I think reading/watching/listening to only things that you agree with isn't really a very good way to learn anything.
I started thinking about your post again and realized something. It took a FORD to get a CARTER. It took BUSH to get an OBAMA. It seems that you may not be too likely to get another REAGAN, especially considering there arent any great conservative actors out there. Unless of course you like Mel Gibson.
Haha, TT. You make me laugh. I'm keeping you.
Gary Sinise is conservative. I just might consider voting for Lt. Dan.
I think youre due for another "Boobie" post. :)
Haha - I know TT! But, um, remember the one I did on the Fourth of July? And I was kind of drunk? I kind of dropped my camera in the pool. I have to buy a new one before there are anymore boob balance vlogs. But there WILL be more; this I promise you.
Ok, am I allowed another question?
Of course, darling.
alrighteeeee, its on the other post
Hmm. You sure it went through? I don't see it on the post or in my email, love. And I'm all atwitter to see what else you want to know.
Never mind. Just saw it. Sent you an email.
God , I love the way you self-righteous right-wing tight asses love to call people names and attach labels to everyone who doesn’t agree with you. Oh, did I say that out loud? Che Barack? Okay, I guess that’s fair because I referred to Dubya as Monkey Boy for 8 years. Dumb as a chimp and looked just like one too.
Never met a liberal who wants to learn a thing? That’s pretty damn funny when it’s been my experience that liberals consistently seek to expand their knowledge. Your reason for feeling this way most likely has to do with the fact that liberals don’t want to “learn” to embrace the bullshit dogma that you righties have been spouting since good ol’ Ronnie was king.
And Barack killed off the Kennedy dynasty? Hmm. Guess somehow I thought it was a brain tumor. Guess we’ll have to wait and see how Scott Brown does in the next general election before we can really make the call whether he swayed all those democrats to the right or just ran against an incredibly inferior candidate.
And you’re really going play the “socialist” card? You really have to stop listening to Rush and Glenn. But then, you guys called Roosevelt a socialist too, which upset Americans so much that they elected him POTUS four times. I think you’re just upset with Obama because he’s moved an agenda forward that favors people rather than your quintessential corporate interests. How much Morgan Stanley stock to you own anyway? And your historical reference here to El Presidente is inaccurate. Che was never President. That would be Fidel. Che was just “El Che”.
And you just couldn’t be satisfied until you brought up good king Ronnie again. Notwithstanding the fact that most modern economists agree that his trickledown economics are pretty much responsible for setting up the economic havoc that we’re dealing with today. Reaganomics? Without question the worst economic policies to infect America since maybe, oh, Christopher Columbus?
And liberals are “whacko, America hating” ideologists? That’s pretty funny shit coming from a person who, if you had your way, would make damn sure that any woman who is raped by a family member does not have the right to choose whether or not she has to carry the resulting child to term? That we should just let Wall Street manipulate our economy to the point that my 401K is smaller than your IQ. That we should ensure that gays are treated like second class citizens in spite of what our Constitution says. That we should never, God forbid, teach our children about effective contraception and how to avoid STDs. What the hell, abstinence has worked so well for the last several thousand years, right? Just ask the Catholics. That you would be tickled pink if we were to make Evangelical Christianity the national religion and follow the bible as the literal word of God. Especially the part where he dictates that we should kill everyone that works on the Sabbath. Puts a bit of a crimp in those special Congressional sessions, doesn't it.
I do want to apologize, however, for saying that I feel sorry for your kids and that I would be ashamed of having you as a mother. That was a bit of a low blow spouted in the heat of passion and I regret saying it. What I should have said is that I feel sorry that your children will be well indoctrinated as good little conservatives before they have the chance to make up their own minds on what is right and wrong about our society and that it's a shame that you will likely mold their minds to be as narrow as yours.
I warned you how stupid it is to assume, Big Mama. But you don't want to listen. You read what you want to see instead of what I said because you want to be pissed off. You have no idea where I stand on the issue of gay marriage. I've never stated it here. But you don't want me to tell you, because it would take the wind right out of your sails. I'm not against gay marriage. I'm against legislating from the bench. I said twenty times at least that it's an issue of states rights. But you want to paint me with the "hater" brush, just like I discussed in an above comment. People like you stoop to that kind of accusatory bullshit because you cannot possibly attack my infallible argument. It's okay. I understand my brilliance is nearly impossible to compete with.
I call Obama Che Barack and El Presidente referencing both your friends Che and Fidel. Because Obama is absolutely without question a socialist. You cannot deny that if you are intellectually honest. Are you intellectually honest? I have my doubts.
I accept your apology, though it's not necessary. Sure, it was a pretty ridiculous thing to say, but you don't have the power to make me angry, hurt my feelings, or upset me at all. I'm glad to see you recognize you're out of line here, though. If you read through all these comments, you'll see that I never call names, I never stoop to personal attacks, that I never ever ever debate based on emotion. I can do that because I work from the absolute certainty that I am right. Not because it's my opinion or because it's how I really really want things to be, but because I have quantifiable facts and recorded history on my side. Those things typically confuse liberals.
Don't feel sorry for my children, baby love. They're lucky to have me. They're lucky I'll raise them to be net gains to society, as all conservatives are. I won't raise democrats. Your children should thank me for that too, because if you raise them to be net loss liberals, it will be my children's hard earned money backing their welfare checks in twenty years.
because my reply comment was too large to post here, I posted it here instead... read it if you want... http://www.bigmamacass.com/2010/08/more-fun-than-whack-a-bush/
Something tells me you never did actually play "whack-a-bush"
Hahaha. No. I didn't. But I actually wasn't much of a Bush fan.
Can you do anything more than present Fox News "talking points"?
You want to try inserting a bit of facts into your argument?
You are calling the President of the United States a dictator? Wow. Who, in recent campaigns, coined the phrase, "You're either with us or against us?"
Who launched us into a second war in Iraq with false and misleading documents, without even checking their validity? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201777.html
Who launched us into that war with few allies, crumbling International relations for years, thus reversing not only centuries old defense positions, but all but reversing the Constitution?
Who sat by and presided over the largest defecit in history? While at the same time, requesting federal assistance for Wall Street, failing to place any restrictions on bonuses, pay, etc..?
Who eased safety restrictions and regulations on oil and gas companies, enabling BP's massive spill in the Gulf this past summer? Last I looked, the Obama administration didn't meet secretly with the leaders of Energy companies, including Ken Lay who ran Enron into the ground.
You really want to say that the MA Senatorial race was Obama's fault? What about Colorado's Democratic Primary last night, still Obama's fault for his candidate winning? MA was a factor of a candidate thinking she didn't have to campaign - stupidly. That's a candidate issue, not a referendum on Obama.
You think bat shit crazy Tea Party woman is going to win in NV? You honestly think Rand Paul has a shot in KY? What polling numbers are you looking at, seriously? Hard core conservatives in the Republican party are looking at the Tea Party and shaking their heads.
So, do you want to present actual FACTS to back up your ill-advised opinions? Or do you want to continue to state talking points from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh..
You want to take on the judge in the Prop 8 trial as well? Bring it.
Which party is actively seeking to overturn the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? The one that pretty much gives you equal protection under the law because you are a woman?
By the way, Presidents leave office in January of the year following the previous years elections. Not the Spring of election year. You possibly mean Autumn, but you're dreaming. This country is still sitting at massive unemployment, the economy is not recovering and people don't see that as Obama's problem, they see that as a problem with corporations... and corporations are linked to WHICH party? That's right... the GOP.
By the way, who placed on the court justices that were willing to write opinions like Citizens United v. FEC, thus ensuring corporations could go to town and give as much as possible to campaigns? That wasn't Obama...
You mean the exact same intelligence Clinton used to justify bombing empty asprin factories at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Did he lie about WMDs too or just Bush? Did the UN lie when they passed 17 resolutions that Hussein was in blatant defiance of? Did we just make it up that he (Hussein) violated the Gulf War Treaty? ALL of which are justification for the invasion?
I have stated several times that I was not a Bush fan. But your assertions are ridiculous.
You don't see Obama meeting with energy companies? Did you see all the dictators he bowed to? Did you see his associations with domestic terrorists? Those don't bother you, hmm?
You want to talk about what Obama "inherited"? Let's talk about that. Reagan inherited much, much worse from Carter, had to deal with a democratic congress, and win the Cold War and he managed to turn things around in two years. Obama has taken a bad situation and flushed it right down the toilet. He couldn't do any worse if he TRIED. Though, quite frankly, he is trying. He's trying to destroy America as we know it.
There's a reason his approval ratings are in the toilet. There's a reason even a lot of democrats are distancing themselves. He's a fringe leftie with dreams of a socialist utopia.
Wow, you are so interactive with your readers! And, bravo to you for not being afraid to say what you have to say. If you read "Writer's Wordshop: Decided in a Heartbeat" you'll know my opinion on abortion. I read a bumper once that said, "It's funny how everyone who is FOR abortion is already alive!"
Mommylebron - I do like a good debate. Especially when my take is clearly superior. As it always is. ;)
That bumper sticker is actually paraphrasing Ronald Reagan who said, "I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." Oh, how I miss that man.
Welcome to the party, by the way! Hope you come back around soon!
Post a Comment