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!
Have deduced the etiology of Rabbit Disease: He’s become unhinged because our side has real women (the Divine Ms. Linda Smith, the late-great Ellen Craswell, and the late-great Magnificent Jennifer Dunn), while his side, your side, has rodents: Pepsodent Patty Murray, Kaka Maria Cantwell, Denis Rodman Clinton, Hillary-shill Ann Coulter, dumpling Darcy, and Tlaz. Sick-o!
Sucks to be you.
I’m watching a video of Today’s Meet the Press with Barack. I think he is doing a good job explaining the Reverend Wright controversy, it is unfortunate that the average voter doesn’t watch a program like Meet the Press, they’ll base their opinions on the slant of the media….dumb mother fuckers.
Check previous thread, post #24, for the belated wedding announcement. Whole Foods will cater the belated reception. BYOA: Bring Your Own Arugula.
If bush lied us into war, doesn’t that mean that all these democrats also lied?
Marvy – I suppose you wouldn’t blame Hitler either.
I don’t blame you for being afraid to answer the question.
Do you really think the Demo’s have a chance in beating Mcain in November?
Black Liberation Theology = Pastor Wright = Marxism Liberation theology
Obama spent 25 years there. 1 short spot on Meet the press don’t mean Shit!
White people Bad. Black People Good.
“If bush lied us into war, doesn’t that mean that all these democrats also lied?”
No. In order for the second part to be true, they had to have known at that time that Bush lied.
Of course, I’m not at all surprised that you’d gloss over such subtleties. After all, you’d rather we get pissed off over the people who got conned than get our dander up over the people who perpetrated the con.
Question for Wingnuts: If Bush hadn’t conned 70% of the population into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, would we still have invaded Iraq?
So we now have Marvin admitting Bush lied. First time Marv ever told the truth in his whole cowardly life.
By the way Marv – your wife is so ugly I won’t even fuck her, despite her constant requests for my attention!
@4 No. They were lied to. But you’re not smart enough to see that.
@6 He answered the question.
@7 I think we should be asking whether you really think McCain has a chance to win in November, even though his party’s approval rating is less under 30%. And your response, of course, will be the standard wingnut-in-denial-mode fantasy that this country’s voters will continue to embrace Republicans despite the endless litany of fiascos, disasters, screwups, irresponsibility, lying, corruption, and failure of the last 7 1/2 years. Frankly, I think you’re mentally ill.
BYEBYE HOWS THAT HAND FULL OF HAIR WORKIN OUT FOR YOU.ARE ALL THE PIMPLES GONE FROM YOUR FACE.THE SPERM BANK SAID THEY TOOK CARE OF THE REST OF THE DONORS SPERM SO THERE WILL BE NO MORE BYEBYES IN THIS WORLD.GO TRY OUT YOUR NEW LOVE.
Medic alert — poster #1 is at risk of giving himself an aneurysm and looks like his head may explode at any moment. Best to have a mop and pail handy just in case.
@15 Your wife is calling him as you type (wink-wink) …
Let’s pause for a reality check.
“In April, a new poll revealed that 81 percent of the American people believe that the country is on the ‘wrong track.’ In the 25 years that pollsters have asked this question, last month’s response was by far the most negative. Other polls, asking similar questions, found levels of gloom that were even more alarming, often at 30- and 40-year highs.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380
Waaaaytagooooowingfuuuucks!!!! This clusterfuck was brought to you by Lost-Grip-On-Reality, Inc. (a rebranding of the corporation formerly known as the Republican Party).
Why not, I fucked your ugly wife. Shaved the spots on her back she couldn’t reach.
BTW, how’s my son doing?
Are you saying that after bush “stole” the 200 election the democrats blindly parroted what bush said at the expense of the country?
You obviously have even a lower opinion of democrat politicians than I do.
Why would you want people in power that are so stupid they get conned by someone you consider a chimp?
@20 No, he’s not saying that, but the explanation is way over your head so I won’t bother.
@21 That’s certainly an interesting way of trying to justifying a Republican president’s lies to Congress, our nation, and the world. But what you possess in cleverness is offset by what you lack in honesty and morality.
Marv – your son? Wouldn’t know – last I heard – you were doing time for fucking him in the ass when he was 9 – just like you did with your cousin.
“PETA wants Eight Belles jockey suspended.” The story’s on Yahoo’s front page.
What does the 70% of the population have to do with going to war, they didn’t vote for authorization.
Unless you mean that the population put pressure on the democrats to go to war and the democrats were so scared of losing office they decided to parrot bush without giving any concern what that would do to the country.
Face it, the democrats fucked up. Either out of complete ignorance or pandering to the masses they voted the country into war.
I know you didn’t know it was my son you’ve been raising. All those times you changed his diapers didn’t you ever figure out he wasn’t yours? Just like the ignorant democrats that parroted bush you couldn’t figure it out for yourself. Sorry. It was nothing personal.
I don’t blame you for being afraid to answer.
Y’know, RR, sometimes I *almost* think you’re halfway intelligent when you post about the misery that is Sound Transit.
But when you talk out yer @ss regarding #4 above without EVEN THE DECENCY OR HONESTY TO READ WHAT IS POSTED at the link, then reasonable folks could conclude that you reside in Berkeley and are not mentally grounded.
Read the link. Much of it is waaaaay before Jan 20, 2001. Much of it is BJ. You folks on the left revere him. Was he as much of a “liar” as GWB? HIS OWN WORDS INDICT HIM AS SUCH if you believe all the inanities about GWB. Several HUNDRED MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ARE LIKEWISE INDICTED!
Hit the link. Be made aware!
Take it easy on the rabbit. He is suffering from BDS, bush derangement syndrome. It makes otherwise intelligent people into blubbering idiots.
“Why would you want people in power that are so stupid they get conned by someone you consider a chimp?”
Why presume the chimp perpetrated the con?
Oh, that’s right. The presumption is convenient for the conclusion you want to reach.
Cheney ran the show, sport, which means the chimp was too stupid to figure out that he was being conned.
Now, I suppose you’re going to try to convince us that you didn’t vote for the chimp.
Damn, I just figured it out.
None of the democrats were able to read the big words in any of the intelligence reports so Bush had to read it to them aloud, with them seated at his knee in My Pet Goat fashion, skipping the parts he didn’t think would make a good sell. He finished the storytelling with a group singing of Kumbaya.
Now you’re saying bush didn’t lie?
Make up your mind.
Marvy,
I am a musician. As a musician, I am used to meeting other musicians who have open minds, and most certainly, open hearts. The arts require both. You have neither. You are simply an asshole. You may be able to play an instrument, presumably your own. From whence comes such arrogance?
Now, I suppose you’re going to try to convince us that you didn’t vote for the chimp.
05/04/2008 at 10:54 pm
Well the chances are he did vote for Bush just like most people did. roof roof.
Since the repubs have already proven a chimp can beat a democrat I wonder if they will try to get a cement block elected. I am sure most reasonable people would vote for the cement block before the democrat.
“Now you’re saying bush didn’t lie?”
Is there a point where I wasn’t laying the blame at the entire Bush Administration?
Dang, but you really have a shit-ass memory.
Arrogance? Why, because I call democrats stupid for parroting bush? You’re obviously missing the point. Sorry.
Is calling me arrogant and an asshole the best argument you can make about why so many democrats parroted bush. Did you visit the link?
Of course I play my own instrument. Whose instrument do you play if not your own???
“You’re obviously missing the point. Sorry.”
Wow. Talk about missing the point. Even if we concede every fact you allege, we end up with some stupid Democrats, but damn near every Republican ends up being evil incarnate. Is that really the argument you want to make?
Seriously, please try winning in November by using this argument.
You have written that bush lied. And then you flip-flopped and said he was conned. Obviously you voted for john kerry.
Today is 38th Anniversary of the Kent State Shootings. Anyone who doesn’t think our current government isn’t capable of shooting citizens down in the street is a stupid ass Republican.
http://tinyurl.com/6drge4
Marvy,
My point about your arrogance doesn’t relate to any specific post. Nay, rather, my presumption of your arrogance results from having read too many of your posts, for too long, all of which suggest you just think you’re right. Sorry, babe, why don’t you reconsider?
What facts am I alleging? Did you visit the link? watch any of the youtube videos?
Can you find any posts of mine where I praise reps? I didn’t think so.
How many times have I called government employees lazy, ineffective and not worth the taxes we are forced to pay?
Fear is the mother of aggression. Republicans consider themselves ‘aggressive’. The tactic they use to motivate others is to try to make them fearful.
Ain’t workin’ no mo’…. End the war.
“You have written that bush lied.”
I merely cited a fact that you alleged, and took it to a logical conclusion. You didn’t like the logical conclusion, so now you accuse me of flip-flopping.
But, thank you for showing, once again, the wingnut aversion to telling the whole truth.
Reconsider what?
Did you follow the link I posted in #4?
In your opinion, did bush lie us into war?
Why are so many democrats caught on video talking about saddam having WMDs and agreeing with bush about going to war?
“What facts am I alleging? Did you visit the link? watch any of the youtube videos?”
As a matter of fact, yes. Nearly every one of those quotes is taken out of context. If you don’t know that, then you really are more stupid than I thought.
“Can you find any posts of mine where I praise reps?”
No, but the fact that you never advocate for something isn’t my fault. You haven’t given an alternative. If you have one, then let’s hear it. Otherwise, the implication by omission is abundantly clear.
If you don’t believe bush lied… I apologize for the flip-flop comment.
“Why are so many democrats caught on video talking about saddam having WMDs and agreeing with bush about going to war?”
First of all, only a handful of the items at the link you posted explicitly advocate war. Some of them advocated regime change (mostly the remarks made before September of 2001), but most of those were in the context of working through the United Nations to bring about a peaceful regime change in Iraq.
Secondly, you keep asking this question when it’s already been answered. The Democrats who authorized the war were given cooked intelligence. It’s a little difficult to read words that aren’t in a redacted intelligence report.
Lastly, as I pointed out above, you haven’t given an alternative. We’re left to assume that you would rather people vote for the folks who perpetrated the lies.
What is the alternative to reps/dems? Ralph nadar? cynthia mckinney as the green party candidate? It’s only getting worse.
Until I get a candidate I believe in, why vote?
And let’s be honest, ALL politicians are liars and flip-floppers as they pander to their supporters. Both parties are controlled by people living so far above the people they rule there is no difference between parties.
“Until I get a candidate I believe in, why vote?”
Because participating in the process is your obligation as a citizen of this country.
Better question, if your main beef is with politics in general, then why do you spend so much time here playing the role of a partisan troll?
The bullshit about Democrats believing Saddam had WMDs is textbook Karl Rove. The Democrats DID believe that – during Gulf War I. Most believed that during the time of President Clinton. But most stopped believing it when the sanctions had time to do their job – and the inspectors couldn’t find anything.
So to take this completely out of context, which is all the righties can hope to do – they are trying to use this to buoy up the decision that Bush made to go to war.
This of course conveniently leaves out facts – which is what Marv and his band of pedophiles often do. The facts are Dems (I admit stupidly) AUTHORIZED Bush to use force – but they didn’t make the decision, he did. And they didn’t authorize war – he did. And they didn’t direct the military to spend trillions of tax dollars, sending young US soldiers to their deaths over oil, he did. And they didn’t claim Mission Accomplished, Bush did. And they didn’t change the story of why were over there from WMD, to building democracy to protecting America from Osama’s minions, Bush did.
Fortunately, expect for perverts like Marv, most of the country knows this is Bush’s war.
The Dems share responsibility only in that they haven’t worked hard enough to stop it. But that’s nowhere near the amount of responsibility Bush has for starting and continuing it.
All I might add at no cost to Marv – who’s happy to let other people’s kids do the fighting and pay off the bill someday in the future.
I curse you again Marv. I curse you and your family. Start looking for it. You’ll see it. My curse is powerful. And you’re way to weak to stop it.
# 14
When all else fails, attack. The truth hurts but McCain will be the next President.
What about the obligation the government owes to the citizens?
If my choice is between tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber there’s no need to vote. To vote for a fatally flawed candidate is tacit approval that gives us more of the same.
Simple answer. On this blog do I really need to badmouth the reps?
8 Nice white sheet you’re wearing there…
@29 “But when you talk out yer @ss regarding #4 above without EVEN THE DECENCY OR HONESTY TO READ WHAT IS POSTED at the link,”
There’s no link in #4.
(How the hell can we discuss anything with people who are so detached from FACTS they even get something as basic as that wrong? I mean, when the basic premise of their argument is totally out in right field, all you can do is walk away shaking your head …)
@56 – Um Rabbit…there is a link in #4….
@30 I’m a Democratic party hack and liberal propagandist. I’ve said so in this blog, oh, maybe 250 times. If you’d paid attention you wouldn’t be so confused. Your attention deficiency is your problem, not mine. I’m not a shrink and can’t do anything about it.
@32 Well that’s about your speed, Marv. Par for the wingnut course. Someday, when you’re not too busy being stupid, look up “lies” in the dictionary. Finding out when it means will open your eyes to why some Democrats voted for Bush’s Iraq resolution.
Apart from the fact Democratic votes for that resolution were procured with a pack of lies, the resolution itself authorized military action only as a “last resort” after U.N. sanctions and diplomatic efforts were exhausted. Bush immediately violated that provision of the resolution — he acted without congressional authority, and in violation of the authority Congress had given him.
The fact is, Saddam had no WMDs. He was bluffing.
The fact is, Saddam was cooperating with U.N. inspectors when Bush invaded Iraq. The inspectors had to flee America bombs, shells, and tanks.
The fact is, Bush never attempted to resolve the WMD issue peacefully; he wanted war from the beginning.
The fact is, Bush and his henchmen lied to Congress, the American people, and the world.
The fact is, Bush used half a dozen different justifications for invading Iraq in just a few months — in the same way that a con artist uses different aliases — none of which are credible.
And here’s one final tidbit of food for thought: When U.S. forces entered Baghdad, the first thing they captured and secured was Iraq’s Oil Ministry building and its records.
By shilling for this liar, warmonger, and torturer, you are an immoral and indecent human being. You are un-American and a traitor to your country. By being a cheerleader for Bush’s crimes, you have become a war criminal yourself. I’m sorry to put it like this, Marvin, but I feel it’s in your own best interest for me to lay it out on the table exactly like it is — I feel like an attorney in a jailhouse interview room explaining reality to a client who lost his final appeal … it’s an unpleasant task, but someone’s got to do it, and it’s best to be honest about these things. God is not on your side; you’re going to Hell for what you’ve done; and there’s nothing more I can do to save you from yourself in this world. I gave it my all, but this is the end of the road; there are no more appeals. I’m sorry it turned out this way, but now I have to move on and deal with my other cases, and I won’t be attending your Final Judgment; you must face that alone.
“But seriously how about that John McCain? John McCain looks like a guy whose head you can barely see over the steering wheel. … John McCain looks like the guy who thinks the nurses are stealing his stuff. ‘Dad, why would they take your socks? It doesn’t make sense.'” –David Letterman
“How about that John McCain, huh? John McCain looks like the kind of guy who brags that his new denture adhesive allows him to eat corn on the cob. He looks like a guy who parked his RV overnight at Wal-Mart.” –David Letterman
“How about John McCain? He looks like a guy at a restaurant that says I’m leaving 10%, that’s good enough. John McCain, looks like the guy who goes to the curb for the paper and locks himself outside of the house.” –David Letterman
“John McCain … He looks like the guy that walks up to the mound to settle down a young pitcher. John McCain looks like the guy who picks up his TV remote when the phone rings.” –David Letterman “I like that John McCain. He looks like a guy who gets tickets for mowing under the influence. He looks like a guy with a collection of movies he bought at the car wash. He looks like a guy on the beach with a metal detector. He looks like the guy who is still confused by the phone answering machine: ‘Hello, is that – hello, is that you? Larry, Larry, hello?’ He looks like the guy who calls his grandson when he screws up the remote: ‘Well, now all the shows are in Spanish. What am I going to do, hello?'” –David Letterman
“How about that John McCain? He looks like the guy at the movies whose wife has to repeat everything. He looks like the guy who has to always be told something is on his chin. He looks like a guy who still has a rotary phone. He looks like a guy who’s backed over his own mailbox. He looks like a guy whose sweater is always mis-buttoned. He looks like the guy who always tells you he’s 72 years young. He looks like the guy who’s bragged that oatmeal has lowered his cholesterol. He looks like the guy who should be co-hosting with Kelly Ripa.” –David Letterman
“Hey, how about this John McCain, huh? Whoa, my gosh –- doesn’t he look like the old guy at the barber shop? He looks kind of like a Wal-Mart greeter, John McCain. He kind of looks like the neighbor who says, ‘Oh, that dead tree is on your property,’ one of those guys. He’s the guy who is always early for the early bird special, that’s what he looks like. He looks like a mall walker, ladies and gentlemen. He looks like the guy at the supermarket who is confused by the automatic doors. He looks like the uncle who pretends to remove his thumb.” (Watch video clip)
“I like John McCain. He looks like an old guy in a coffee shop who’s still complaining about the designated hitter. He looks like the guy who asks the driver if he’s on the right bus. He looks like the guy who’s always saying, ‘What was that? Nothing? That’s what I thought.'” –David Letterman
“John McCain is trying to get attention. People aren’t really paying attention to him as much. But he’s doing his best. He’s out there. His slogan is ‘Yes, I’m here.’ Someone please pay attention to me.” –Conan O’Brien
“Today, John McCain campaigned across the state of Florida. He’s in Florida. Yeah, McCain likes campaigning in Florida because everyone there calls him ‘the Kid.’ … His charming youthfulness amuses them.” –Conan O’Brien
“McCain came out this week with a list of 20 possible running mates. He would not reveal the names of all of them, but he said they all share certain traits, like knowing CPR. He said he wants someone who is ready take over on day two.” –Bill Maher
“Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have all been arguing, claiming that they’re the most qualified person to answer the White House phone at 3 a.m. Yeah, McCain said, ‘I’m the most qualified, because I’m usually up at that hour peeing anyway.'” –Conan O’Brien
“John McCain is now crisscrossing the United States campaigning. Or, as they’re calling it, Antiques Roadshow.” –Jay Leno
“Did you hear about this? Two State Department employees were fired — this is a bit of a scandal — because they were looking at Barack Obama’s passport file. Not only that, but the same person was also looking at John McCain’s Civil War records.” –David Letterman
“Well, experts say the big test for Barack Obama will be surviving the negative attacks. The big test for Hillary Clinton, of course, is surviving North Carolina. The big test for John McCain is just surviving until November.” –Jay Leno
You never answered the question why so many democrats lied to the country. Why did they ignorantly parrot the person they felt stole the 2000 election?
But like you said, I’m a Democratic party hack and liberal propagandist.
A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.
yahoo news link
It’s good to see that the prisoner release program that works so well in the states is now being used at gitmo.
I think it’s great that our prison lets sex offenders like Marvy get access to computers so they can work their way back into society to become productive citizens. Except in Marv’s case – not so much.
Thanks for the compliment. I’m so far up in your head you write posts about me. It’s called being mindfucked. Although I can’t take too much credit, Puddy roughed you up so much anyone could have finished you off.
It is curious your obsession about perverts. Something you want to confess to?
hey byebyegop,
now I see why you have child porn and pervert stuff on your mind so much. You write about it in almost every post.
In Seattle, pimping out a 12 year old girl will get you a prison sentence of only 5 years.
Washington has a problem with homeless sexual offenders
Beating a child with a belt serious enough to be charged with 4th degree assault and a jury will let you go free.
It’s nice the government cares so much about protecting the children.
Dude, do you even read the articles you cite?
Blame the guidelines!
He was a Police Officer AND a parent! They get to do anything they want, according to conservatives. Are you shifting over the the progressive side and care about people?
Marvin: McNeil Island did a number to bybygoober/Rightequalstupid/leftturn.
@ 54
“What about the obligation the government owes to the citizens?”
You assume the two are different. Why? Whatever happened to “government of the people, by the people and for the people”?
In a democracy, the point at which the citizen and the government become distinct from each other is when the citizen chooses not to vote.
“If my choice is between tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber there’s no need to vote. To vote for a fatally flawed candidate is tacit approval that gives us more of the same.”
So, get off your ass, and run for office. In the mean time, kwitchyerbellyachin’.
Yup. What makes you think I don’t?
Are those guidelines put there by people like you and me or by government employees?
Go figure, another government employee. Are you seeing a pattern?
How ignorant of you to think that only the left cares about people. I’d ask you for a link to prove your assertion but you would just ignore the question.
Of the people… Compare the wealth of the average congress person and the average wealth of we the people.
By the people… as in the superdelegates will be deciding the democrat nomination?
For the people… what has the government done for we the people? Look at the way they have neglected the infrastructure. Wouldn’t you say that’s one of their main responsibilities?
Obviously you’re a democrat. If you were a republican you would probably consider the U.S. a republic. You know, like, “…to the republic for which it stands…”
Is running for office the only way I can complain? What, not only was the country changed to a democracy but I no longer have the freedom of speech?
@ 74
I’m surprised that you take issue with government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” since the statement was made by one of the most famous Republican presidents, and probably the best, we’ve ever had.
You wrote:
Absolutely. What exactly did you expect when we elected people to office who, as a matter of philosophy, believe the government incapable of doing anything positive? Your argument is circular, and the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. Rather than feigning disdain for the political process in general, you might do well to switch allegiance to a party that actually believes that the government’s function is to, well, govern. (More on your feigned disdain below.)
But, I really have to hand it to you with this little gem:
First, you’re citing the Pledge of Allegiance, which, last I knew, isn’t a document that defines the way our government functions. Try working on the Constitution in stead.
Second, there is a distinct difference in meaning between the concept of a “republic” and a republican form of government. A “republic” is any government that has a President. A republican form of government limits the franchise to certain classes of individuals based solely on who they are. That you conflate the two is tantamount to flunking high-school social studies.
You complained about the quality of the candidates, and I suggested you quit complaining about the quality of the candidates and run for office yourself.
Does that mean you can’t whine about the quality of candidates and come up with lame excuses for not participating in the democratic process? No. As I have often said, you have a constitutionally protected right to say something stupid. That does, however, mean I have an equally protected right to point out the stupidity of what you say.
By the way, your earlier claim about having an equal disdain for Republicans appears to be complete bullshit. A quick search of, say, “Marvin Stamn site:soundpolitics.com” shows a distinct lack of any equal-time slamming of Republicans on your part. Frankly, I think you were lying through your teeth when you claimed to have an equal disdain for Republicans, which really would be par for the course. You’re little more than just another wingnut hack who, when cornered on the stupidity of his views, back-peddled to some supposed neutral ground.
Here’s a link from an economist about republicans giving a bigger % of their income to charity.
Go ahead and post a link about progressives caring more about people.
Please don’t embarrass yourself and cite government social programs as proof of “progressives” caring about people.
“Here’s a link from an economist..”
First of all, Arthur Brooks isn’t an Economist. He’s a professor of business and public policy. There’s a difference.
Secondly, there are several problems with Brooks’ analysis, not the least of which is is reliance on the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey of 2000. Brooks, for example, found that liberals had higher incomes than conservatives, while other surveys, most notably the General Social Survey, shows exactly the opposite.
Another problem with Brooks’ analysis is his reliance on measures of statistical significance in conjunction with his attempt to separate the sample into “liberal” and “conservative” categories. In particular, he uses a different significance level for the separation into “liberal” and “conservative” categories than he uses to determine whether or not the levels of giving are statistically significant.
In general, the problems with Brooks’ analysis stem from his exclusion of moderates from the picture, which is a special case of a more general problem of attempting to do multivariate statistical analysis using levels of significance. You have no way to know how measures in one dimension affect significance levels in any of the other dimensions, so significance levels end up being arbitrary. It’s too easy to game the results.
Lastly, using “charitable giving” as a measure of “caring” is somewhat arbitrary and is, itself, fraught with issues. How do we account, for example, for the differences between donations to secular and religious organizations? Why should the desire to establish a reliable government safety net be deemed any less a measure of “caring”?
Since Brooks’ book, which hasn’t gone through peer review by the way, presents a conclusion that allows you to feel good about yourself, feel free to disregard these pertinent facts and questions. But, you probably shouldn’t go on about how other people might embarrass themselves. Stones, glass houses and sundry other euphemisms for hypocrisy would apply.
Hey daddyboylove, you missed this one.
“Leno’s punchline: Democrats say drilling in ANWR wouldn’t produce any oil for 10 years — the same point they’ve been making for more than 10 years now. President Bill Clinton vetoed legislation in 1995 that would have opened ANWR to oil exploration.” It would be nice to have some extra oil coming on line about now.
If you’re trolling, I’ll argue. If you are being sincere you really don’t get it and there will nothing I can type to help you figure it out.