home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

radio personality: rush limbaugh

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

rush?

rush, rush i can feel you! i can feel you all through me!
3
3%
crap
85
89%
find him entertaining but don't necessarily agree with his politics
2
2%
find him entertaining but despise his politics
6
6%
 
Total votes : 96

Postby yut on Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:11 pm

steve wrote:
yut wrote:The problem is, both parties are towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of how they act. You are basing your views on what they say and not what they do.

Nonsense. I am well aware of how short the "left" in america falls of its stated goals and promises. You are the one who is obsessed with the difference between their rhetoric and their actions. I am concerned only with the tangible difference in their behaviors. The right wing is worse in every single attribute.

To pretend they are not worse is to deny the obvious in service of your preconception that there is no difference. Your preconception is demonstrably wrong.


Steve, let me know when the Republicans reverse Roe v. Wade and build that wall between the U.S. and Mexico... These extreme views are simply to get the redneck and Christian vote. They will not do it because industrialists need cheap labor; Republicans need to entice Christians to vote; and many Republicans actually don't care about abortion at all, and some of the actually support choice. They don't want to alienate the business Republicans. So, just like the Democrats can waive their health care carrot for 40 years, Republicans do the same. But they all tend to move towards the middle.

I can't be excited about a party that treats me like a total idiot and continually lies to me. On the heels of this Iraq lie that got them the majority, it seems like I am one of the few who is complaining about it. By voting for these people, you are encouraging it. Perhaps you should vote Green to send them a message. Green will never win, it is not possible in an SMSP electoral system with gerrymandering.

Let's face it -- Guiliani is the next president, and he isn't much worse than Hillary. People have such a boner over 9-11, they will at least get over their WASP fetish and put someone of southern european heritage in the White House. I would like Nader... But realistically, we are going to have another Republican in the White House -- Rudy Guiliani.

Yes, Republicans have done a lot of bad. Democrats have done some amazingly bad things. JFK, in particular, was a bastard when it came to foreign policy. That asshole almost nuked us all. It wasn't entirely his fault, but those missiles wouldn't have been in Cuba in the first place if it wasn't for his secret war with Cuba.

Clinton's economic policies have set us up for slavery with China. He sold us out to China. Period. He is against the working man.

Anyway, I have to buy some toilet paper and feed my Chihuahua... Good luck with your voting and stuff. Rock that vote! It sure has seemed to be working...



























...for the richest 1%...
User avatar
yut
happy meal
happy meal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Chicagae, IL

Postby yut on Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:15 pm

steve wrote:
yut wrote:The point is -- who do I vote for if I don't want a war at all?
That isn't a ballot option, nor is giving yourself the Ambassadorship to Sri Lanka. Don't let your frustration blind you to those things you can influence.


Exactly... In fact, very few things have been settled at the ballot boxes. Civil rights and workers' rights were achieved through non-violent direct action. Voting is almost meaningless.

People could change things now, without voting, but it would take some organization and people would need to cough up some money and time.

Even Eisenhower had to desegregate the schools, not only because of the Supreme Court, but because of the pressure from interest groups. He was a Republican and a racist.
User avatar
yut
happy meal
happy meal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Chicagae, IL

Postby NerblyBear on Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:40 pm

Yut, you need to realize that you are being a complete ass when you assume that we consider the Democrats to be "rock stars" or flawless. Maybe the more deluded or ignorant Democrats have faith in their politicians, but the people on this board are too disillusioned to have faith in anything.

For the last time: The Democrats are worth voting for because they are better than the Republicans. You've already admitted this to be the case. Stop driveling on and on about stuff we already know.

End of story. Now you can stop trying to prove that you're smarter than everybody here--an attempt which has backfired dreadfully since you keep making an ass out of yourself.

P.S.--aren't you also a prog-rock fan and a huge fan of Zappa? If so, that explains everything.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby Minotaur029 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:43 pm

yut wrote:
steve wrote:
yut wrote:The point is -- who do I vote for if I don't want a war at all?
That isn't a ballot option, nor is giving yourself the Ambassadorship to Sri Lanka. Don't let your frustration blind you to those things you can influence.


Exactly... In fact, very few things have been settled at the ballot boxes. Civil rights and workers' rights were achieved through non-violent direct action. Voting is almost meaningless.

People could change things now, without voting, but it would take some organization and people would need to cough up some money and time.

Even Eisenhower had to desegregate the schools, not only because of the Supreme Court, but because of the pressure from interest groups. He was a Republican and a racist.


You sound a bit like Ralph Nader here...only you come off as a total prick instead of the quasi-prick that Nader comes off as in person (at least when he's "campaigning").
User avatar
Minotaur029
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: 7777

Postby thewarden on Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:09 pm

Can we get Matthew back? Yut's killing me here...
User avatar
thewarden
pope
pope
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:33 am
Location: Emerald City

Postby El Protoolio on Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:50 pm

Remember, Yut is the one who, a few months ago, claimed that Chicago had no good Mexican food.

He is not to be taken seriously.
User avatar
El Protoolio
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Your Mom

Postby clocker bob on Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:29 pm

El Protoolio wrote:Remember, Yut is the one who, a few months ago, claimed that Chicago had no good Mexican food.



Actually, I think Yut was unable to decide between a botulism-ridden roach hatchery of a Mexican restaurant and a Mexican restaurant with mediocre guacamole, preferring to wait until a Mexican restaurant that served guacamole made with Benito Juarez' mom's recipe opened on his block. Until then, he stood on the corner starving to death and advising passersby to stay out of all Mexican restaurants.
clocker bob
 

Postby glynnisjohns on Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:41 pm

clocker bob wrote:
El Protoolio wrote:Remember, Yut is the one who, a few months ago, claimed that Chicago had no good Mexican food.



Actually, I think Yut was unable to decide between a botulism-ridden roach hatchery of a Mexican restaurant and a Mexican restaurant with mediocre guacamole, preferring to wait until a Mexican restaurant that served guacamole made with Benito Juarez' mom's recipe opened on his block. Until then, he stood on the corner starving to death and advising passersby to stay out of all Mexican restaurants.



oh, that guy.

I'm just impressed yut hasn't bashed eighties british music in the past five posts.

Salut Yut! you cocksucker.
User avatar
glynnisjohns
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
 
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: vista, ca. the zapotec district

Postby El Protoolio on Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:06 am

This just felt like the right thread to post this. Not worth a new thread. From this.
Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon about the latest meeting of Bush's book club, where the guest was "Andrew Roberts, an English conservative historian and columnist and the author of 'The Churchillians' and, most recently, 'A History of the English-Speaking People Since 1900."

"The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God."
User avatar
El Protoolio
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Your Mom

Postby clocker bob on Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:48 am

El Protoolio wrote: He has God.


Ordinary hubris drives the afflicted to behave with madness. Holy hubris turns men into sociopaths. You simply cannot invent a better 'special invisible friend' for yourself than by inventing a god that serves you, and then wearing your invented guidance counselor over your shoulders like a magical cape. Bush gloats about his sociopathy. He's been reported making these kinds of boasts many times. 'I don't talk to my father, I talk to my Father', that sort of shit.

He's clinically insane and possessed by demons. I hold out hope for spontaneous combustion.
clocker bob
 

Postby Mark Hansen on Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:07 am

El Protoolio wrote:Remember, Yut is the one who, a few months ago, claimed that Chicago had no good Mexican food.

He is not to be taken seriously.


Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Point well taken.
User avatar
Mark Hansen
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8952
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:45 am

Postby yut on Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:54 pm

The best you can do is to marginalize me by saying I don't think Chicago has good Mexican food? You not only demonstrate that you have no knowledge of politics beyond high school government class, but you also illustrate that you are a moron that has nothing valid to contribute to this discussion.

I used to think Steve was pretty smart, but now I think he is just another dumb punk rocker. He is so passionate about his milquetoast and moderate political views, that I am more amused than disgusted (but I am somewhat disgusted). I don't care if he went to Northwestern. I work with quite a few people from Northwestern and Stanford, and have found that these "elite" schools stay elite because they have high rates of student retention. This means they inflate grades so that no one flunks out, which means you don't have to study that hard. As far as admissions, they are willing to admit the dumbest a-holes that can throw a ball... All top schools have made it a policy to favor activities like student government, sports, etc. over grades and test scores, because "too many Asians" were being admitted. So Northwestern doesn't mean shit when he clearly has a high school grasp of politics. His politics seem to be inline with that of people who attend elite private schools – the Hoover Institution and its Northwestern analogue. The guy is a capitalist – he owns the means of production at EAR, and in my opinion a $25,000 a year salary is virtually slave labor in Chicago. Steve taking that salary himself is like the Google founders paying themselves $1 a year in salary. Steve could probably do fine without the $25k… It’s Dale Carnegie tactics -- the fake representation of being “one of the people”.

Did anyone see the video clip of Nancy Pilosi talking about the plan to withdraw from Iraq by the fall of 2008 (during election season... Good idea, let the troops get shot at until it is time for the election. Cool!)? Unfortunately, I could not find it on YouTube. If anyone finds it, please post it. Listen to what she says at the end…

The funniest thing is that after she says by the fall of 2008, she says "or around that time". This legislation also does not prevent the troop surge that Bush proposes. It simply legitimizes another two years of warfare, which plays right into the Republican's agenda. Sure, they will make a show of how unpatriotic this is, but they are given the green light for 21 months of warfare. The Republicans are secretly quite happy about this.

There are 70 Democrats in the house who are outraged about this. Good for them. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent her constituency in San Francisco or the public. She represents Chevron, Halliburton, and other interest groups.

Ralph is 100% correct, and called her on it. This speech was delivered a month ago. She went with her interest groups and ignored her public constituents. Our government isn't a democracy... Not even a republic. It is run by interest groups. This is what is known as the "iron triangle" in political science, in case you are interested in the academic side of politics. If you are into punditry, then go ahead and listen to Randi Rhodes’ cheerleader act for the Democrats. Why not get some pom-poms and join in?

As far as the notion that people like me allow the Republicans to stay in power, I should mention this is the same thinking the Republicans employ -- if you are against the war, you support Al Queda. The Democrats say if you are critical of them, you support the Republicans. So here is another area where both parties operate at the same level. They both marginalize anyone critical of them by saying if you don't support us, you support the enemy. The problem is, by supporting the Democrats, you send the message that it is OK for them to lie about health care, fixing global waming, ending the war in Iraq, and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

The Democrats have constantly harassed Nader about how he lost them the elections. I saw Nader on the Daily Show recently, and he asked why are they picking on him when the Republicans stole the election? Which one is it? The 57,000 people who were denied the right to vote in Florida by Database Technologies, or the handful of people who voted for Nader in Florida? What about the fact that the courts called off the recount and determined the election? And the Democrats pick on Nader? Nader is proof that people like me are completely disgusted with the Democrats and do not feel represented. Only 1 in 4 Americans trust the government.

To address the idea that war is an executive decision and not something determined at the ballot box, there is some confusion about the War Powers Act. This act allows the president to start a war for 60 days without Congressional approval. The fact that there is war after these 60 days is because both Democrats and Republicans voted to go to war and continually voted to fund it.Yes, even the “liberal” Hillary Clinton. If you already forgot the last promises from the midterm elections, when the Democrats pledged to end the war, and the Republicans distanced themselves from Bush and Iraq, then you will probably think that the war is not determined at the ballot box. To a certain extent, this is true, because the Democrats said what they needed to say to get elected. Once in power, they legitimize the war for 21 more months. They act on behalf of those that gave them money. Your vote doesn’t matter, because with money they get the power to lie to you some more… And you eat it up! People actually think Clinton is a liberal now? In what way?!?

As far as "what would Clinton do if he was president from 2000 - 2008", here is my best guess based on what he has said in the press recently, as well as the actions of past Democrats during times of war. If you think Clinton is a liberal, you are misinformed and basing this view on a false notion that Democrats are the leftist party. They are not. They are a middle of the road party with a handful of leftists who are marginalized.

1. Clinton said he would have 200,000 troops on the ground. So both Clinton and Bush would have a war.Clinton would have the troops in Afghanistan mostly, but also other areas in the Middle East. This is the finest example of Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee (as my political economy professors would put it, though they could really be schooled by a journalist/recording engineer)

2. With 200,000 troops on the ground, you get back into deficit spending. So both presidents would generate a deficit.

3. Clinton gave tax breaks to corporations. Both presidents support fiscal policy that benefits the rich. Both presidents support trade policy that makes it easy for cheap products to be imported, with little parity on the export side. The Chinese do not buy American – they steal it. They pirate our media and do not buy our durable goods or agricultural products. Both presidents support tax breaks for corporations to offshore American jobs. Kerry flat out said this is the free market, and more jobs will be generated in America because of the offshoring. Interesting… Tax breaks and subsidies are evidence of a free market? Skull and bones anyone? Does the fact that the two candidates in the last election were from the same secret society at the same university maybe make you wonder how different these guys really are?

4. Clinton cut welfare, so he would also continue to harm the poor. Can you say “father issues”?

5. As far as losing our civil liberties, the great New Deal liberal, FDR, interred Japanese Americans during WWII. FDR was far more liberal than Clinton could hope to be. So I cannot assume that Clinton would protect civil liberties. JFK had no problem ignoring international and domestic law that the United States cannot assassinate foreign leaders. He made several attempts to assassinate Castro, and his "secret" war (Operation Mongoose) had a lot to do with Castro asking for protection from the Soviets, which led up to the closest we have come to Armageddon ever. Democrats have a spotty record of protecting civil liberties and an even worse record of promoting international security. JFK was a rich elitist – the benefactor of a family that made its wealth smuggling booze during prohibition. The ACLU is just as busy during a Democratic regime. I could see Clinton allowing the FBI to spy and wiretap Americans without due process, because it is a time of war and the U.S. was attacked. Maybe he would inter Muslim Americans? I’d like to say I doubt this, but this is what “liberal” Democrats have done in the past, and FDR is probably the most likeable and progressive president ever…

6. As far as the environment, the Kyoto talks took place during Clinton's reign. Didn't sign off on it, etc. Gore has a nice movie, but doesn't practice what he preaches. Gore does buy offsets to make up for his $30,000 a year utility bill. The whole concept of this free market trading of pollution vs. non-polluters came about during the first George (Herbert-Walker) Bush administration. So he uses George Bush's economics of pollution to wash his hands of the pollution he personally generates. Even Hollywood stars are more environmentally conscientious than Gore, and they make better movies too. Paying $10 and driving to the theater to be reprimanded by a hypocrite is simply ridiculous. I just want to smack him towards the end of that movie when he goes into that “it might be inconvenient, but you have to consume less”. He says it in that demeaning tone that makes me want to kick his head in. No, Gore, you need to stop taking money from interest groups and regulate business so they stop polluting and give us products that are more efficient. I cannot design, develop and market an electric car. This is something for the government and industry to do. Don’t put the onus on me, especially when you have a $30,000 utility bill and are chauffeured around in a gas guzzling stretch limo. Even Hollywood movie stars worth tens of millions of dollars will drive themselves in hybrid cars (which are a scam, but that’s another story).

Beyond that, Hillary says she will stop global warming. How? The UN released a report a few weeks ago that concludes this is simply not possible. It will take centuries even if we stop all carbon emissions. Of course, the Democrats are very good at ignoring the UN. They continue to say the Republicans led them into Iraq, while the UN was saying there were no WMD's there – we checked! But, you see, the Democrats rely on idiots like many of you, so they can re-write history and blame the other party, when they were simply operating on behalf of their campaign contributors -- Halliburton, oil companies, etc. Even if they were truly misled by the Republicans, and Hans Blix and the UN didn’t exist, they are still morons for believing the Republicans. They should know that the Republicans lie just as much as they do. But of course, we know they were simply dishonest when they said the Republicans convinced them to vote for the war. The rest of the world knew there were no WMD’s, and it was on CNN and even CNN Headline news every day for months before the war. Are these sources of news too “high brow” and intellectual for the Democrats? Or maybe they were just too busy with that grueling workaholic schedule that our legislators have to maintain…

I think you should vote for the Democrats if you want to. They do throw the odd bone to the underdog once in a while. Yes, they raised the minimum wage, and this is great, but not even close to where it should be (for the benefit of rich and poor alike – “priming the pump”, as Keynes put it). But if you think they are liberals or against the war or in favor of the middle class, you are sadly mistaken.

Image

This phenomenon you see illustrated above occurred just as well under Clinton as it did under Reagan and Bush.

If you think the Democrats are some great political party, you are fooling yourself. Most of you just want to spend your 1 hour of voting every 2-4 years, and feel good about yourselves. You buy the leftist Democratic punditry on Air America and the hypocrite nonsense about the environment that Gore is spouting, but not following himself.

Well, pat yourselves on the back for electing the Democrats into congress. Now Americans and Iraqis are dying until the 2008 elections. Almost 2 more years of this war has been approved by the Democrats. THIS IS NOT A PLAN TO WITHDRAW. IT IS A PLAN TO SUSTAIN THE WAR FOR 2 MORE YEARS.

This time frame is no accident. It gives enough time to secure the oil interests in Iraq, and the troops will come home just as people are heading to the polls. It is not even compromise. I’m surprised the Republicans didn’t write this piece of legislation themselves.

If you think this is really cool and significantly different than what the Republicans do, you are simply high. Enjoy your kielbasa burritos, and remember “don’t stop thinkin’ about tomorrow…”
User avatar
yut
happy meal
happy meal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Chicagae, IL

Postby Boombats on Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:00 pm

yut wrote:As far as the notion that people like me allow the Republicans to stay in power, I should mention this is the same thinking the Republicans employ -- if you are against the war, you support Al Queda. The Democrats say if you are critical of them, you support the Republicans. So here is another area where both parties operate at the same level. They both marginalize anyone critical of them by saying if you don't support us, you support the enemy. The problem is, by supporting the Democrats, you send the message that it is OK for them to lie about health care, fixing global waming, ending the war in Iraq, and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

The Democrats have constantly harassed Nader about how he lost them the elections. I saw Nader on the Daily Show recently, and he asked why are they picking on him when the Republicans stole the election? Which one is it? The 57,000 people who were denied the right to vote in Florida by Database Technologies, or the handful of people who voted for Nader in Florida? What about the fact that the courts called off the recount and determined the election? And the Democrats pick on Nader? Nader is proof that people like me are completely disgusted with the Democrats and do not feel represented. Only 1 in 4 Americans trust the government.


Two paragraphs, two very good points. Two paragraphs later and I got ADD and had to stop reading. Don't be discouraged.
Escape Rope / Blxck Onion / Black Mesa
warmowski wrote:Fire back, absolutely, always and forever no matter how much it blows Andy's mind.
User avatar
Boombats
Analingus Eggnog
 
Posts: 21209
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:31 am

Postby yut on Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:15 pm

NerblyBear wrote:Yut, you need to realize that you are being a complete ass when you assume that we consider the Democrats to be "rock stars" or flawless. Maybe the more deluded or ignorant Democrats have faith in their politicians, but the people on this board are too disillusioned to have faith in anything.

For the last time: The Democrats are worth voting for because they are better than the Republicans. You've already admitted this to be the case. Stop driveling on and on about stuff we already know.

End of story. Now you can stop trying to prove that you're smarter than everybody here--an attempt which has backfired dreadfully since you keep making an ass out of yourself.

P.S.--aren't you also a prog-rock fan and a huge fan of Zappa? If so, that explains everything.


No... people here still think Clinton was a liberal and he would do such a better job if he was in office.

I may listen to Dream Theater, but at least I don't live it. Some of you people are simply fooling yourselves. You are living in your own dream theater where Clinton was a liberal and so much better than Bush.
User avatar
yut
happy meal
happy meal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Chicagae, IL

Postby El Protoolio on Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:56 pm

dbl post
Last edited by El Protoolio on Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
El Protoolio
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Your Mom

Postby NerblyBear on Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:58 pm

yut wrote: You are living in your own dream theater where Clinton was a liberal and so much better than Bush.


So you're still intent on knocking your head against the wall?

Let me say it one more time, with emphasis: The Democrats are worth voting for because they're better than the Republicans.

I look forward to another 5,000 word diatribe that I can again skip over because it misses the point entirely.
Last edited by NerblyBear on Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NerblyBear
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:49 pm

Postby El Protoolio on Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:59 pm

yut wrote:The best you can do is to marginalize me by saying I don't think Chicago has good Mexican food?


Well fucking duh doude. If you're that much of an ignorant ass about something like that then that's all I need to say. If you can't find one decent Mexican place in all of Chicago then how the fuck do you dress yourself and how could anyone take you seriously?

yut wrote:You not only demonstrate that you have no knowledge of politics beyond high school government class, but you also illustrate that you are a moron that has nothing valid to contribute to this discussion.


I actually agree with some of what you have to say Yut, I just think you act like a hypersensitive pompous ass.

I could run laps around your knowledge of politics kid. None of your ideas or criticisms are new nor is your course of action. It's defeatist and lazy. Both parties would rather you didn't vote. How do you like being their puppet?

If you really want to build a viable and sustainable third party then get someone you would back to run for Alderman or Mayor or County Board President and build it into a local, state and national party. It takes time and patience. In the meantime exercise your only direct political power and vote for people who at least don't make you throw up in your mouth. The system is rigged for two parties. So work the system to the best of your ability.

Or just sit around, bitch about how things are, and do nothing. It's worked so far huh?
User avatar
El Protoolio
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Your Mom

Postby a. james on Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:11 pm

i'm not reading 20pages of shit on rush limbaugh, of all fat fuckin' pricks.

anyone remember that bill hicks joke?

"he's like a fat guy in a bathtub who wants you to piss on him..."

something like that.
Marsupialized wrote:I am NOT sorry I yelled. I should have yelled louder.
User avatar
a. james
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 15371
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: rva.

Postby nihil on Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:42 pm

yut wrote:I used to think Steve was pretty smart, but now I think he is just another dumb punk rocker. He is so passionate about his milquetoast and moderate political views, that I am more amused than disgusted (but I am somewhat disgusted).



I'm confused. But I think I'm confused because you are confused. Where is there evidence of these "milquetoast and moderate" political views that you speak of?
User avatar
nihil
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: St. Louis

Postby glynnisjohns on Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:09 pm

yut wrote: You are living in your own dream theater where Clinton was a liberal and so much better than Bush.


Holy crap.

Ridiculous.
User avatar
glynnisjohns
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
 
Posts: 3079
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: vista, ca. the zapotec district

PreviousNext

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kokorodoko and 20 guests