Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

What the Founders said to each other in letters etc. was very different from what they said in public, when they would invoke the Almighty Creator and Providence and some such to bless their undertakings. Jefferson was no fool -- he spent a lot of his valuable time editing Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth but never allowed it to be published in his lifetime -- it was first published in 1895. But you'd better believe he said whatever it was you needed to say to get elected in 1769, 1775, 1779, 1783, 1797, and 1801.

So the religion acid test for elected officials was different then, and I continue to think that was because the evangelical contingent was politically irrelevant and the landed gentry had various amounts of religious zeal but that shouldn't get in the way of political discourse and civility, tut tut.

See bloody bloody Andrew Jackson.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What u doing on the internet? I thought this was going to be "the week of adder."

I'm actually doing a bit a work, of all things. And she has this whole "have to go to work in the morning thing."

Also, I suggested we get together yesterday, to which she declined, so I figure I have to wait for her to come back to me. So dinner tomorrow.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm actually doing a bit a work, of all things. And she has this whole "have to go to work in the morning thing."

Also, I suggested we get together yesterday, to which she declined, so I figure I have to wait for her to come back to me. So dinner tomorrow.

Were you able to set up a camera to film by the second day? Post that shit on the internet would be my advice.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Were you able to set up a camera to film by the second day? Post that shit on the internet would be my advice.

Hah!

Good thing I only take your advice on restaurants in Savannah.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Ty, she wasn't right. If she had meant what you seem to want to think she meant, then she would have been right. But she was claiming that the notion of separation of church and state has no constitutional basis.

2. The technically correct, nuanced point attributed to her is after the fact spin. The woman's a flaming, four star imbecile.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Please compare the following:

1. What your kid saved, in terms of his share of the national debt once he reaches age 18, in the years after Clinton raised taxes and eliminated the Reagan/Bush I deficits*

with

2. What you earned for your kid by investing your tax savings under W, minus what his share of the W-debt will be.




*And don't give me the "Clinton didn't cut the deficit, the economy did" meme. Any modern R would have slashed taxes from 1996 on. You need only look to the late-80s boom and the accompanying Reagan deficits for proof. Or to everything W said about cutting taxes because the economy was so strong (later changed to cutting taxes because the economy was weak).

I don't have your clearly infallible crystal ball.

One as knowledgeable re: the future shouldn't be pissing the gift away in law. Get thee to Wall Street, or at least the horse track. Perhaps start a religion. "The man in the sky says lightning will strike exactly here in one... two... three!"

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't have your clearly infallible crystal ball.

One as knowledgeable re: the future shouldn't be pissing the gift away in law.

How is your view into the past? Because your theory isn't a new one, and yet there have been zero progress towards its.

Moreover, as a questions sort, which story seems more believable to you: (1) we'll cut spending in the future, promise, or (2) maybe trim some spending here and there but probably raise taxes on the rich?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ruh roh.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. The technically correct, nuanced point attributed to her is after the fact spin. The woman's a flaming, four star imbecile.

And the fact that she is even in the race should share the shit out of the ruling class.

[Atticus Grinch]

Ummmmmmm . . . Hooooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaay.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

did you think hillary really understood it all when she said we need to get rid of the electoral college?

Hank, why won't you answer my question?

If these tea parties win, and we don't have separation of Church and State any more, do I have to join a coven or worship Aqua Buddha?

None of this asking another question to change the issue. Answer the damn question. Stop evading and state a position!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hank, why won't you answer my question?

If these tea parties win, and we don't have separation of Church and State any more, do I have to join a coven or worship Aqua Buddha?

None of this asking another question to change the issue. Answer the damn question. Stop evading and state a position!

well being religious doesn't mean you have to be active. look at adder he's "heterosexual" but hardly ever touches a woman.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Ummmmmmm . . . Hooooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaay.

IIRC she was single, childless, but employed in a career. She won't be able to apologize until she hooks up and procreates.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hank, why won't you answer my question?

If these tea parties win, and we don't have separation of Church and State any more, do I have to join a coven or worship Aqua Buddha?

None of this asking another question to change the issue. Answer the damn question. Stop evading and state a position!

No, you'll have to worship your avatar's arch nemesis, Aqua Velva.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No, you'll have to worship your avatar's arch nemesis, Aqua Velva.

You guys have weird gods. At least it's better than Dick Cheney's satan worshipping.

So two polls show Sestak ahead now. What do you think - does he have a shot?