Bush’s new environmental initiative…
Had enough? You know what to do….
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Ouccch! Who could be against eco-friendly torture techniques? I love the serious talking heads debating over “green” torture – if it weren’t so true that the main point isn’t so often lost on these “pundits”. The same idiots debating the same absurdities in the same old ways – that is what passes for commentary.
Bring on the green testicular torture!
correctnotright,
“Bring on the green testicular torture!”
Indeed. I was thinking…super-sized Venus fly trap. It sequesters C02 while squeezing information out of suspected terrorists.
And Darryl – the little spikes on the end of the fly-trap – just an added bonus of “green” torture.
We could purify tainted industrial waste by a purfication technique after using it for waterboarding too….
How did they keep straight faces?
correctnotright @ 3,
I get green-goosebumps (a.k.a. eco-piloerections) just thinking about it….
“Bring on the green testicular torture! ”
So few guys have green testes these days that it seems impractical to me.
@6 – that is exactly why we need more effective torture techniques – to increase the proportion of green ….never mind…
Certainly, the water used in waterboarding should be reused/recycled. Wasting water for such a task is simply unforgivable. Indeed, as I think about it, perhaps the most ecofriendly means of waterboarding would be to use the terrorists’ own urine. That would put the urine to use rather than having to dispense with it.
A buddy from Rhode Island asked –
I’m not too big on politics and the only way I stay informed is by watching The Daily Show (lol). Still unsure who I will vote for. What reasons do you have for rooting for Hilary?
Well, I have a host of reasons to support Hillary:
She is for universal healthcare for everyone, not just some of the people. It’s a progressive plan, and is estimated (by a range of people who have analyzed her plan) to save Americans $662.5 billion dollars per year. It not only insures more people than Barack’s plan, but it also saves more money than Barack’s plan
She has a better plan for the economy and pulling us out of this recession we’re rapidly heading toward. I could go into endless points on her plan and why it is superior, but I can point a couple of key ones:
She supports a 90 day moratorium on Housing Foreclosures to keep americans in their home – Obama does not.
She supports a 5 year freeze on Adjustable Rate Mortgages from adjusting higher to keep Americans in their homes – Obama does not.
Obama proposes a 1.3 trillion dollar tax increase that mostly affects the middle class to stabilize social security, Hillary believes it can be done by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich only (such as, but not limited to, the capital gains taxes and the tax cuts on the highest end tax bracket of Americans), without affecting the middle class.
And many many more –
If you wanna talk about being ‘progressive’, which of these two candidates has actually marched in a gay pride parade?
That would be Hillary.
Who was the only candidate to take the time to go to the State of the Black Union, even though African Americans are clearly voting for Obama?
That would be Hillary.
Contrary to their belief that Obama has their interests in mind, Clinton has always been interested in the rights of minorities, and has worked hard in her lifetime to fight for them.
She has the majority of the working and middle class americans in mind, and has the details hammered out, while Obama keeps making mistakes with the numbers.
For instance, he has a lot of good ideas, like providing $4,000 for every college student, eliminating taxes on social security earners who make less than $50,000 – the total of his campaign promises are over $1.45 trillion dollars per year in new spending. He’s been answering the question of “how are you going to pay for that” with pointing to two sources – a Governement Accountability Office study that says that the U.S. can save over $1.3 trillion dollars by eliminating wasteful and unneeded programs, and by ending the $300 billion of annual spending on the Iraq War.
He shows his ignorance on the economy in both of these areas because one, the GAO study said that the $1.3 trillion could be saved in TEN years, not per year, so the only savings you are getting on an annual basis is approximately $1.05 billion. And two, the Iraq war money is money we are currently borrowing as a one-time emergency expense, it is not actually part of the budget. The Iraq war funds each year are simply adding to the trillions of dollars of deficit debt we already have – and “shifting” those funds to domestic programs is not a way to pay for his programs, unless he’s just trying to increase the deficit by borrowing more and more money each year.
Hillary has the better plan for healthcare, economy, and foreign policy, and she walks the walk, not just talks the talk.
And lastly, you know, if you really want to look at something that gets lost on a lot of people in this age of quickie divorce and las vegas weddings, she had all the reason to leave, and yet she chose to honor her vows:
“For better or for worse, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish ’till death do us part.”
And in a way, even though I can’t get legally married, I think that makes me respect her the most.
Hillary is a fighter.
The other things I don’t like about Barack Obama is his constant flip flopping on issues.
Flip Flop #1:
As a senator in Illinois, he said in this survey (Question 35a):
http://www.politico.com/static.....aire2.html
“Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns?”
He answered: Yes
Yet in Idaho, on the campaign trail on February 2nd, he said:
“I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”
http://ap.google.com/article/A.....gD8UIB7V80
Flip Flop #2:
Obama said he was for single payer universal healthcare, the one championed by Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkIidChxic
And in the debates, he said he was never for it, and isn’t for it.
Flip Flop #3:
He tells people he’s a “new kind of politician”, that he won’t accept special interest money, and then takes $247,000 from nuclear lobbyists to water down a nuclear energy safety bill to the point that nearly everyone involved that was supporting him on the original bill calls the new bill “worthless”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02.....xelon.html
Flip Flop #4:
In the debate in Texas, he was called out on flip flopping his stance on Cuba
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZoJOhaDoFg
(start out at about minute 4:10)
Flip Flop #5:
And then, he signs a document, saying he will go for public financing in the presidential election, and then, he renegs. He fill out a document and said “Yes, I will do this”, and then, he flip flops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPDeWiMlyg
Anyway, I could continue, but I just want someone who will talk to me and give me one answer, not give me one answer, and then give another answer later.
We lost the general election with Kerry on the charge of flip flopping, Mr. Obama is setting himself up to be the same, and to get hit with those same charges.
Is she perfect? No. Is she better prepared? Yes. I can get any number of candidates who can talk the talk, but can my president walk the walk? I know Hillary can.
She is the better candidate in this race on the issues that matter to me most.
I know Hillary, and Hillary speaks for me.
Cook County hack Barack No-Middle-Name Obama alert … this just in from Wikipedia: There is no page titled “Rezco”. No results found.
Gives $200,000 slumlord dollars to the man with no middle name, and gets no respect from Wiki. Life’s not fair.
@ 10 – because it’s “Rezko”.
Gee thanks dustin – and can you post the picture of him with Hillary too?
Isht.
Hopefully by this time next week, Hillary will have withdrawn from the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama a hell of a lot more acceptable that Hillary!
If McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, does that make him ineligible to run for prez?
13: No – the Panama Canal Zone was U.S. Territory at the time, and McCain was a natural-born U.S. Citizen (both of his parents were U.S. Citizens).
But there are so many other good reasons why McCain shouldn’t be President.
Anybody want to guess who his Vice-Presidential nominee will be? If it’s Romney, Huckabee, or Gullianni, we’ll have a lot of fun here on these boards. Given McCain’s age, you have to consider that a VP under him has a pretty good chance of becoming President.
Aren’t there a lot of terrorists in Panama? Shouldn’t we worry about Johnboy’s terrorist ties?
DustinJames @ 9
Your talking points are straight from the McCain campaign. I hope you’re being well-paid for your shilling.
@12 – You mean the one that’s up at Wikipedia?
I think her statement stands for itself:
“I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17-year relationship with him. There’s a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don’t know and haven’t seen since and having a relationship…”
@ 17 – I am not for McCain, and I would never vote for McCain – ever.
If the race becomes Obama vs McCain, it’s just douchebag vs a giant turd, and I’ll sit home.
Hillary is the only dog I have in this fight, and my talking points are pro-Hillary, not fucking pro-McCain.
Dustin
Calling Obama a giant turd shows that your emotions trump your reason. Your threat to sit out an election between McCain and Obama proves you are not a Democrat. The stakes this time are far too significant for Democrats to get in a tiff because their preferred candidate didn’t win the nomination. If it’s people like you who are passionate about Hillary, I can understand how she has blown her lead so quickly and so dramatically.
Obama is much too liberal for me, McCain much too conservative. I’m a centrist democrat, and Obama is not my candidate. I wouldn’t have voted for Kucinich if he was the nominee. The only other person I would have voted for in this election was Edwards.
And if it’s Douchebag vs Giant Turd, I’ll vote local and national, but I won’t vote Presidential.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.”
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....ub=QPeriod
Gotta love it. But to obama’s credit, he knows lying to the sheeple works.
The question is, who is he lying to? The democrat voters or canadian leaders.
Why do the trolls make it so easy?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/180565.php
Dustin: You are not a democrat – Obama has been to the right of Hillary on a number of issues. You are so partisan you have lost all credibility. I have refurted pretty much every clinton talking point you have put up.
You rpedicted a clinton win in washington and she got whupped and has lost 13 states in a row – with Texas being the next one.
You have no ability to predict what will happen and your pathetic attempts to smear Obama go nowhere. Get a real life and visit reality – it is Obama against McCain. Sit out if you want to – but it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are not a real democrat.
I have always said I would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee – and that still stands. I think she would be an ineffective president compared to Obama – and this has been proven by the lousy campaign and the lousy advisors she has picked (like Penn). Face it – she is a loser and we real democrats need a winner – not a whiner.
Once again you know how the HorsesASS writers here jump on a story when there could be issues:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot......ewing.html
Alabama GOP Asks For Proof on Karl Rove Hit Piece…
Or, demands that the network retract the story!
Did CBS learn nothing from their last major scandal?
Hutch Hutcherson wants “to discuss why homosexual rights should not be viewed in the same way as civil rights for African Americans.”
See: http://slog.thestranger.com/20.....warrior_32
“Homosexual rights should not be viewed in the same way as civil rights for African Americans.” Why? Because Hutch sez so.
He is black, he gets rights. He (says he) is not gay, so gays don’t get rights.
I suspect that he also wishes that blacks that are not exactly like himself should have no rights.
Remember his coddling conversation with Senator (macaca) Allen a few months ago…
there’s PLENTY of evidence, PuddyBitch…look it up you lazy-ass mofo
Here ya go asshole…
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._1125.html
correctnotright – if the definition of democrat is now the progressive left of our party, then you are correct, I am not a democrat. I am a centrist in the ways of Bill Clinton, and not the extreme left like Dennis Kucinich and the #1 most liberal senator Backtrack Obama.
With as many flip flops as Backtrack has, no wonder Kerry (who I voted for) supports him.
Toadstool@27: Looks like the 60 Minutes piece. Same associations Scott Pelley discussed.
Thanks ATJ You made it so easy: “They don’t say what exactly is inaccurate about the report.”
Partial Birth:
When have gays been lynched by large groups of white men taking you from your home and hanging you in public?
When have gays been lynched for looking at a white woman? Have you been Mandingoed lately?
When have gays been dragged behind cars?
When have gays been shot for looking at a white woman?
When have gays been treated like Emmitt Till?
When have gays been subjected to slavery for hundreds of years?
When have gays been raped by de massa?
When have gays been trampled by horses?
When have gays been sold?
When have gays been split from their family and sent elsewhere to live?
When have gays been firehosed?
When have gays been attacked by police dogs?
When have gays not had the right to vote?
When have gays had to drink from a different fountain than the other non-gays?
When have gays had to eat in other sections of the restaurant?
When have gays had to sit in the back of the bus?
When have gays been harassed for driving while black?
When have gays had broom handles shoved up their butts by NY City Policemen?
When have gays been castrated?
Tell me Partial Birth or are you showing us the reason you chose that name?
Puddyprick, are you insinuating that homophobia is a fallacy?
Are you suggesting that Hutch Hutcherson is not a bullying homophobic self hating black person?
If so, you be off the mark, bro.
Puddy @ 32
You have made a point that causes some pause. Your comment, for once, actually reflects a sense of having been screwed unfairly. On the other hand, I know that you despise gays. You have a visceral rejection of gays, despite God having made them the way they are. Do you honestly believe that gays have not faced official, unofficial, and every other sort of discrimination imaginable? In 1986, the United States Supreme Court upheld a criminal conviction for a man having sex with another man in Texas. Do you think that was the right decision?
#23 Another TJ says:
Why do those on the extreme left use extreme-left websites as proof.
Unfortunately, here’s the truth. Since the obama campaign is denying it, names are now being named and the obama campaign goes silent.
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....TopStories
Looks like I copied the wrong post. My bad:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/180573.php
I await your apologies.
Why do those on the extreme left use extreme-left websites as proof.
TPM has recently been cited for its journalistic excellence. Do you have anything besides ad hominem to add?
Just as I suspected.