Monday, June 6, 2011

Leave Obama Alone and Let Him Eat a Damned Chilidog!




Leave Obama Alone and Let Him Eat a Damned Chilidog!

by Snidely Whiplash

It's getting way too stupid for me to tolerate much longer. Barack Obama, my favorite whipping boy, and one who much deserves 99% of the abuse I heap upon him, is not, I repeat not, guilty of every wrong on the planet and to see the news of the weekend of the food pyramid becoming a "plate" and Obama eating a chilidog is becoming not only tiresome but childishly unfair.

In case one was not paying attention, late last week the FDA decided the old food pyramid is no longer applicable and now they will use a "plate" to show the approximate breakdown of the portions of grain, protein, fruits and vegetables one should consume daily. And since the First Lady is all about nutrition poor Barack is rife for ridicule. Frankly it's getting a bit too childish for my juvenile ass to countenance any longer.

Leave the president alone if he wants a Hell burger or a couple chilidogs for Heaven's sake. If being a food Nazi is his wife's thing, fine, let it be. But can't the president at least eat something he enjoys occasionally? He's skinny as a rail, plays basketball and golf regularly and to the eye looks to be in excellent physical shape for a man who will be 50 years old in two months.

Yeah, I know...I am constantly savaging Mr. Obama, but that is for things he actually says, does, supports or does not handle as I personally believe a president should. But this incessant busting on him for the occasional burger or whatever is really petulant and shines negatively upon those making such objections.

Considering all the real things Obama does and does not do for us to fairly and factually criticize, a burger, beer or chilidog is just playing "gotcha," and directed at someone who is not really the one pushing the "eat sprouts" nonsense. The food business is his wife's issue and frankly I know a beaten man when I see one...he gets enough grief at home so let him have a few moments of peace.

Continue reading>>>

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Anthony Weiner inspires new music video: "Dick in a Tweet" (Video)


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Double Standards




 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Vietnam, vintage pics....

Was not my first choice of assignment but I am glad I went now.  I was there before they were shooting at us and Saigon was still "The Paris of the Orient".  I had  great time there. 

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:21 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you want to go?

On Jun 6, 12:17 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI:  I spent most of 1963 in Viet Nam.  My brother was there in '67-68.
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:21 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > those who participate in war are the most victimized
>
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Jun 6, 10:14 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >    This takes a while to download even with broadband, but it's well
> > worth
> > > it.  Lots of vintage pictures with narratives explaining who, when, and
> > > where they were taken. LOOKING BACK 35+ YEARS, VIETNAM !
>
> > >http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/04/30/captured-a-look-back-...
>
> > >      __
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** PAKISTANI Govt. ki Behisi ki aik aur MISAAL...

 

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Dear plainol...: You've got things figured-out correctly. Is there
any way to clone you? — J. A. A. —

On Jun 6, 10:17 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  All of this language comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center,
> which the media just adores
> ---
> we know who they represent
>
> On Jun 4, 10:09 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "... a key political strategy of the Marxist left (which we used to call the lunatic left ) is to attempt to censor all criticisms of their socialistic policies by claiming that their critics are haters, extremists, racists, etc.  Rather than debating the issues, as much of the non-lunatic left does, they simply call people names.  Every conservative and libertarian organization is routinely labeled as far right, anti-government, the same language that is used for every crackpot who commits murder in public.  All of this language comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which the media just adores since they, too, are part of the lunatic left for the most part.
> > "This strategy comes down to this:  It is essentially the language of a two-year-old who, since he is incapable of engaging in much of a reasoned debate, simply says, You re mean.  Waaaaaaaaaaah. -- Thomas DiLorenzo

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Dear J. Ashley: Hating government won't solve the problems. Making
government be respectful of civil liberties, deferential to the
People; efficient, and unobtrusive WILL solve the problems! — J. A.
A. —
>
On Jun 5, 11:49 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> There were folks as early as 1787 who knew that the coming government
> would result in tyranny. By presenting YOUR Article III of YOUR New
> Constitution you demonstrate that things would not be better under YOUR
> New Constitution, but would instead fall deeper (if that's possible)
> into the hands of "our monarchical, aristocratical democracy."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Antifederalist Papers No. 9
> A Consolidated Government is a Tyranny
>
> "MONTEZUMA," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which showed
> up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.
>
> We the Aristocratic party of the United States, lamenting the many
> inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born,
> the better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the
> rabble-and holding in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill
> of rights, "that all men are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of
> drawing a line between such as we think were ordained to govern, and
> such as were made to bear the weight of government without having any
> share in its administration) to submit to our Friends in the first class
> for their inspection, the following defense of our monarchical,
> aristocratical democracy.
>
> lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though totally
> incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more
> readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in
> something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have
> designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to
> guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have
> subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our
> upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to
> elect their representatives annually . . . lest this body should be too
> much under the influence and control of their constituents, and thereby
> prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show the shiftings of
> every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that little else
> is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative than to
> make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken
> away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that
> grand engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our
> government from time to time for life. This will have a two-fold good
> effect. First, it prevents the representatives from mixing with the
> lower class, and imbibing their foolish sentiments, with which they
> would have come charged on re-election.
>
> 2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye, and in a
> short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims
> and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good
> manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house
> the power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try.
> We hope gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what
> matters it who accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine,
> this plebian house will have little power, and that little be rightly
> shaped by our house of gentlemen, who will have a very extensive
> influence-from their being chosen out of the genteeler class ... It is
> true, every third senatorial seat is to be vacated duennually, but
> two-thirds of this influential body will remain in office, and be ready
> to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way, the young
> members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of our
> brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the
> commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their
> persons to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have
> framed a privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who
> trusted them. But we have given out, that this clause was provided, only
> that the members might be able without interruption, to deliberate on
> the important business of their country.
>
> We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective states, the
> happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we could
> not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and
> have taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent
> state, as they now call themselves, in such a situation that they will
> eventually be absorbed by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into
> petty corporations, and have power over little else than yoaking hogs or
> determining the width of cart wheels. But (aware that an intention to
> annihilate state legislatures, would be objected to our favorite scheme)
> we have made their existence (as a board of electors) necessary to ours.
> This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine answer to any clamors
> that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven continental
> and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we in
> truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a
> provincial legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of
> external and internal commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices
> and roads; when we and we alone, have the power to wage war, make peace,
> coin money (if we can get bullion) if not, borrow money, organize the
> militia and call them forth to execute our decrees, and crush
> insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to our nod,
> which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of
> peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states,
> when we are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A
> name we thought proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a
> silly people who are so foolishly fond of a Republican government, that
> we were obliged to accommodate in names and forms to them, in order more
> effectually to secure the substance of our proposed plan; but we all
> know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of Protector). I repeat
> it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a president at our
> head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of the
> United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission
> ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or
> pardons, who can make judges of the supreme and other continental
> courts-in short, who will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit
> and power, whose influence like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself
> far and wide, will exhale all democratical vapors and break the clouds
> of popular insurrection? But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a
> strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will
> ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every
> question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and
> under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you know, the
> supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting
> ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of
> admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the
> United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more
> States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens
> of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands
> under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens
> thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."
>
> Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the ingenuity or
> sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of the
> above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or
> appellate jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state
> judicatures-and must not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat?
> Our constitution answers yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench
> ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals of the commonalty. A few
> regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad that they are
> absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and then a
> legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built,
> still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of
> our revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a
> bill of rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as
> a lock chain to the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have
> not insisted on rotation in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill.
> We have for some time considered the freedom of the press as a great
> evil-it spreads information, and begets a licentiousness in the people
> which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a daring printer may
> expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of our
> president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said
> nothing with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish
> their sentiments" or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff.
> We do not much like that sturdy privilege of the people-the right to
> demand the writ of habeas corpus. We have therefore reserved the power
> of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you know we are the judges of
> what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been assiduous in
> representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at
> large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the
> prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the
> other-are ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without
> the delay or forms of examination--which was the more to be wished, as
> they are wholly unfit to investigate the principles or pronounce on the
> merit of so exquisite a system. Impressed with a conviction that this
> constitution is calculated to restrain the ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Dear J. Ashley: I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to
memory. So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI. "... all
executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several
states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification for any office or public trust under the United
States." That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC.
As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive
orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers,
such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST
his skinny ass for treason! Tens of thousands in our military have
died fighting socialist and communist nations. So, why won't any one
fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst? It's because
people in government value their identity with... power. Doing WRONG
makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in
doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral
imperative."

Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of
understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has
deference over any "authorization". The Founding Fathers erred, big
time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and
approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play
and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" Think about the
simple premise, guy. So far, you can't see the forest for the trees!
— J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time.
>
> Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall
> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
>
> How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be
> unconstitutional?
>
> On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system,
> > has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century.  If there
> > is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to
> > do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved.  Nothing in the
> > Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress!
> > Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL.  ï¿½ J. A.
> > Armistead �  Patriot
> > On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Does the federal government's
> >> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> >> granted to the states clause rule?
> >> ---
> >> what states rights?
> >> that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta
> >> it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick
> >> and choose their responsibilities and powers
>
> >> On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  wrote:
>
> >>> No, MJ!  Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations
> >>> that will allow this, but not "that".  Does the federal government's
> >>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers
> >>> granted to the states clause rule?  That, supposedly, will determine
> >>> the constitutionality of Obama Care.  As I've explained: The Senate
> >>> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail).
> >>> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US
> >>> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Like our
> >>> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White
> >>> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard!  If you want 100 senile,
> >>> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution
> >>> without a House of Representatives?  For running a government, I'll
> >>> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US
> >>> Senate every time!  Harry Reid should be out of a job!  ï¿½ J. A.
> >>> Armistead �  Patriot
> >>> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote:
> >>>> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way.
> >>>> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> >>>> Regard$,
> >>>> --MJ
> >>>> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ:  What "definition" is that?  That an anti-democracy and anti-
> >>>> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two?  The US senate
> >>>> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth!  We
> >>>> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to
> >>>> cross Main Street!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote:
> >>>>> Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution.
> >>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition.
> >>>>> Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural).
> >>>>> Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills.
> >>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>> --MJ
> >>>>> Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> >>>>> -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ:  The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a
> >>>>> senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states.
> >>>>> The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative
> >>>>> Republic.  Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the
> >>>>> main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be
> >>>>> the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the
> >>>>> senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that
> >>>>> constitutional!  Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those
> >>>>> constitutional, either.  The US Senate has been a drag of fair play
> >>>>> and democracy from day one!  For the record, the US Supreme Court,
> >>>>> wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People,
> >>>>> is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!  Learn, if you can, MJ.  So far you seem
> >>>>> committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to
> >>>>> think.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >>>>> On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote:
> >>>>>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of
> >>>>>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY.  Since there has
> >>>>>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that
> >>>>>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy
> >>>>>> is the one which isn't FAIR.  Giving undue power to smaller population
> >>>>>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face.  So, the US Senate is and
> >>>>>> always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional.
> >>>>>> What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement between Sovereign States. The Senate is THEIR representative body. Amendment 17 curtailed yet another check on Federal power.
> >>>>>> Regard$,
> >>>>>> --MJ
> >>>>>> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>>>> For options&  help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >>>> For options&  help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
>
>       Freedom is always illegal!
>
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Vietnam, vintage pics....

Did you want to go?

On Jun 6, 12:17 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI:  I spent most of 1963 in Viet Nam.  My brother was there in '67-68.
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:21 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > those who participate in war are the most victimized
>
> > choose sides carefully
>
> > On Jun 6, 10:14 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >    This takes a while to download even with broadband, but it's well
> > worth
> > > it.  Lots of vintage pictures with narratives explaining who, when, and
> > > where they were taken. LOOKING BACK 35+ YEARS, VIETNAM !
>
> > >http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/04/30/captured-a-look-back-...
>
> > >      __
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Palin is pulling a Bush! 4 the Low-T party!

I guess that makes you macho, then!

On 06/06/2011 11:04 AM, Stephen Stink wrote:
It's macho to be stupid! 

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

**JP** What Iran say about USA

 

Palin is pulling a Bush! 4 the Low-T party!

Yep...them cons, always saying something stoooopid! Silly people!
Everybody knows that Paul Revere was a rock star in the 60's!
Kicks!!!!!! Love that song!
Did you know when Bush said something dumb, IT WAS
INTENTIONAL!!!!!!!!! Karl Rove thought of the idea in the 80's. It
guarantees you publicity. Yeah baby! Plus it makes your base feel like
that Palin is one of them. Anti-intellectualism has been around
longers than blue jeans. Common Sense is code for....pride of
stupidity! Don't you just love it? Yeah, intellectualism is just so
elitest! It's macho to be stupid!
Wheeeeee!

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 6/6/11 (4)




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 6/6/11 (3)

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 6/6/11 (1)

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.