Gas Bandit's Political Thread

[Armadillo]

Mwa ha ha ha, I like your optimism.

I've always tried to be a reasoned optimist, and I like it much better than cynicism. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh no, I like the optimism. Not being funny here. I wish I could be as optimistic. I just remember the Clinton years. Sure, the guy did a lot of stupid shit, but unemployment was down, we had a budget surplus, and things were looking up. Of course, that didn't stop people from trying to impeach him for a blowjob, but still.

that and the perjury. :roll:

Oh, like that's relevant. :eyeroll:

 

[GasBandit]

Apparently, Osama is obsolete now. "Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command have been rendered ineffective by international anti-terrorist efforts."

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has decided that it wants to take a stand against the evil Israelis who are attacking innocent Hamas victims. So their solution is to use the power of the union to ban Israeli professors from Ontario universities.

Members of Rod Blagojevich's office, including his acting chief of staff and a deputy governor, will be the keynote speakers today at an "Ethics in the Workplace" seminar for Illinois state employees. How's that for irony?

So funny guy Al Franken wasn't seated yesterday. Norm Coleman is suing to challenge the recount results.

According to Obama, trillion dollar deficits will last for years. Well duh .. the people of this country have done a great job of ensuring the growth of government. The media will treat these deficits as OK until there's a Republican in the White House.

Dick Morris agrees... Obama's "tax cuts" are really welfare checks.

When it comes to Obama's stimulus package, he pledges that there won't be any earmarks included. Yeah ... let's see how that works out.

For all you wealth-envy types .. here's something for you to celebrate: American millionaires have seen their assets shrink by 30%.

Any guesses as to how much it costs the government to spend $350 billion?

If you haven't been keeping up with the antics of Vladimir Putin .. Russia has cut off gas supplies to many European nations because it is angry with Ukraine (and European pipelines run through Ukraine).

Caroline Kennedy... You know?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YF_pN8pWvg:2kilrh16][/youtube:2kilrh16]

 

[Espy]

Ugh. Yeah. Thanks democrats for voting this genius in. This is great.

Get over it. Republicans had eight years of power, virtually unchallenged most of the time, and it's gone badly. Time for a change. At least give Obama a chance before trashing him.

Wow. You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of where I stand politically.
I don't need to "get over anything". I didn't vote for either of the dumbbells we had running this year. I don't think the republicans are "better" than the pretty little democrats and I certainly don't think the guy who is a barely a step ahead of Sarah Palin in the know how department should be running the country and appointments like this just shows what people have been saying for years about him, that he isn't ready to be president. Is he a good guy? Probably. Are his intentions good? Probably. Do I agree with his choices for staffing? No. I'm not going to tell you to "get over" my disagreeing with him, but I will tell you that I'm sorry I don't agree with you. It clearly bothers you and I had no intention of doing that.

 

[Covar]

When it comes to Obama's stimulus package, he pledges that there won't be any earmarks included. Yeah ... let's see how that works out.

Can you really put earmarks on a bill that is nothing but one big earmark?

 

[Shakey]

So funny guy Al Franken wasn't seated yesterday. Norm Coleman is suing to challenge the recount results.

Daily Show had nice clip of Coleman telling Franken he should step down after the election "for the good of the state". Guess that only goes one way. :smirk:

 

[Espy]

So funny guy Al Franken wasn't seated yesterday. Norm Coleman is suing to challenge the recount results.

Daily Show had nice clip of Coleman telling Franken he should step down after the election "for the good of the state". Guess that only goes one way. :smirk:

Well, it does in this case. What Coleman is saying and suing over is basically a fraudulent election. Basically there are some very strong allegations about the group doing the recount and how it was handled. Now Coleman is getting WAY ahead of himself here if he said that. Personally I think he's a barking up one real big incesous political tree that is going to do everything it can to make sure Franken wins including not counting the votes the Coleman camp asked for and giving double votes to Franken any chance they can. I mean, people come on! We have counties here now that have more votes than voters who LIVE there! And guess how all those extra votes go for??? :slywink:

 

[Armadillo]

So funny guy Al Franken wasn't seated yesterday. Norm Coleman is suing to challenge the recount results.

Daily Show had nice clip of Coleman telling Franken he should step down after the election "for the good of the state". Guess that only goes one way. :smirk:

That was easily the dumbest thing Normie could have said, seeing as how he's now officially the loser, but this recount was such a clusterfuck that I honestly don't blame him for suing. 25 precincts have counts with more votes than voters, machine totals were used for the recount instead of the paper ballots for 133 ballots (they were "lost" by election workers in the Dinkytown area of Minneapolis), the canvassing board wouldn't address the issue of possible double-counted ballots (when a scanner machine malfunctions, the election judges are supposed to create a duplicate ballot, labeled as such to prevent double-counting. Supposedly, this didn't happen in more than a few cases, so there's a good probability that some votes were counted twice in the official recount), and so on. I'm not going to say there was an organized effort to make Franken the winner, but the incompetence in some of these cases is breathtaking.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by the smoking Minnesota baby.

 

I lean Democrat more than Republican and I still think Frankin should STFU and GTFO. He lost. Get over it.

 

[Shakey]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

 

[Espy]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

Well, if the recount hadn't been riddled with fraud and out and out cheating for Franken Normie might have acted differently. It's really shocking how lightly people are treating this. It's quite shameful.

 

[Shakey]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

Well, if the recount hadn't been riddled with fraud and out and out cheating for Franken Normie might have acted differently. It's really shocking how lightly people are treating this. It's quite shameful.

I think it's a side effect of the constant news feeds we have now. After a few months of hearing about miscounted ballots, double counting, and missing ballots, people just block it out and want it to go away.

 

[Jake]

Apparently, Osama is obsolete now. "Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command have been rendered ineffective by international anti-terrorist efforts."

That's no big deal. I mean, we got Saddam and he was the really the bad guy, right?

 

[Troll]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

Well, if the recount hadn't been riddled with fraud and out and out cheating for Franken Normie might have acted differently. It's really shocking how lightly people are treating this. It's quite shameful.

I agree. Do you think the media is treating it lightly because Franken is "one of their own" so to speak? I mean "one of their own" due to his working in TV, movies, and radio, not being liberal... but I suppose that could be the case on some networks too.

 

[Espy]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

Well, if the recount hadn't been riddled with fraud and out and out cheating for Franken Normie might have acted differently. It's really shocking how lightly people are treating this. It's quite shameful.

I agree. Do you think the media is treating it lightly because Franken is "one of their own" so to speak? I mean "one of their own" due to his working in TV, movies, and radio, not being liberal... but I suppose that could be the case on some networks too.

No idea man. A couple of the local networks are very liberal and some are just stupid so it could be that but who really knows?

 

[Shakey]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

Well, if the recount hadn't been riddled with fraud and out and out cheating for Franken Normie might have acted differently. It's really shocking how lightly people are treating this. It's quite shameful.

I agree. Do you think the media is treating it lightly because Franken is "one of their own" so to speak? I mean "one of their own" due to his working in TV, movies, and radio, not being liberal... but I suppose that could be the case on some networks too.

I haven't really seen that any of our local news has really glossed over any of this. It's always mentioned, and everyone knows whats going on. I don't know that it's the news' job to get us worked up about things.

 

[Espy]

I don't think Coleman is in the wrong for bringing up the lawsuit, especially with all the rather odd things going on. Just thought it was funny how things change when you're on the losing end.

Well, if the recount hadn't been riddled with fraud and out and out cheating for Franken Normie might have acted differently. It's really shocking how lightly people are treating this. It's quite shameful.

I agree. Do you think the media is treating it lightly because Franken is "one of their own" so to speak? I mean "one of their own" due to his working in TV, movies, and radio, not being liberal... but I suppose that could be the case on some networks too.

I haven't really seen that any of our local news has really glossed over any of this. It's always mentioned, and everyone knows whats going on. I don't know that it's the news' job to get us worked up about things.

Going after shameful scandals that disenfranchise half the voters in a state and reporting the news is what they should do best and the fact that they are practically ignoring it or in some cases even being apologists for Mark "in the bag for Franken" Richie and Al F.
For example... MPR did a great show the other day where they had 3 people come on and tell us why "yes, MAYBE, something shady happened but Coleman should just let it go". I love MPR and listen daily but sometimes they should try a little harder to pretend they don't have a major bias.

 

[Armadillo]

For example... MPR did a great show the other day where they had 3 people come on and tell us why "yes, MAYBE, something shady happened but Coleman should just let it go". I love MPR and listen daily but sometimes they should try a little harder to pretend they don't have a major bias.

Wow. It's amazing how much people are willing to let slide when their guy's winning. COUNT EVERY VOTE!!! unless my opponent gets more votes that way.

 

[Shakey]

I agree. Do you think the media is treating it lightly because Franken is "one of their own" so to speak? I mean "one of their own" due to his working in TV, movies, and radio, not being liberal... but I suppose that could be the case on some networks too.

I haven't really seen that any of our local news has really glossed over any of this. It's always mentioned, and everyone knows whats going on. I don't know that it's the news' job to get us worked up about things.

Going after shameful scandals that disenfranchise half the voters in a state and reporting the news is usually what they do best. In this case... Well MPR did a great show the other day where they had 3 people come on and tell us why "yes, MAYBE, something shady happened but Coleman should just let it go". I love MPR and listen daily but sometimes they should try a little harder to pretend they don't have a major bias.

I don't get MPR where I'm at, but from my time spent in the Twin Cities I believe they have always been a pretty liberal news outlet. I have a feeling this will get swept under the carpet. Much like the Ohio election, and the Florida election.

 

[Armadillo]

I agree. Do you think the media is treating it lightly because Franken is "one of their own" so to speak? I mean "one of their own" due to his working in TV, movies, and radio, not being liberal... but I suppose that could be the case on some networks too.

I haven't really seen that any of our local news has really glossed over any of this. It's always mentioned, and everyone knows whats going on. I don't know that it's the news' job to get us worked up about things.

Going after shameful scandals that disenfranchise half the voters in a state and reporting the news is usually what they do best. In this case... Well MPR did a great show the other day where they had 3 people come on and tell us why "yes, MAYBE, something shady happened but Coleman should just let it go". I love MPR and listen daily but sometimes they should try a little harder to pretend they don't have a major bias.

I don't get MPR where I'm at, but from my time spent in the Twin Cities I believe they have always been a pretty liberal news outlet. I have a feeling this will get swept under the carpet. Much like the Ohio election, and the Florida election.

You can't possibly be serious. Florida got "swept under the rug?" Ohio got "swept under the rug?" All we've freaking heard from many in the liberal camp for the PAST EIGHT YEARS is how Bush "stole" those elections, despite there being absolutely ZERO evidence of organized fraud. So what, is this some sort of "make up call" or something? If somebody thinks 2000 and 2004 were rigged, then they should REALLY be opposed to this election, because there's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of shenanigans here than in either of those two cases.

Before somebody accuses me of being in the bag for Coleman, I proudly and without regret voted for Dean Barkley in the Senate election. Norm's a slimy weasel, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be screwed.

 

[Shakey]

I don't get MPR where I'm at, but from my time spent in the Twin Cities I believe they have always been a pretty liberal news outlet. I have a feeling this will get swept under the carpet. Much like the Ohio election, and the Florida election.

You can't possibly be serious. Florida got "swept under the rug?" Ohio got "swept under the rug?" All we've freaking heard from many in the liberal camp for the PAST EIGHT YEARS is how Bush "stole" those elections, despite there being absolutely ZERO evidence of organized fraud. So what, is this some sort of "make up call" or something? If somebody thinks 2000 and 2004 were rigged, then they should REALLY be opposed to this election, because there's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of shenanigans here than in either of those two cases.

Before somebody accuses me of being in the bag for Coleman, I proudly and without regret voted for Dean Barkley in the Senate election. Norm's a slimy weasel, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be screwed.

It got swept under the rug in that even though there are still accusations of fraud nothing ever got completely resolved. Like you said, people are still yelling about fraud regarding those elections. And just like those elections, I'm sure there was no "organized" fraud but there is still enough questions to show there probably was some. If I recall correctly, it's pretty close to the other elections evidence wise. More ballots cast than registered voters, possible bad interpretations on the recount.

 

[Troll]

And just like those elections, I'm sure there was no "organized" fraud but there is still enough questions to show there probably was some. If I recall correctly, it's pretty close to the other elections evidence wise. More ballots cast than registered voters, possible bad interpretations on the recount.

Watch the movie Recount sometime.

 

[Krisken]

Mwa ha ha ha, I like your optimism.

I've always tried to be a reasoned optimist, and I like it much better than cynicism. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh no, I like the optimism. Not being funny here. I wish I could be as optimistic. I just remember the Clinton years. Sure, the guy did a lot of stupid shit, but unemployment was down, we had a budget surplus, and things were looking up. Of course, that didn't stop people from trying to impeach him for a blowjob, but still.

that and the perjury. :roll:

It's hardly perjury when you put someone on trial for having sex in the oval office and then use that to create something illegal. Besides, if we can allow Bush to get away with war crimes for 7 years, I think we can let a small fib slide, don't you?

 

[Shakey]

And just like those elections, I'm sure there was no "organized" fraud but there is still enough questions to show there probably was some. If I recall correctly, it's pretty close to the other elections evidence wise. More ballots cast than registered voters, possible bad interpretations on the recount.

Watch the movie Recount sometime.

Why?

 

[Espy]

And just like those elections, I'm sure there was no "organized" fraud but there is still enough questions to show there probably was some. If I recall correctly, it's pretty close to the other elections evidence wise. More ballots cast than registered voters, possible bad interpretations on the recount.

Watch the movie Recount sometime.

Why?

I assume because it's Hollywood telling you what really happened. I mean, has Hollywood ever led you wrong? :aaahhh:

 

[Troll]

And just like those elections, I'm sure there was no "organized" fraud but there is still enough questions to show there probably was some. If I recall correctly, it's pretty close to the other elections evidence wise. More ballots cast than registered voters, possible bad interpretations on the recount.

Watch the movie Recount sometime.

Why?

I assume because it's Hollywood telling you what really happened. I mean, has Hollywood ever led you wrong? :aaahhh:

If I could sidestep your passive-aggressive routine for a moment, it's because it's a good account of what really happened.

HINT: [spoiler:265ivus0]No conspiracy, no organized fraud, just morons running the state of Florida. No theft, just dumb people on both sides of the issue.[/spoiler:265ivus0]

 

[Espy]

[quote="A Troll":1lejumys]
Watch the movie Recount sometime.

Why?

I assume because it's Hollywood telling you what really happened. I mean, has Hollywood ever led you wrong? :aaahhh:

If I could sidestep your passive-aggressive routine for a moment, it's because it's a good account of what really happened.

HINT: [spoiler:1lejumys]No conspiracy, no organized fraud, just morons running the state of Florida. No theft, just dumb people on both sides of the issue.[/spoiler:1lejumys][/quote:1lejumys]
You are so sensitive. I thought trolls had thicker skin. There isn't any passive aggressiveness going on, just silliness that comes out when people think Hollywood is going to give you a true account of any historical event.
And as to how fair and balanced the movie is here is my favorite synopsis of the movie from a critic:

Once upon a time there was an election. A very good man won the election, but it was really, really close, and a very bad man claimed that he had won the election. And a group of brave, strong people tried to recount the votes to prove that the very good man had won the election, but they were so high-minded and good that they just wouldn't fight dirty, while a group of cruel, mean people would do anything to stop the counting so that the very bad man could win. When the counting got under way, the very bad man's lead got smaller and smaller, and the very good man was about to win until a group of very, very, very bad people in Washington DC stopped it all, and the very bad man won. The end.

A few minutes ago, I talked to Ben Ginsberg, who consulted with the moviemakers and whose character has a key role in the picture. "My take is that we won the recount, and they won the movie," Ginsberg told me. "I think they actually did a very good job of capturing the tension and the pace of what we were going through, but it's clearly from the Democrats' perspective. This is a fairy tale that didn't come true for them."

"I think there were some key things that were left out," Ginsberg continued. "For example, there's no mention at all of the first U.S. Supreme Court case, which overturned the first Florida Supreme Court case, and then the Florida Supreme Court completely ignored the U.S. Supreme Court….They also made of big deal of 'We don't know who won,' but they didn't mention the media recount, which concluded that if you followed what the Gore camp wanted or what the Florida Supreme Court ordered, then Bush won….And the notion that they were a bunch of boy scouts and we were the cutthroats is just nonsense. They didn't want to count all the votes, they only wanted to count Gore votes."

 

[Troll]

You are so sensitive. I thought trolls had thicker skin. There isn't any passive aggressiveness going on, just silliness that comes out when people think Hollywood is going to give you a true account of any historical event.
And as to how fair and balanced the movie is here is my favorite synopsis of the movie from a critic:

Once upon a time there was an election. A very good man won the election, but it was really, really close, and a very bad man claimed that he had won the election. And a group of brave, strong people tried to recount the votes to prove that the very good man had won the election, but they were so high-minded and good that they just wouldn't fight dirty, while a group of cruel, mean people would do anything to stop the counting so that the very bad man could win. When the counting got under way, the very bad man's lead got smaller and smaller, and the very good man was about to win until a group of very, very, very bad people in Washington DC stopped it all, and the very bad man won. The end.

A few minutes ago, I talked to Ben Ginsberg, who consulted with the moviemakers and whose character has a key role in the picture. "My take is that we won the recount, and they won the movie," Ginsberg told me. "I think they actually did a very good job of capturing the tension and the pace of what we were going through, but it's clearly from the Democrats' perspective. This is a fairy tale that didn't come true for them."

"I think there were some key things that were left out," Ginsberg continued. "For example, there's no mention at all of the first U.S. Supreme Court case, which overturned the first Florida Supreme Court case, and then the Florida Supreme Court completely ignored the U.S. Supreme Court….They also made of big deal of 'We don't know who won,' but they didn't mention the media recount, which concluded that if you followed what the Gore camp wanted or what the Florida Supreme Court ordered, then Bush won….And the notion that they were a bunch of boy scouts and we were the cutthroats is just nonsense. They didn't want to count all the votes, they only wanted to count Gore votes."

First of all, I'm merely pointing out that you're passive-aggressive all the time. It's true. I'm not hurt, just having a little fun poking at you.

Second, I disagree with that critic's assessment. When I watched the movie it was informative as to the details of what went down with the election, and it portrayed both sides in a balanced way. Each side has it's bad and good moments. Both campaigns have staff and officials who whine about whether or not this ballot or that ballot should count, both have moments when they make questionable decisions, and the only real villain of the film is a Florida politician who comes off like an ambitious moron.

 

[Espy]

First of all, I'm merely pointing out that you're passive-aggressive all the time. It's true. I'm not hurt, just having a little fun poking at you.

Again, you need to learn the difference between making fun of something silly and being passive aggressive. It's a big one.

 

[Troll]

First of all, I'm merely pointing out that you're passive-aggressive all the time. It's true. I'm not hurt, just having a little fun poking at you.

Again, you need to learn the difference between making fun of something silly and being passive aggressive. It's a big one.

Again, dress it up however you'd like. The fact remains.

Hey, this is fun! I anxiously await your next "Nuh uh, you are!" post, so I can respond in kind.

 

[Espy]

[quote="A Troll":3kjsk92j]
First of all, I'm merely pointing out that you're passive-aggressive all the time. It's true. I'm not hurt, just having a little fun poking at you.

Again, you need to learn the difference between making fun of something silly and being passive aggressive. It's a big one.

Again, dress it up however you'd like. The fact remains.

Hey, this is fun! I anxiously await your next "Nuh uh, you are!" post, so I can respond in kind. [/quote:3kjsk92j]
You're the one making the accusation that I'm being passive aggressive instead of refusing to believe I'm just making fun of your post. I really can't help you if you would rather believe the former. But if it helps you sleep at night then rock on.

 

[Iaculus]

[quote="A Troll":3ahi4jhs]
First of all, I'm merely pointing out that you're passive-aggressive all the time. It's true. I'm not hurt, just having a little fun poking at you.

Again, you need to learn the difference between making fun of something silly and being passive aggressive. It's a big one.

Again, dress it up however you'd like. The fact remains.

Hey, this is fun! I anxiously await your next "Nuh uh, you are!" post, so I can respond in kind.

You're the one making the accusation that I'm being passive aggressive instead of refusing to believe I'm just making fun of your post. I really can't help you if you would rather believe the former. But if it helps you sleep at night then rock on.[/quote:3ahi4jhs]

:teeth:

He got espy.

Congrats, sir - I think you just levelled up.

Edit: unless that was some really subtle humour on your part, O smoking baby.

 

[Espy]

:teeth:

He got espy.

Congrats, sir - I think you just levelled up.

Edit: unless that was some really subtle humour on your part, O smoking baby.

You know, for a troll he has no history of trolling so until it's proved otherwise I just take him at face value. I thought I was being aggressive but apparently not enough.
If he was truly trolling then I tip my hat to him and give him one internet cookie.

 

[Armadillo]

It's hardly perjury when you put someone on trial for having sex in the oval office and then use that to create something illegal. Besides, if we can allow Bush to get away with war crimes for 7 years, I think we can let a small fib slide, don't you?

1. Name the war crimes. Be specific.
2. You can't lie under oath. EVER. ABOUT ANYTHING. Clinton lied under oath. That would be the definition of perjury.
3. I don't care that Clinton had an affair. That's between him and [strike:3mox2kgl]The Pantsuit Medusa[/strike:3mox2kgl] Hillary. What I care about is that he lied under oath about it. See Point #2.

 

[Denbrought]

It's hardly perjury when you put someone on trial for having sex in the oval office and then use that to create something illegal. Besides, if we can allow Bush to get away with war crimes for 7 years, I think we can let a small fib slide, don't you?

1. Name the war crimes. Be specific.
2. You can't lie under oath. EVER. ABOUT ANYTHING. Clinton lied under oath. That would be the definition of perjury.
3. I don't care that Clinton had an affair. That's between him and [strike:2l0th8an]The Pantsuit Medusa[/strike:2l0th8an] Hillary. What I care about is that he lied under oath about it. See Point #2.

http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html

Google gave me this, ignore the cartoony image, a brief look around made it look like a good list.

 

[Troll]

:teeth:

He got espy.

Congrats, sir - I think you just levelled up.

Edit: unless that was some really subtle humour on your part, O smoking baby.

You know, for a troll he has no history of trolling so until it's proved otherwise I just take him at face value. I thought I was being aggressive but apparently not enough.
If he was truly trolling then I tip my hat to him and give him one internet cookie.

It's true, I'm usually not trying to troll, but with Espy I just couldn't resist. :teeth:

Anyone who goes back in this thread on the 23rd will find an exchange where Espy got me hook, line, and sinker. I've been trying for a bit to pay him back, but he's wily. I think I may have just succeeded.

EDIT:

I don't care that Clinton had an affair. That's between him and [strike:2sce5m7w]The Pantsuit Medusa[/strike:2sce5m7w] Hillary.

I lol'd