Quote :

"Before I had my L4-L5 intervertebral disc removed, I had some X-Rays and an MRI to make sure the doctor knew what he was taking out."

Did they take the x-rays by sticking a pipe up your asshole without your consent?

3/15/2012 11:06:41 PM

Oh, he consented alright.

3/16/2012 9:27:30 AM

hey was man he didn't get a reach around though

3/16/2012 10:07:20 AM

3/26/2012 6:01:35 PM

pls2embed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DApjHZq9o7M

3/26/2012 6:38:22 PM

3/29/2012 11:06:38 AM

As a job creator I demand complete control over my slaves, so yes.

3/29/2012 11:12:35 AM

They'd want to open all your mail too if it weren't a Federal offense.

3/29/2012 11:20:38 AM

Well the Feds do that anyway so I'm sure they'd alert me if they found anything interesting.

3/29/2012 11:22:35 AM

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/anti-gay-forces-defeat-anti-bullying-measure-in-illinois/article_1310d016-a437-11e1-8d9e-0019bb30f31a.html

seriously, fuck these dudes

5/23/2012 12:28:20 PM

So the politicians don't really believe what they say, right? I assume, as educated men, they are just trying to cater to yokels like Jim Bob who pays the bills.

5/23/2012 1:27:43 PM

they're not trying to cater to yokels. they're trying to keep those yokels from realizing that their policies are actively keeping them impoverished.

and they do that by tapping into racial fears, islamophobia, gay bashing, and uterus-checks.

5/23/2012 1:33:36 PM

the gov shouldn't be intruding on our lives! They should be intruding on the lives of those we disagree with!

5/23/2012 2:07:41 PM

Quote :

"So the politicians don't really believe what they say, right? I assume, as educated men, they are just trying to cater to yokels like Jim Bob who pays the bills."

more to the point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJfrvaCl4wA



which amounts to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WfP1kQyQWk

5/24/2012 2:38:13 AM

and democrats take advantage of ignorant minorities in exactly the same way im sure youll agree.

disgusting on both sides right?

5/24/2012 2:11:23 PM

Quote :

"and democrats take advantage of ignorant minorities in exactly the same way im sure youll agree."

How so? Unlike the fears of Shariah law and white enslavement and reparations, the problems faced by minorities, like legal and economic discrimination, that Democrats at least pretend to address are actually real problems. Gays taking over the schools and forcing all 7 year olds to have butt sex is not an actual problem, unlike gays being denied the right to marriage because some religions have particularly specific definitions of marriage. I mean really, what are these fake problems the Democrats are using to take advantage of "ignorant minorities" ?

Quote :

"disgusting on both sides right?"

No, there's really no equivalence. The GOP has become the most shameless and pathetic shell of a party imaginable, and the primary reasons the Dems are shitty are the ways they are coming to resemble the GOP more and more.


[Edited on May 24, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2012 2:28:50 PM

Fake problems created by democrats:

Hate-crimes
Anti-racism over-reach in general
uh, too many breast cancer screenings

thats all i got

[Edited on May 24, 2012 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2012 3:50:02 PM

c00willy0 will tell you to go google it. It should be obvious to anyone. Ignorant minorities.

5/24/2012 4:06:18 PM

while i don't necesarrily agree with it being it's own crime, how is "hate crime" a fake problem? Some violent crimes are committed for money. Some are committed for revenge. Others for sexual gratification. And some crimes are committed committed simply because of a person's race or sexual orientation.... hate. At least robberies are done for a reason (not that I condone robberies at all).

5/24/2012 4:17:43 PM

Quote :

"and the primary reasons the Dems are shitty are the ways they are coming to resemble the GOP more and more."

Nail on the head. But the false equivalency that people try to draw among dems and repubs is played out. Republicans are tapping into the ugliest side of xenophobia for votes.

Dems, on the other hand, pretend to give a shit about the working class.

Both are bad, but one is a thousand times worse than the other.

Democrats are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, much the same way that the GOP did in the early 90s. You (yowilly0) act as if this is some shocking revelation that should shatter my worldview, but if you would bother to read most of my posts, you'd realize that I have completely left the Democratic party because of their faux-populist appeal. Most on the left have figured that out and have stopped supporting the Wall Street neo-liberal democrats.

The GOP, on the other hand, have gone so far to the right, that playing up racial/religious/gender/orientation insecurities is the only trick they have left in the bag.

[Edited on May 24, 2012 at 7:25 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2012 7:24:50 PM

Quote :

"Democrats at least pretend to address are actually real problems."

Quote :

"Republicans are tapping into the ugliest side of xenophobia for votes. Dems, on the other hand, pretend to give a shit about the working class. Both are bad, but one is a thousand times worse than the other."

yes, pretending to give a shit is a thousand times worse i agree.

at least republicans are very obvious and deliberate with everything they do; it seems youre admitting democrats have no real platform besides merely attempting to emulate republicans?

why would you support such a weak party?

5/24/2012 10:13:56 PM

i know your party is, but what is mine?

5/25/2012 12:02:52 AM

my party is rubber and yours is glue!

5/25/2012 12:14:41 AM

Quote :

"Both are bad, but one is a thousand times worse than the other."

5/25/2012 12:18:47 AM

Quote :

"why would you support such a weak party?"

Quote :

"but if you would bother to read most of my posts, you'd realize that I have completely left the Democratic party because of their faux-populist appeal."

5/25/2012 3:22:32 AM

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22
Obama has lowest growth in spending in 70 years

5/25/2012 9:22:07 AM

Fucking socialist.

5/25/2012 11:12:59 AM

http://news.investors.com/article/612620/201205241756/obama-is-a-spendthrift.htm?src=HPLNews

dont be stupid.

5/25/2012 12:02:24 PM

Quote :

" HALPERIN: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly? ROMNEY: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/25/490532/romney-budget-cuts-recession/?mobile=nc

5/25/2012 12:03:37 PM

^^
Perhaps I missed something, but that columnist's argument against the assertion that President Obama has significantly lowered the growth rate of spending is that former President Bush spent less in his last year of office than had otherwise been noted.

So President Obama did not decrease spending during his first year in office as much as had been previously recognized; however, the suggestion that he has, overall, slowed the growth rate of spending is still an accurate one.



Also, given that this thread is watching the GOP's credibility, what would it take to get back to the spending levels in the above chart of 2002?

My initial assumption is that a significant increase in the spending of the previous administration was due to the national security apparatus (Department of Homeland Security, among other things); I'm also confident that Medicare Part D played its part, as well.

Surely, the "Ponzi scheme" of Social Security couldn't have skyrocketed so much in those years, could it have?

[Edited on May 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM. Reason : and another thing]

5/25/2012 1:43:21 PM

well thats half the story; im assuming you didnt click the button to read page two.

Quote :

"Just how much of a difference does this make? Nutting says spending under Bush shot up 17.9% between 2008 and 2009. But when you subtract the effects of TARP, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts as well as the $115 billion in stimulus money Obama added in 2009, that figure drops to 6%. And while Nutting claims Obama cut spending 1.8% between 2009 and 2010, when you fix Nutting's mistakes, it turns out that Obama jacked up spending 12% in 2010. That sure looks like a "spending binge" to us."

5/25/2012 2:14:00 PM

Good call. I hadn't. A quote I found noteworthy from that second page:

Quote :

"Nevertheless, when the government handed out TARP loans in fiscal year 2009, they showed up in the budget as regular outlays, adding $154 billion to the official spending number that year. And when banks started paying the loans back in 2010, the money was subtracted from spending that year, making federal outlays look $108 billion smaller than they actually were. In 2011, TARP artificially subtracted another $38 billion from spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

It's odd that the repayment of the TARP bailout would have been registered as a spending decrease in 2010 and 2011.

It may be worth noting that the column that moron linked above references the Office of Management and Budget, which doesn't appear to reflect that discrepancy.

[Edited on May 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM. Reason : A possible conflict between the CBO and OMB, perhaps?]

5/25/2012 2:57:46 PM

[Edited on May 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM. Reason : idk]

5/25/2012 3:22:44 PM

Another thing worth mentioning is that the chart that I posted above is sourced from the Congressional Budget Office, and it doesn't appear to reflect the correct values.

Should the 2009 bar be higher or should the blue segment make up a larger portion of the bar? I'm guessing that the 2010 bar should be higher, as well.

Or is the chart correct?

5/25/2012 4:06:30 PM

Quote :

"As the landmark Supreme Court decision looms next month, Republicans have been privately considering a plan to reinstate some popular provisions of “Obamacare” if it’s struck down. The revelation sent conservative advocates — who have demanded nothing less than total repeal — into a tizzy, which forced House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to reaffirm his commitment to “repealing Obamacare in its entirety,” declaring that “[a]nything short of that is unacceptable.” But more evidence is emerging that Republicans believe that’s not tenable. Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a tea party darling, told ThinkProgress that he supports preserving three popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act — the same three that his party’s leaders are reportedly considering. “You’ve got to replace it with something,” West said. “If people want to keep their kid on insurance at 26, fine. We’ve got to make sure no American gets turned back for pre-existing conditions, that’s fine. Keep the doughnut hole closed, that’s fine."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/are-republicans-bending-on-obamacare.php

5/29/2012 2:18:23 PM

^^ Either way, Obama isn't the massive spender the right has been painting him as.

I guess it doesn't matter, this is just how politics is, and this idea is already pretty well entrenched despite the reality.

But we have Mitt taking credit for the auto bailouts, and he's now acknowledged the economy has gotten better under Obama, which basically eliminates everything he was going to try to use against Obama. If he can make a lie work, why not?

5/30/2012 12:17:05 AM

Quote :

"But when you subtract the effects of TARP, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts as well as the $115 billion in stimulus money Obama added in 2009, that figure drops to 6%. And while Nutting claims Obama cut spending 1.8% between 2009 and 2010, when you fix Nutting's mistakes, it turns out that Obama jacked up spending 12% in 2010."

Lol what. So they subtract Bush's responses to fiscal crisis but retain Obamas?

Also the 2009 column already includes $160 billion that's attributed to Obama's stimulus addition.

Unless I'm reading that wrong, this author's shameless or possibly just dumb.




[Edited on May 30, 2012 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

5/30/2012 9:52:43 AM

Abortion ban fails in the House. Hahaha.

What happened to JERBS! JERBS JERBS!!!! ? Pathetic....

5/31/2012 3:03:21 PM

so, do you think a woman should be able to slaughter her unborn child because she doesn't like the child's sex? why?

5/31/2012 7:56:20 PM

slaughter her unborn child
How the hell is anyone supposed to have a discussion with you?

5/31/2012 8:44:44 PM

how can anyone have any discussion about the topic when they can't even bring themselves to think about what is actually happening?

5/31/2012 8:45:49 PM

I'm not going down this road with you. Use whatever inflammatory language you like to dramatize your emotional appeal.

Presume this government intrusion had passed (along with somehow becoming law), how would it have been enforced? Will they create uterus police to sit in the doctor's office and monitor what should be a private exchange with their patient?

5/31/2012 8:50:50 PM

yes. it should be a private exchange when you plan the killing of an innocent human life

5/31/2012 9:09:02 PM

YUM! IT'S DEEEE-LISSSHHH


[Edited on May 31, 2012 at 9:51 PM. Reason : ...]

5/31/2012 9:50:41 PM

lets back up a little here...

why is one sex preferred over another? and why is that important enough to be a criteria in abortion?

"oh no he has his father's eyes, ABORT!"

5/31/2012 9:50:57 PM

I wonder if other conservatives marshal that same heroic zeal for innocent life as they champion the wanton destruction of habitat in the name of profit and self interest. . .

5/31/2012 9:51:07 PM

Quote :

"why is one sex preferred over another? and why is that important enough to be a criteria in abortion?"

Perhaps in places in China and India (which were cited in the bill), but not here in the US. This is a fake outrage touted by an inept House that is grumpy because they can't pass their Republican think tank budget. It started by some O'Keefe-style video of nonsense and this was their response to the fact that women are turning away from the right in droves.

5/31/2012 9:56:08 PM

yes or no: do you think not liking the sex of a baby should be a valid reason to abort it?

5/31/2012 9:59:13 PM

no

5/31/2012 10:05:08 PM

Fun Fact:

Conservatives consider life to be so sacred, that they think it begins at conception.


However, if that same child is 8 years old and lives in Yemen, it should be considered military-aged and therefore murdered by unarmed American drones.

5/31/2012 10:55:32 PM