23 thoughts on “Bye-Bye, Bush!

  1. A Scribe Called Steff

    Yeah? Your point is? You don’t go and leave a fucking link and say nothing.
    Of COURSE the media is biased. They SHOULD be biased in some instances. I wish the media would cut off lying politicians when the media knows the truth. I think this unbiased “We’re just a mouthpiece for the public” bullshit is just that, bullshit.
    This is coming from someone with a journalism degree, too. Unbiased coverage has its place.
    But THIS year, when even people like Colin Powell are saying the FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY HANGS IN THE BALANCE, I think skewing the coverage to the one candidate who offers any real change isn’t such an unconscionable act.
    Since you left no actual opinion, I’ve assumed you’re arguing against the left.

  2. Anon

    A Scribe Called Steff:
    This is an attack on democracy. Think about it.
    Democracy is not just the right to vote, it involves being exposed to all information in a non-partisan manner. Democracy calls for discussion and debate of various viewpoints and opinions to determine what is best for our country. It is our duty as citizens to scrutinize all information that we are subjected to from the profit oriented MSM, to ensure we are not being manipulated by their political bribery.
    The MSM controls what information we are exposed to, and thus they control our perceptions and how we think. Sadly, many uneducated people cannot comprehend the MSM bias, thus are blindly and mindlessly controlled by them. Our democracy is at stake thus why increasingly I support an examination that must be passed before one should be eligible to vote.

  3. A Scribe Called Steff

    Oh, COME ON, Sammy. Not even McCAIN has made those allegations against Obama! They’ve certainly brought up ACORN, but they sure as hell haven’t brought up the rest, which they would’ve, if there was any truth to it.
    Because god knows McCain’s needed a little more teeth in his arguments, and he hasn’t even been looking for the “whole truth” and yet he STILL hasn’t alleged these charges on primaries?
    Whatever.

  4. Sammy

    Steff:
    If you actually read the news article it is Democrats, not Republicans, who are taking this massive voter fraud issue to court. Obama stole the primaries to get the nomination. This is an attack on our very democracy. Please, read the article and get informed before you start sprouting out your delusional assumptions.

  5. A Scribe Called Steff

    I READ the article, Sammy.
    What I’m SAYING is, if there was any serious merit to the allegations, you don’t think McCain would’ve been spouting it from every podium across the land?
    There are always bitter losers after primaries.
    This Hillary supporter who’s done all this legwork, for instance, has a “long and respected academic career” as WHAT? A kindergarten teacher? It’s technically “academic”, and don’t kid yourself if you don’t think journalists use cute little phrases like “long and respected X career” to back their sources who don’t have impressive job titles. I spent 15 years in retail, that probably qualifies me with “a long and respected career tending to public needs”.
    Where are the substantiated facts? Where’s the proof?
    Why isn’t HILLARY CLINTON involved in the case?
    Where’s a PHOTO of all these “Post-it Note” ballots? Where’s VIDEO evidence? Where’s any legal brief?
    Just because someone wrote something — with NOTHING TO BACK IT UP — doesn’t mean it’s fact. You can’t throw some link at me and say, “there, proof!” I’m not some Wiki geek who thinks that’s “evidence”.
    They’ve cited nothing, they’ve used no verifiable evidence, no reports, no links, no listed databases, nowhere to verify ANYTHING in the article.
    THAT IS NOT JOURNALISM. That is speculation and, in a court of law, HERESAY.
    So don’t fucking tell me I have “delusional assumptions” when I have nothing of the sort. I’m the one actually reading this shit and saying, “Yeah, prove it, then” instead of believing everything I read.
    I’m skeptical of things from the Obama camp, too, and I investigate EVERYTHING before I decide what I believe. Unlike most people.
    Don’t kid yourself, pal.

  6. Derren

    Here is a 67 page academic research paper on:
    “An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches”
    http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf
    Here is an exerpt:
    *Obama’s hypnotic command that…
    “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack’”
    An example of Obama using both of these hypnotic hand gestures, hypnotic programming followed by hypnotic anchor back to back, in a way that can be nothing other than hypnosis: You can See the video of this speech excerpt:
    Video Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8

  7. A Scribe Called Steff

    You’re a fucking idiot, too, Derren.
    Like Obama’s somehow Satan because he knows how to be an effective speaker? You want to portray him as some brainwashing Muslim extremist now?
    Fuck. Some of you Republicans will try anything.
    Get over it. He knows how to publically speak — anyone who’s joined Toastmasters and read books on the art of captivating audiences knows some of the tricks that Obama employs.
    It means NOTHING.
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and your fucking 67-page “academic research paper” doesn’t mean fuck all, either, because being an EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SPEAKER is NOT a crime against humanity, NOR is it a sign of duplicity or evilness.
    Stop smoking the crack; it’s making you see shit that just ain’t there.

  8. hbeeinc

    Derren – thank you sooo much! I write comedy and was totally stuck for what to write. Fortunately, you’ve pretty much written it for me! BTW, how come there’s no author listed?

  9. hbeeinc

    Oh, and Derren, I feel it’d be wrong of me not to tell you that after you read my comment that you are now under my complete hypnotic control.
    Doesn’t your nose itch right now?
    Go ahead and scratch it.
    Good boy.

  10. DP

    Derren,
    Intrigued, as I was, by an “academic” “research paper”, I brewed myself a nice mug of coffee and sat down with the paper. I was piqued by references to Freud and psychoanalysis.
    Then I noticed the primary secondary source was a “hypnosis” informmerical-type of course, with vague (very few page numbers) to some outdated written material, Wikipedia entries, and the like.
    After a cursory read, I put some nice music on, smoked a cigarette, and promptly deleted the .pdf file.
    Sorry, that’s neither academic nor a research paper. It’s not proof, either, or even good rhetoric. It’s bullshit, and not even good bullshit.
    Gotta give you, and the author, an “F” there, Derren. Sorry.
    I’m feeling kind today, so I’m willing to waste some words of advice here, Derren. Political speech is rhetoric (and not, for the most part, in a derogatory sense). Rhetoric, when done with a good conscience, uses facts to persuade others. Reference Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”, the first, and perhaps best, work on this. Then take a basic communications/public speaking course.
    Then you might–might–get it. But you seem to have a closed mind, so I doubt it.
    McCain and Obama practice rhetoric, and here’s the rub: McCain is very bad at it; Obama is very good. So the difference is striking, and hence, Obama must be doing something wrong.
    Chew on this for a bit: Ronald Reagan, and his speechwriters, were some of the best modern day political rhetoricians. Yes, indeed, a pinko-liberal-progressive like me admits–nay, recognizes as truth–that a Republican who thought the “End Days” were coming was an incredible public speaker (we’ll ignore the fact that Reagan barely understood what he was saying; intelligence and sanity is not a necessary requirement for a rhetorician).
    So, Derren, stop looking for the “black helicopters” that must be the reason Obama is so successful and McCain is such an utter failure. It’s not the Kool-Aid he gives to his supporters.
    It’s simple: Obama speaks very well.
    By the way, Derren, if you truly buy in to the arguments in that paper–and the Freudian psychology it promotes, then you should google the “Oedipus Complex.”
    According to Freud, all men have it. Obama, McCain–even you.
    Here’s a hint at the definition: you want to kill your father and have sex with your mother.
    Still think that academic research paper contains so much truth?

  11. Helen

    It is not fair that Democrats who tend to dominate in urban areas are allowed to have almost 2 weeks of early voting. The suburbs and rural areas who tend to vote Republicans only have one day to vote, thus imagine if there was bad weather or the like on that one day.

  12. DP

    @Helen,
    What you said is incorrect in many ways:
    1. Anyone, in any state, can vote “early” via an absentee ballot. Although absentee ballots are intended for those outside the voting area during election day, or those medically unable to vote, ANYONE may use an absentee ballot, allowing them to vote even earlier than “early” voters.
    2. “Early” voting, determined by state, is used in urban areas because it is difficult to give each voter a chance to vote in the allotted time. Given the population density of urban areas, wait times to vote on election day often exceed several hours; therefore, early voting was enacted to lessen these wait times.
    Rural areas have no wait times due to a lack of population density.
    This has nothing to due with party affiliation.
    3. Suburban areas, particularly on the East coast, Chicago, and West, are not predominantly Republican (review past election results). They tend to split 50/50.
    I know this because I am not only one of your (in the general sense) election workers, but a worker in a large urban area. I work the polls, the distribution of voting machines, registration–basically all aspects of the election process, as I am a County employee for the elections department.

  13. Anon

    The economic system is very important. I believe more so than the political system. A capitalist economic system embraces more laissez-faire and equal opportunity, whilst a socialist economic system embraces more economic interventionism and equal outcome.
    If you think about it, even in a democratic political system the elected official becomes a dictator if the economy is socialistic and centrally controlled. A good example of this would be Adolf Hitler and NAZI Germany.

  14. A Scribe Called Steff

    Oh, you’re a twit, Anon.
    CANADA, ENGLAND, NORWAY, and many OTHER countries are FANTASTIC examples of SOCIALIST countries.
    NAZI GERMANY is an example of A FASCIST government, NOT a SOCIALIST government. Nazi Germany was FANTASTIC for big business! Look at all the companies that THRIVED under Hitler that are still rocking the casbah today — like Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, BMW, and more.
    Fucking ponces like you who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about are half the problem with the electoral system.
    The Nazis were FASCIST. Not SOCIALIST. Learn something about ideologies before you start trying to sound smart with all yer big words there, bub.
    Fucking idiot.

  15. DP

    @ Anon,
    Jesus, will you people PLEASE stop getting your information from Wikipedia and actually read a book or something? There is no such thing as an “economic system” separate from a “political system.”
    “Laissez-faire” is a specific principle or direction capitalism [sic] can take, but it is not literally capitalism.
    And this show-stopper: “…a socialist economic system embraces more economic interventionism…”
    Are you aware of how much the United States practices, and has practiced, economic interventionism (it was even more interventionist in the past, right after the Great Depression)?
    Really, people, just stop. Edumacate yourselves.

  16. hbeeinc

    God bless you, DP!
    Just to add my two cents –
    We (ie – the US Govt) recently gave the auto industry $250b since…um…they suck as business people. Capitalism would let them fail. And the airlines. And the banks. So, anon, you may want to find some different verbiage instead of

    “whilst a socialist economic system embraces more economic interventionism and equal outcome.”

    I honestly don’t understand how people that need help to exist refuse to give themselves a tax cut. Even Fox News accepts that Obama’s tax plan gives people making under $250,000 a tax cut. It’s only the McCain campaign that says it doesn’t.
    Ask yourself this very basic question – are the republcans that support Obama socialists?

  17. Anon

    DP:
    Nazism, a short name for National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler; and the policies adopted by the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.
    Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, welfare state spending, price and rent controls, protectionism, progressive taxation and exorbitant corporate taxes, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism, anti-communism, and totalitarianism.

  18. Anon

    hbeeinc:
    First off Barack Obama is not telling you that he will not renew the current tax cuts.
    Here are the “top five” facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:
    1. Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year — the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*). Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America. This is the answer to the Obama campaign’s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small — the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike.
    2. Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level. This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses — sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.
    3. The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent. Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: http://www.barackobama.com).
    4. This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office).
    5. America’s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 116 million employees (Source: Census Bureau). When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.
    “Obama’s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you. Otherwise, you’re fine.”
    * “Small business profits” is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners. According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000. In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

  19. DP

    Thank you, hbeeinc.
    BTW, found the wiki page on economic interventionism; it says it’s “generally associated with the left”! There’s even a vague reference in the discussion where I think–I think–anon may have gotten the Hitler reference. Go wikipedia! (Mis)inform the masses.
    @ Anon,
    You posted just as I was writing this. I read what you posted. Thank you for the definition. It relates how?

  20. hbeeinc

    @anon – so republicans that support Obama are nazis now? So much to learn on this post!
    (BTW – I check in just to get a quick thrill. *laffin*)

Comments are closed.