Stupid Republican idea of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter acsenray
  • Start date Start date
As I said, if the reason for Bush not giving her the medal was because he thought her writing was mediocre, that wouldn't be stupid at all. But his reason for not giving her the medal is because of witchcraft, which is stupid.
Though the reasoning may be idiotic, I can't say I disagree with the final result.
 
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.
Well, then, put in oversights of whatever committee-head she might become. Not oversights on the first lady.
 
It's called the Prosperity Movement. I don't know what you call its adherents, exactly.

ETA: Other than "stupid", of course.
 
Representative Lynn Jenkins (R - Kansas) said that the GOP is searching for a great white hope. But she didn't mean that in racial terms.

I think I'll have to give her a pass, too. It wasn't until I had read the linked article that I knew where the phrase came from. I knew it had to do with boxing, and that was it.
 
Palin link here

Weird. Nice timing too, right at the start of the holiday weekend. You have to admit, it's a pretty nice B-day gift to America.
 
Yes, but they're not married. They're living in sin.

Edit to add, I just realized that Brian could be talking about James Carville and Mary Matalin.
 
This person was......was...a...(sorry, I'm having a hard time typing it)...a...Presidential Press Secretary....


http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911240056

Dana Perino on Hannity said:
"I don't know all of their thinking that goes into it, but we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term. I hope that they're not looking into this politically."

*faints*
 
What matters is that it didn't fucking happen. Did. Not. Happen. Happened? It did not.
The files disappeared and turned up a week later in the Clinton living quarters.

That created suspicion.

That suspicion is what I referred to.

Diogenes the Cynic said:
Actually, yes it does. That's the way it works in America. No evidence = presumption of evidence.
In a court of law, yes. In the court of public opinion, not so much. For example, how do you feel re 'Bush lied' to get us into Iraq? There is absolutely no way to know what Bush's thinking was, and there was evidence, believed by most of the world's intelligence agencies and Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, that Iraq possessed or was developing WMD. But none were found so the overwhelming attitude around here is that "Bush lied". Where's your forensic evidence there?

Diogenes the Cynic said:
Starr said he found no evidence whatsoever. Neither forensic or testimonial. Absolutely no reason to believe it happened.
Correct.

Diogenes the Cynic said:
You are making accusations of evidence tampering against Hillary based on nothing.
Not true. I'm making allegations of mysterious happenings with regard to files from Foster's office. (Which aren't actually 'allegations' at all, but matters of fact.)

Diogenes the Cynic said:
It's beyond asinine to make totally unsupported allegations, and then say that everybody else has to prove they're false.
The allegations I've made are totally supported by the facts. The inference to be drawn from them is obviously a matter of political persuasion.

[quote=Diogenes the Cynic said:
]Let me tell you, if your boy, Starr, couldn't find anything or get anybody to squeal, there was less than nothing to it.
That simply isn't true. There may have been nothing to it, or there may have been something to it which was successfully removed or destroyed and which subsequently prevented it from coming to light.
 
Oh, absolutely! Go after Michelle Obama, that's perfectly brilliant! Yessirree, Bob, thats a great idea!
 
I can see how it might be taken as racist, as I would have just used superglue in that context instead of a brand name, but I don't think it necessarily is.
 
I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

I disagree. At least not is she is forging public policy. But, hell, I think that Cheney's energy policy meetings should have been public too.
 
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

I wasn't aware that she was in charge of anything. My impression has been that she's been mostly Obama's PR stand-in, which IS a traditional "First Lady duty".
 
President Obama's being attacked for his choice of condiments. Condiments! I realize that Hannity is already a total loonball, but now he's being joined by other loonballs in a full-blown case of Dijon Derangement Syndrome.

Does the base really need to be propped up this badly? OMG SOCIALIST!! WHO LIKES FANCY-PANTS MUSTARD!!

They're a laughingstock.
What.

I don't like any mustard on my burgers, just ketchup. But I also only eat veggie burgers. So what does that make me?
 
Back
Top