Political Humor

[babyfett]

You are quoting from opinion shows!

If you really want to see a loon look at Keiyh Olberman or Chris Mathews on MSNBC.

If Bill O’Reilly stated that Tiller was a baby killer (refering to the abortion doc) that was a true statement.

America's citizenship statute has been perverted. It was written into the Constitution to cover slaves.

And you get your news from a one sided opinionated news channel. Whats the difference?

[Princess Alice]

One of my favourite pieces of satire, from the British comedy series "Yes, Minister"

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;

* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;

* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;

* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;

* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;

* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;

* And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

A bit incomprehensible if you're not familiar with British newspapers, though.

[square_duck]

Does this count?

ROFL I love it! but I really do hope Sarah Wins against what ever looser Democrap that they put up for election. Oblahblah is done, dems ratings are in the toilet, come November you will see a landslide of republican replacements for any outgoing members of the house or senate. This will be a referendum B*I*G time...people know they have been lied to and I hope that it will lead to a total disdain for anything the left has to offer, which has really been nothing, other then to try and 'change' this country into something it isn't, and cannot be and never will be, a socialist or communist state. The true owners of this country will say 'NO'

[Guest NaughtyAshes]

http://www.outfoxed.org/

http://www.newshounds.us/

Check it out. Get informed. Stop buying into the mainstream, right-wing, media!

[LawrenceWaterhouse]

Alright time for some Canadian humour...

So, Duceppe walks into a cheese factory. . . .

[LawrenceWaterhouse]

Another one. . . .

A lake. Man-made. In downtown Toronto.

[freswith]

Nice to know that democracy is still alive and well over the pond.

We've just had a dose of that kind of politics over here, Today is the crunch time. Our government spending accounts for 48% - 51% of Gross National Product. Tax revenues account for 38% of GNP; the difference is being borrowed. It is very obvious that it can't go on; the interest payments on the borrowing are now greater than our defence budget. Today is the day that our new coalition government is introducing a new budget to try and bring things under control.

As Mrs Thatcher put it so succinctly, Socialists will finance their dreams using other people's money until it is all spent. We have reached that point, and an outgoing Treasury minister actually left his successor a note apologising that there was no money left. Except for a few diehard fanatics, people are beginning to realise that the Labour government was a huge deception, a massive pork-barreling exercise aimed at creating a client state in which there would be a permanent Labour majority formed by government employees and dependents, and paid for by a dwindling private and producing sector. Economically this is rather like standing in a basket and trying to lift yourself up by the handles; they ran out of other people's money and the whole thing is in imminent danger of collapse.

Although we have a fundamentally weak coalition government, it has been handed a situation in which there are very few options, and this has strengthened it enormously. The minor partner, the Liberal Democrats have long pursued a policy of increasing taxes to fund "better public services". They have had to reverse their position on this policy as part of sharing power. This situation is still developing.

I fear that the USA is half a political wavelength behind us this time. You have just elected a "pretty boy" who wants to spend everybody else's money. I just hope you rumble him while there is still some money left. Your next government will have to be very different.

[redneck diaper boy]

"As Mrs Thatcher put it so succinctly, Socialists will finance their dreams using other people's money until it is all spent."

I love the "iron lady"!

[Darkfinn]

Agreed that Obama is a one-and-done President. Many of the things he has done are too controversial to stand the test of time. However I don't think Palin has a snowflake's chance in hell of being a candidate in 2012. She and her ultra-conservative fanatical followers are what lost the GOP the election in the first place.

If the GOP wants a chance to run the nation, they cannot rely on people from last time around... that is like losing the championship but keeping the same team. Doing the same thing but expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

[square_duck]

IF you really want to know why we have problems today, watch this video. Dennis speaks of something that many of us don't think about or have either forgotten or never learned. One of the fundamentals with which this country was founded and should be a guiding principal for the future. yo umight not agree, but non the less it is still true.

This, on the other hand was something refered to by someone on my facebook page, and it truly made me sick. I read a lot and have done somethings that could be considered 'disgusting' but this article really made me want to get up and puke. It is probably THE most un-American piece of 'writing' I have ever read. read it if you have a strong stomach.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/

One of many quotes by Ben Franklin that is very true and many left wing-nuts could learn from, if they dared. Especially in the light of many of our current failing 'social programs" we have, and which have accomplished essentially nothing but created stagnation amongst the people who use them.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and they became poorer. On the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Ben Franklin

[tommee]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/

I read through that man, and I don't know, it seems very valid. I mean, those tea party guys are just a bunch of cranks aren't they? I think J.M. Bernstein seems to know what America needs at the moment. Now that's a patriot, right there.

[PrincessDragonette]

IF you really want to know why we have problems today, watch this video. Dennis speaks of something that many of us don't think about or have either forgotten or never learned. One of the fundamentals with which this country was founded and should be a guiding principal for the future. yo umight not agree, but non the less it is still true.

youtube

I changed it to a link to save space, the vid is embedded in the original post.

@3:00 he says that the Supreme court nominee "banned the military from her campus". This is woefully inaccurate. Then-Dean Kagan was merely upholding prior Harvard law school limitations in place since 1979 on military recruitment on campus. She was doing with Deans of other law schools in challenge to the Solomon amendment which limits Federal funds to schools that do not allow military recruiters on campus.

Military Recruiters Have Accessed Students Through The Harvard Law School Veterans Association. According to the New York Times: "Because of the military's policy against openly gay soldiers, the law school in 1979 barred military recruiters from using its Office of Career Services, the central clearinghouse through which employers from all over the world seek to recruit top-notch law students... Harvard reached its own accommodation in 1996. While the school did not allow military recruiters to use its main placement office, it did allow them on campus through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student group. The recruiters met with students in the same classrooms, just under different sponsorship." [New York Times, 5/6/10]

Former Harvard Law Dean: Kagan Followed School Policy Already In Place. Former Harvard Law Dean Robert C. Clark wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "As dean, Ms. Kagan basically followed a strategy toward military recruiting that was already in place. Here, some background may be helpful: Since 1979, the law school has had a policy requiring all employers who wish to use the assistance of the School's Office of Career Services (OCS) to schedule interviews and recruit students to sign a statement that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. For years, the U.S. military, because of its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, was not able to sign such a statement and so did not use OCS. It did, however, regularly recruit on campus because it was invited to do so by an official student organization, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. The symbolic effect of this special treatment of military recruiters was important, but the practical effect on recruiting logistics was minimal." [Wall Street Journal, 5/11/10]

Bold emphasis added by me. Note also that the military still had access to the campus, just not the Office of Career Services. Dean Kagan complied with the Supreme Court's upholding of the Solomon Ammendment (8-0) and removed the ban. So why is it un-American to demand equality and not participate in recruiting activities for those that actively deny it?

Overall, the video lacked substance of any kind. A nice little pep-talk for Republicans, a little slam against the "left", but completely lacking any answers of any kind to the problems the US (and the world) face.

Oh yeah, and the un-American Dean? Anti-military? She had this to say after lifting the ban:

Dean Kagan Expressed Regret At The Military's Continued Practice Of Discrimination. In her letter to the Harvard Law School community regarding the lifting of the recruitment ban, then-Dean Kagan wrote: "I have said before how much I regret making this exception to our antidiscrimination policy. I believe the military's discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong - both unwise and unjust. And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have. The importance of the military to our society - and the great service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us - heightens, rather than excuses, this inequity. The Law School remains firmly committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without regard to sexual orientation. And I look forward to the time when all our students can pursue any career path they desire, including the path of devoting their professional lives to the defense of their country." [Law.Harvard.edu, 9/20/05, emphasis added]

[PrincessDragonette]

This, on the other hand was something refered to by someone on my facebook page, and it truly made me sick. I read a lot and have done somethings that could be considered 'disgusting' but this article really made me want to get up and puke. It is probably THE most un-American piece of 'writing' I have ever read. read it if you have a strong stomach.

The Usefulness of Anger. Bernstein states "I would be more convinced that the Tea Party really was committed to radical democracy if their most notable achievement to date was not to wreck one of the few remnants of Jeffersonian democracy — the town hall meeting."

The main points of the original article were not advocating any politics in particular, but rather that: a} The Tea Party does not have any clearly defined goals (I disagree with him here) and b} they are destroying one of the fundamental foundations of the democracy that they claim to love. In essence he's saying to engage in reasonable debate instead of vitriol-filled protests that serve little other than to vent frustration and anger.

His chicken-or-egg argument in regards to individualism and structure in the first article is flawed to an extent. He recognizes this with: "Of course, if you are a libertarian or even a certain kind of liberal, you will object that these practices do not manufacture anything; they simply give individuality its due." As he states though: "It is by recognizing one another as autonomous subjects through the institutions of family, civil society and the state that we become such subjects; those practices are how we recognize and so bestow on one another the title and powers of being free individuals."

This section of his article is a metaphysical debate that has been raging for years and is by no means a settled matter. Although I disagree with him as I lean more towards Sartre's view of metaphysics (he seems to espouse Hegel), to call this article "un-American writing" is wrong. After all, considering freedom of speech, what is "American" writing? The obvious answer would be writing that puts forward the author's ideas in their own words. Censored writings would be un-American.

Just another two cents that solidifies the high-jacking of this thread.

[redneck diaper boy]

Say what you want about Sarah Palin but she is certainly more qualified to be President with no respect to Obama. Sarah would have never bowed to a foreign king. Sarah Palin would have never signed off on a sorry healthcare bill. Sarah Palin would not be attacking the people of Arizona for attempting to secure their border. Sarah Palin would have allowed foreign aid with respect to cleaning up the oil spill.

I have to believe that President Obama's lack of action is intentional. He cares nothing about the people in the Gulf Area. Instead of offereing solutions he is now trying to push his cap and tax agenda. Obama's objective is to remove personal freedom from citizens and render more power to the government. It is clear that everything Obama does is for political reasons only.

Obama has to be the worst president of all time. 30 years ago I thought Carter was a piece of shit but Carter has nothing on the asshole in the Oval Office now.

Agreed that Obama is a one-and-done President. Many of the things he has done are too controversial to stand the test of time. However I don't think Palin has a snowflake's chance in hell of being a candidate in 2012. She and her ultra-conservative fanatical followers are what lost the GOP the election in the first place.

If the GOP wants a chance to run the nation, they cannot rely on people from last time around... that is like losing the championship but keeping the same team. Doing the same thing but expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

[redneck diaper boy]

I have to agree that ignorance is more dangerous to our republic than Obama.

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism.