Did you guys watch CNBC's shitty GOP Debate ? True to their "First In Business" tagline, those free market champs gouged America with pay access for the privilege of watching a gaggle of hacks complain about any question that wasn't, "Can you tell us your favorite American flag story?"
I have to keep shushing the bug-eyed, unhinged imp on my shoulder because I'd hurt the feelings of too many of my closest relatives if I let him rip...so I bribe him with internet access and playtime on Wonkette to keep him quiet.
Totally agree. I was reinforcing and expanding on what you said. I regularly see and hear comments from people who insist that they will never go onto Facebook because they don't want to be bombarded with moronic garbage posts from total strangers, as if they would be helpless to avoid them. There certainly are valid and understandable reasons for dispensing with The Big Blue Overlord, but that isn't one of them, since users in reality select who they are willing to hear from and what posts from them they are willing to receive. Every Fb user possesses their very own Banhammer of Loving Correction.
As for public officials and their controversial posts, the "surprise" at the public revelation of them is just so much BS. The whole reason why prominent figures such as political office holders have social media accounts is to communicate with the people, so they are fully aware that what they post is visible to everyone; that's the whole idea. Despite what they may claim, the reason why they are upset is not because what they posted became common knowledge, but rather because it drew negative reactions.
Any fool knows that if you want something to remain private, you don't post it on Facebook. Even their pet goldfish would say, "Well duh!"
I keep trying to tell myself that my few remaining Republican friends are not bad folks...a little misguided maybe, but they mean well. But the crazier it gets in dumbfuckistan, the harder it gets to square. I mean, I don't expect 'em to about face and volunteer for Bernie or anything, but sheesh, buy a clue.
Thanks, my personal drinking game is have a scotch on the rocks every time I see or read or hear Peggy's name in any form. I particularly enjoy Noonington, also,too.
I am a retired USAF 0-5, with 1700 hours flying F-111s. Had I simply quit flying I would have met a board, and they would have taken my wings. Had I quit showing up for work, they would have court martialed me.
I hate W and everything he stood for. Which, come to think of it, was nothing.
I have to disagree. Bush stood firmly for turning everything he could over to corporations and cronies. His administration required that the people hired to help the CPA rebuild Iraq be loyalists, going so far as to ask whom they had voted for. The highly qualified doctor who was first tapped to head the health care system was replaced by a Christian evangelical who had run and adoption agency and spent his time trying to privatize Iraq's completely destroyed pharmaceutical industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2006...
Of course we all "know" that Bush was a successful businessman despite the fact that both companies he started went bankrupt and that there was strong evidence that he had engaged in insider trading while on the board of Harken Energy.
What people do not understand is how the Bush family has gotten the mainstream media to ignore their wrongdoing and help them in their quest for power. Bush Senior was deeply involved in Iran Contra but claimed he was out of the loop. When Dan Rather dared to ask him about his involvement in that unconstitution operation Bush attacked him and the media sided with Bush. He later pardoned Caspar Weinberger so that the evidence for his involvement would not come out at trial but (unlike Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich) the media shrugged off that outrageous act. Poppy's administration strongly signaled to Saddam that they did not care if he invaded Kuwait. (Both our ambassador April Glaspie and State Department spokesperson made that clear.) Bush did a 180 after Iron Lady Margarte Thatcher challenged his manhood by telling him not to go wobbly and, by some accounts, reminding him that her war in the Falklands helped her poll numbers. There is good reason to believe that had we warned Saddam not to invade that war could have been avoided. Yet the MSM has completely ignored this clear case of Bush bungling.
Even the ones I know who actually are fairly decent people at heart have begun-in the last few years-to buy into this reflexive, vindictive meanness that infects their party. I can tolerate differences of opinion, but I hate fuckin' bullies.
I have to keep shushing the bug-eyed, unhinged imp on my shoulder because I'd hurt the feelings of too many of my closest relatives if I let him rip...so I bribe him with internet access and playtime on Wonkette to keep him quiet.
Totally agree. I was reinforcing and expanding on what you said. I regularly see and hear comments from people who insist that they will never go onto Facebook because they don't want to be bombarded with moronic garbage posts from total strangers, as if they would be helpless to avoid them. There certainly are valid and understandable reasons for dispensing with The Big Blue Overlord, but that isn't one of them, since users in reality select who they are willing to hear from and what posts from them they are willing to receive. Every Fb user possesses their very own Banhammer of Loving Correction.
As for public officials and their controversial posts, the "surprise" at the public revelation of them is just so much BS. The whole reason why prominent figures such as political office holders have social media accounts is to communicate with the people, so they are fully aware that what they post is visible to everyone; that's the whole idea. Despite what they may claim, the reason why they are upset is not because what they posted became common knowledge, but rather because it drew negative reactions.
Any fool knows that if you want something to remain private, you don't post it on Facebook. Even their pet goldfish would say, "Well duh!"
(By the way, I LOVE your nym and avi.)
I keep trying to tell myself that my few remaining Republican friends are not bad folks...a little misguided maybe, but they mean well. But the crazier it gets in dumbfuckistan, the harder it gets to square. I mean, I don't expect 'em to about face and volunteer for Bernie or anything, but sheesh, buy a clue.
Thanks, my personal drinking game is have a scotch on the rocks every time I see or read or hear Peggy's name in any form. I particularly enjoy Noonington, also,too.
Go easy, partner, we wouldn't want you getting a case of the wobblies. :-)
At last! UNITY IN THE GOP! "GOP presidential campaigns agree to some debate change"
http://www.latimes.com/nati...
Oh, was it a wingnut bitching about something? I missed it, dammit!
Randolph and Mortimer are going to be on TV? That's new.
Hey, careful there... to her gin and Alka Seltzer is medicine against the vapors.
Ribbit!
I am a retired USAF 0-5, with 1700 hours flying F-111s. Had I simply quit flying I would have met a board, and they would have taken my wings. Had I quit showing up for work, they would have court martialed me.
I hate W and everything he stood for. Which, come to think of it, was nothing.
I have to disagree. Bush stood firmly for turning everything he could over to corporations and cronies. His administration required that the people hired to help the CPA rebuild Iraq be loyalists, going so far as to ask whom they had voted for. The highly qualified doctor who was first tapped to head the health care system was replaced by a Christian evangelical who had run and adoption agency and spent his time trying to privatize Iraq's completely destroyed pharmaceutical industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2006...
Of course we all "know" that Bush was a successful businessman despite the fact that both companies he started went bankrupt and that there was strong evidence that he had engaged in insider trading while on the board of Harken Energy.
What people do not understand is how the Bush family has gotten the mainstream media to ignore their wrongdoing and help them in their quest for power. Bush Senior was deeply involved in Iran Contra but claimed he was out of the loop. When Dan Rather dared to ask him about his involvement in that unconstitution operation Bush attacked him and the media sided with Bush. He later pardoned Caspar Weinberger so that the evidence for his involvement would not come out at trial but (unlike Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich) the media shrugged off that outrageous act. Poppy's administration strongly signaled to Saddam that they did not care if he invaded Kuwait. (Both our ambassador April Glaspie and State Department spokesperson made that clear.) Bush did a 180 after Iron Lady Margarte Thatcher challenged his manhood by telling him not to go wobbly and, by some accounts, reminding him that her war in the Falklands helped her poll numbers. There is good reason to believe that had we warned Saddam not to invade that war could have been avoided. Yet the MSM has completely ignored this clear case of Bush bungling.
Couldn't agree more. My urge to engage in open eye-rolling gets more and more intense around them as their party gets more and more batshit crazy.
Even the ones I know who actually are fairly decent people at heart have begun-in the last few years-to buy into this reflexive, vindictive meanness that infects their party. I can tolerate differences of opinion, but I hate fuckin' bullies.
And the Irish.