PDA

View Full Version : The New Real Political Thread



The Profit
10/14/2010, 09:56 AM
Hey, someone had to start it. Let's see how long it takes to get to 1,000 pages.

The
10/14/2010, 09:57 AM
Politics are allowed here, gomer.

Just post a thread about what you want to talk about.

nolesooner1984
10/14/2010, 09:58 AM
Liberals are bad for the world....and I drive an SUV....

The Profit
10/14/2010, 09:59 AM
Liberals are bad for the world....and I drive an SUV....



And the republican party would be great again if it would boot the bible banging wackos out of its midst.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 09:59 AM
I voted for Sarah Palin AND Joe Biden.

nolesooner1984
10/14/2010, 10:00 AM
And the republican party would be great again if it would boot the bible banging wackos out of its midst.

I do not bang my Bible....I read it...

The liberals would be better if they went back to the Bible and the constitution.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 10:01 AM
Politics are the reason I'm a mod. That should be enough to make everyone hate them.

okie52
10/14/2010, 10:02 AM
That's great. Any thread can be about politics?

Freedom!!!!!!!!

Veritas
10/14/2010, 10:03 AM
Every ****ing thread eventually becomes about politics. :-/

The Profit
10/14/2010, 10:04 AM
I voted for Sarah Palin AND Joe Biden.

:) :)

sappstuf
10/14/2010, 10:07 AM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/recovery-graphs400.jpg

So 16 months after both recessions had ended, Reagan had things moving in the right direction.. Obama? Not so much...

The Profit
10/14/2010, 10:09 AM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/recovery-graphs400.jpg

So 16 months after both recessions had ended, Reagan had things moving in the right direction.. Obama? Not so much...




And how did Reagan do that? By increasing the deficit to the highest rate that it had ever been in US history.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 10:10 AM
Oh son of a bitch, this really IS going to be a political thread.

sappstuf
10/14/2010, 10:10 AM
And how did Reagan do that? By increasing the deficit to the highest rate that it had ever been in US history.

Obama now has the highest rate and unemployment has increased.

The Profit
10/14/2010, 10:20 AM
Obama now has the highest rate and unemployment has increased.



Obama stepped into office with this country losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month as a result of 8 horrible years under gwb. His administration got us into 2 wars, one of which was completely unnecessary. While spending trillions for war, he saw fit to take the largest budget surplus in American history and turn it into the largest deficit in American history while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in this nation. The Obama administration has stopped the bleeding, and experts now agree that there will not be a double-dip recession.

okie52
10/14/2010, 10:21 AM
Oh son of a bitch, this really IS going to be a political thread.

Ha ha. I don't know how political it has been over here in the past but the political thread on the other board was the biggest by far and it was filled with plenty of wackos, myself included.

But the right wingers started to badly outnumber the lefties a little over a year ago when a number of the lefties left to form their own board.

The Profit
10/14/2010, 10:21 AM
Oh son of a bitch, this really IS going to be a political thread.



Wow, can we say "son of a bitch" of this board? How cool. Now, let me try this, Dick Cheney. I have to hit submit reply so that I can see if Dick is really a dick, or if he has become ****.

tommieharris91
10/14/2010, 10:22 AM
I'm not a fan of one political thread. I'm a fan of a politics board.

saucysoonergal
10/14/2010, 10:23 AM
I'm not a fan of one political thread. I'm a fan of a politics board.

AMEN!

The Profit
10/14/2010, 10:24 AM
Wow, can we say "son of a bitch" of this board? How cool. Now, let me try this, Dick Cheney. I have to hit submit reply so that I can see if Dick is really a dick, or if he has become ****.




I love this board. Dick is really a dick.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 10:25 AM
I'm not a fan of one political thread. I'm a fan of a politics board.
It'll never happen. The subject has been broached numerous times but the populace is against it.

tommieharris91
10/14/2010, 10:26 AM
It'll never happen. The subject has been broached numerous times but the populace is against it.

Ohh I know. I just want to get that ****storm started again.

TIMB0B
10/14/2010, 10:37 AM
I love this board. Dick is really a dick.
Hey, now you can complete your circle jerk. :D

A Sooner in Texas
10/14/2010, 10:53 AM
The fun thing about the South Oval board is that there are usually various political threads running at the same time. So, we're not just limited to one. Hooray for freedom of speech!

BTW, for you OUI ex-pats...blowing up a tuba in a political thread is a whole lot of fun. :D

landrun
10/14/2010, 11:15 AM
Obama stepped into office with this country losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month as a result of 8 horrible years under gwb.

No. That's what you want to believe.

The truth is Bush had an outstanding unemployment rate until the dems took power in 2006. One if the best of all US presidents. After the dems took power the unemployment rate almost doubled in those 2 year. Since then the dems have also taken control of the white house. And the unemployment rate only got worse. They STILL try to blame it on Bush. But Americans have figured it out now. That's why the leftist are about to be escorted out of Washington in November.

soonerscuba
10/14/2010, 11:37 AM
No. That's what you want to believe.

The truth is Bush had an outstanding unemployment rate until the dems took power in 2006. One if the best of all US presidents. After the dems took power the unemployment rate almost doubled in those 2 year. Since then the dems have also taken control of the white house. And the unemployment rate only got worse. They STILL try to blame it on Bush. But Americans have figured it out now. That's why the leftist are about to be escorted out of Washington in November.So, is the House always responsible for unemployment numbers, or are you just a rah-rah guy seeking reasons to deflect national problems on a single chamber of Congress?

OnlyOneOklahoma
10/14/2010, 11:57 AM
No. That's what you want to believe.

The truth is Bush had an outstanding unemployment rate until the dems took power in 2006. One if the best of all US presidents. After the dems took power the unemployment rate almost doubled in those 2 year. Since then the dems have also taken control of the white house. And the unemployment rate only got worse. They STILL try to blame it on Bush. But Americans have figured it out now. That's why the leftist are about to be escorted out of Washington in November.


Is there any chance that Bush had good numbers for his first 4 years due to Clinton and his good policies? Or are you one of those guys who thinks that the moment a bill is signed, numbers can be gathered and reported on?

bigfatjerk
10/14/2010, 12:19 PM
Bush was part of the problem too. To me he was just another left winger in office. But he and his fellow republicans were nothing compared to the democrats and Obama over the last 4 years or so. The spending is getting bigger and bigger. We need to quit the spending, get our troops home, put them on our borders to shut them down from the drug cartels, and start trying to find ways to cut our own spending. You can't be afraid to go after entitlements with how they continue to grow. Eventually they will go over 100% of GDP.

bigfatjerk
10/14/2010, 12:22 PM
Is there any chance that Bush had good numbers for his first 4 years due to Clinton and his good policies? Or are you one of those guys who thinks that the moment a bill is signed, numbers can be gathered and reported on?

Most of his good policies were republicans being conservative. The republicans have been far from conservative since the late 90s.

landrun
10/14/2010, 12:36 PM
Is there any chance that Bush had good numbers for his first 4 years due to Clinton and his good policies? Or are you one of those guys who thinks that the moment a bill is signed, numbers can be gathered and reported on?

Is there any chance that Clinton balanced the budget because he had a Republican congress? Is there any chance Clinton had good numbers because he was the first Democrat to follow Reagan/Bush? Etc...


So, is the House always responsible for unemployment numbers, or are you just a rah-rah guy seeking reasons to deflect national problems on a single chamber of Congress?

The exact opposite. I was pointing out that the entire Democrat establishment, who took control of the house AND senate when the economy was good and unemployment was good have seriously and repeatedly tried to deflect national problems that occurred - while they've had unfettered power - on a single man.

sappstuf
10/14/2010, 01:54 PM
Obama stepped into office with this country losing nearly 800,000 jobs per month as a result of 8 horrible years under gwb. His administration got us into 2 wars, one of which was completely unnecessary. While spending trillions for war, he saw fit to take the largest budget surplus in American history and turn it into the largest deficit in American history while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest in this nation. The Obama administration has stopped the bleeding, and experts now agree that there will not be a double-dip recession.

New board, old lies...

Biggest myth/spin on the planet. Here is a government website. Please show me where the deficit ever went down during the Clinton years.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Can't find it? Oh that's right... because it didn't happen. If Clinton had this surplus you speak of, where did the money go? It didn't decrease the deficit. He must have stolen it.

Now, what if I were president and submitted a 100 gazillion dollar budget, but only actually spent 10% more money than I did the year before. Would you give me credit for having the largest budget surplus in our nation's history? Would it actually mean anything in regards to our deficit besides it continuing to going up?

The last time our national deficit actually went down was in 1956 under Ike. Anything else is spin.

soonerscuba
10/14/2010, 02:00 PM
The exact opposite. I was pointing out that the entire Democrat establishment, who took control of the house AND senate when the economy was good and unemployment was good have seriously and repeatedly tried to deflect national problems that occurred - while they've had unfettered power - on a single man.If you actually believe the economy has been fundamentally sound in the last 30 years, there is literally nothing that will be able to change your mind. So, good luck with your hope of Republican salvation, I hope you're right.

nealeb
10/14/2010, 02:41 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39409
There's a Reason They Call Him 'Dick'

If the Bush administration ever treated terrorism suspects the way Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal treats law-abiding citizens and small businesses, even conservatives would have blanched.

This activist, interventionist Democrat -- like his identical, slightly less oily twin, Eliot Spitzer -- decided at age 5 he was going to be a U.S. senator and then the first Jewish president. And he doesn't care how many lives he has to destroy to get there.

Currently, Blumenthal is running for the U.S. Senate against Linda McMahon in Connecticut. He must be stopped.



Even his ideological ally, The New York Times, thinks he must be stopped. That paper ran a front-page expose on Blumenthal's lies about having served in Vietnam, violating a century-old Times tradition of never printing information unflattering to a Democrat.

Blumenthal apologized for lying about being in Vietnam, saying, "I take full responsibility." Who else was he considering blaming? The voices in his head?

Among Blumenthal's taxpayer-funded citizen-persecution projects was the one he waged against Gina Kolb, owner of Computer Plus Center in East Hartford.

After selling $17.2 million worth of computers and servers to the state in 2001, Kolb found herself being sued by Blumenthal for $1.75 million for allegedly overcharging the state $500,000.

Publicity-whore Blumenthal sent out an accusatory press release about Kolb, saying: "No supplier should be permitted to shortchange or overcharge the state without severe consequences."

Soon thereafter, Kolb was arrested at her home on seven first-degree larceny charges, courtesy of Connecticut's crazily hyperactive attorney general.

Wonder why you have a $4 billion deficit, Nutmeggers? Blumenthal's endless investigations into responsible, law-abiding citizens like Kolb have now cost more than the entire Iraq War. (And that's just the cost of the paper for Blumenthal's 12 billion press releases!)

A court dismissed all charges against Kolb and her company in 2008. But not before this female businesswoman had her company completely shattered by the pathologically ambitious attorney general.

I'm sorry, I know you need to be on television every single day, Dick, but that's not enough of a reason to destroy innocent citizens' lives, much less use taxpayer money to do so.

Kolb was far from the only innocent citizen persecuted by Blumenthal. The reason we know her story is that, instead of moving as far away from Connecticut as she could, Kolb turned around and sued the state for violating her constitutional rights.

The jury agreed, awarding her $18 million for Blumenthal's "pattern of conduct" that destroyed Kolb's business and impugned her integrity.

Noticeably, the attorney general who spends most of his waking hours phoning reporters, holding press conferences and issuing press releases did not make a peep about Kolb's total vindication in court, despite his having earlier blackened her name. Perhaps he was busy attending a fake Vietnam veterans' reunion that day.

To the contrary, Blumenthal continued using the power of his office to persecute Kolb. This is the problem with government officials using taxpayer money to further their own political ambitions: No one could tell him to cut his losses and stop harassing Kolb.

Blumenthal filed a blizzard of motions -- at taxpayer expense -- appealing the jury's verdict in favor of Kolb. One of them finally succeeded in getting a judge to reduce the damages to Kolb, who presumably is now living in Hawaii under an assumed name so Blumenthal doesn't start making crank calls to her.

(She should go to Vietnam! Blumenthal will never find her there!)

Connecticut taxpayers spent millions of dollars harassing this innocent businesswoman, successfully destroying a profitable, job-creating computer company in the state and one law-abiding taxpayer in the process. Thanks, Dick!

Blumenthal's 24-hour publicity office managed to produce a gleaming press release on the reduction of Kolb's damages award, in which he vowed to "continue fighting to overturn this verdict."

Asked by Charles Kochakian of the New Haven Register about the case and whether Blumenthal ever released a statement when a victim of his legal harassment was vindicated, Blumenthal essentially said: No one is ever vindicated. Just because no wrongdoing was found, he said, doesn't mean wrongdoing didn't occur.

Welcome to Connecticut, where you're guilty until proved innocent (and you can never be proved innocent).

Most shockingly, Blumenthal said he would never issue a press release about one of his publicly accused targets being vindicated because "new evidence may well emerge."

"New evidence may well emerge" that Dick Blumenthal is a child molesting ax murderer. But until it does, no one has a right to say so. Hello? ACLU? Heard of Dick Blumenthal?

Everyone in Connecticut knows Blumenthal's name, largely on account of his daily press conferences for nearly two decades as attorney general, announcing lawsuits to combat every minor inconvenience. Arby's served jalapeno poppers at 114 degrees? Blumenthal is holding a press conference at noon!

This hyperactive, publicity-mad lunatic is constantly announcing new lawsuits far beyond the purview of his office, like some New England version of Hugo Chavez. This won him the title: "Worst Attorney General in the Country" from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He's sued power companies for contributing to "global warming," asking the courts to impose cap and trade -- a bill so absurd neither Obama nor the Democratic Senate will touch it.

He's sued gun companies, trying to hold them responsible for criminal acts by third parties involving guns.

He's sued tobacco companies so he could extort millions of dollars for his old law firm and other legal cronies overseeing the shakedown -- I mean "settlement."

Blumenthal is now in a tight race with Linda McMahon for the U.S. Senate. I understand why Connecticut would like to get rid of him, but that's no reason to foist this menace on the rest of the country. How about sending him to Vietnam?

Ike
10/14/2010, 02:53 PM
New board, old lies...

Biggest myth/spin on the planet. Here is a government website. Please show me where the deficit ever went down during the Clinton years.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Can't find it? Oh that's right... because it didn't happen. If Clinton had this surplus you speak of, where did the money go? It didn't decrease the deficit. He must have stolen it.

Now, what if I were president and submitted a 100 gazillion dollar budget, but only actually spent 10% more money than I did the year before. Would you give me credit for having the largest budget surplus in our nation's history? Would it actually mean anything in regards to our deficit besides it continuing to going up?

The last time our national deficit actually went down was in 1956 under Ike. Anything else is spin.

I think you meant to say "debt", not "deficit". Yes, the national debt never went down under Clinton, but the deficit did. Those two are very different things.
http://blackandwhiteprogram.com/wp-content/yearly-us-budget.jpg


Also, the national debt as a percentage of GDP went down during the Clinton years.
http://news.mortgagecalculator.org/images/National-Debt-GDP.gif

In other words, during those years, our economy grew faster than the national debt.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 03:08 PM
Holy ****, this thread has charts! **** me!

You also used to be able to say sh!t. Well, lots of people still say **** but it's usually disguised as a response post in a political thread.

Bourbon St Sooner
10/14/2010, 03:08 PM
You can post as many political threads as you want, but only RLIMC is allowed to post chain e-mails.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 03:09 PM
You can post as many political threads as you want, but only RLIMC is allowed to post chain e-mails without taking 3 seconds to Snopes-check it.
FTFY

The Profit
10/14/2010, 03:29 PM
New board, old lies...

Biggest myth/spin on the planet. Here is a government website. Please show me where the deficit ever went down during the Clinton years.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Can't find it? Oh that's right... because it didn't happen. If Clinton had this surplus you speak of, where did the money go? It didn't decrease the deficit. He must have stolen it.

Now, what if I were president and submitted a 100 gazillion dollar budget, but only actually spent 10% more money than I did the year before. Would you give me credit for having the largest budget surplus in our nation's history? Would it actually mean anything in regards to our deficit besides it continuing to going up?

The last time our national deficit actually went down was in 1956 under Ike. Anything else is spin.




I have no problem with Ike. Under Ike, the top tax bracket was over 90 percent. While I believe 90 percent is excessive, I would have no problem with it being raised to 45 percent.

Veritas
10/14/2010, 03:52 PM
I have no problem with Ike. Under Ike, the top tax bracket was over 90 percent. While I believe 90 percent is excessive, I would have no problem with it being raised to 45 percent.
In other words, your income level is nowhere near that point.

pphilfran
10/14/2010, 03:54 PM
I think you meant to say "debt", not "deficit". Yes, the national debt never went down under Clinton, but the deficit did. Those two are very different things.
http://blackandwhiteprogram.com/wp-content/yearly-us-budget.jpg


Also, the national debt as a percentage of GDP went down during the Clinton years.
http://news.mortgagecalculator.org/images/National-Debt-GDP.gif

In other words, during those years, our economy grew faster than the national debt.

And most all of the total revenue increases were due to increased cap gains revenue...

The Profit
10/14/2010, 03:54 PM
In other words, your income level is nowhere near that point.



Exactly....I am just below the cut off point.

landrun
10/14/2010, 05:46 PM
If you actually believe the economy has been fundamentally sound in the last 30 years, there is literally nothing that will be able to change your mind. So, good luck with your hope of Republican salvation, I hope you're right.

I never said the economy was fundamentally sound in the last thirty years. :confused: :confused: You made that up. All I was doing was responding to a post where someone seriously tried to say that we were losing 800,000 jobs per month because of George Bush. That is nonsense and think I've made a pretty sound argument that it is too.

All I've done is state the FACT that the unemployment rate under Bush was outstanding before the liberals took control of congress. The unemployment problems are owned by the leftest all on their own.

soonerscuba
10/14/2010, 05:57 PM
I never said the economy was fundamentally sound in the last thirty years. :confused: :confused: You made that up. All I was doing was responding to a post where someone seriously tried to say that we were losing 800,000 jobs per month because of George Bush. That is nonsense and think I've made a pretty sound argument that it is too.

All I've done is state the FACT that the unemployment rate under Bush was outstanding before the liberals took control of congress. The unemployment problems are owned by the leftest all on their own.So, was employment in the 80s a result of a Dem Congress? I think your selective correlation of economic data to political microtrends is weak, weak sauce.

pphilfran
10/14/2010, 06:06 PM
I never said the economy was fundamentally sound in the last thirty years. :confused: :confused: You made that up. All I was doing was responding to a post where someone seriously tried to say that we were losing 800,000 jobs per month because of George Bush. That is nonsense and think I've made a pretty sound argument that it is too.

All I've done is state the FACT that the unemployment rate under Bush was outstanding before the liberals took control of congress. The unemployment problems are owned by the leftest all on their own.

You are incorrect...the libs were not the primary reason....it was a joint effort...

The economy did well until 9/11...GDP growth went from 6% to 4% after 9/11..tax cuts to spur economy...growth back to mid 6's until the financial meltdown that is owned by all parties...

Unemployment followed a similar trend...mid 4% range prior to 9/11...up to 6% after...and then back to mid fours until the meltdown...

OklahomaTuba
10/14/2010, 06:09 PM
Oh dear, 11/2 is gonna be a blood bath.
http://i54.tinypic.com/33feq2f.jpg

soonerscuba
10/14/2010, 06:10 PM
You are incorrect...the libs were not the primary reason....it was a joint effort...

The economy did well until 9/11...GDP growth went from 6% to 4% after 9/11..tax cuts to spur economy...growth back to mid 6's until the financial meltdown that is owned by all parties...

Unemployment followed a similar trend...mid 4% range prior to 9/11...up to 6% after...and then back to mid fours until the meltdown...Everyone knows that people went into mortgages they couldn't afford, and then the banks securitized those mortgages and sold them because of Democrats, I mean look at who was in the Congress when it happened. Also, the Dems are know to be anti-demand, which is why goods aren't being sold. Republicans are "pro-demand" and will use magic and the Constitution to make people buy stuff. I mean look at Congress.

pphilfran
10/14/2010, 06:16 PM
Everyone knows that people went into mortgages they couldn't afford, and then the banks securitized those mortgages and sold them because of Democrats, I mean look at who was in the Congress when it happened. Also, the Dems are know to be anti-demand, which is why goods aren't being sold. Republicans are "pro-demand" and will use magic and the Constitution to make people buy stuff. I mean look at Congress.

I fully understand how the demo's affected the mortgage situation...I also understand how problems were noticed during the Clinton term and were ignored..look up Brooksley Born..Frontline had a fine piece on her and how she was railroaded by the Clinton team...

As I said it was a team effort...both sides have dug in their heels and cause problem solving to be slow until disaster rears it's ugly head...and stop gap, cobbled together legislation is put in place...

Friscokid
10/14/2010, 06:32 PM
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39409
There's a Reason They Call Him 'Dick'

If the Bush administration ever treated terrorism suspects the way Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal treats law-abiding citizens and small businesses, even conservatives would have blanched.

This activist, interventionist Democrat -- like his identical, slightly less oily twin, Eliot Spitzer -- decided at age 5 he was going to be a U.S. senator and then the first Jewish president. And he doesn't care how many lives he has to destroy to get there.

Currently, Blumenthal is running for the U.S. Senate against Linda McMahon in Connecticut. He must be stopped.



Even his ideological ally, The New York Times, thinks he must be stopped. That paper ran a front-page expose on Blumenthal's lies about having served in Vietnam, violating a century-old Times tradition of never printing information unflattering to a Democrat.

Blumenthal apologized for lying about being in Vietnam, saying, "I take full responsibility." Who else was he considering blaming? The voices in his head?

Among Blumenthal's taxpayer-funded citizen-persecution projects was the one he waged against Gina Kolb, owner of Computer Plus Center in East Hartford.

After selling $17.2 million worth of computers and servers to the state in 2001, Kolb found herself being sued by Blumenthal for $1.75 million for allegedly overcharging the state $500,000.

Publicity-whore Blumenthal sent out an accusatory press release about Kolb, saying: "No supplier should be permitted to shortchange or overcharge the state without severe consequences."

Soon thereafter, Kolb was arrested at her home on seven first-degree larceny charges, courtesy of Connecticut's crazily hyperactive attorney general.

Wonder why you have a $4 billion deficit, Nutmeggers? Blumenthal's endless investigations into responsible, law-abiding citizens like Kolb have now cost more than the entire Iraq War. (And that's just the cost of the paper for Blumenthal's 12 billion press releases!)

A court dismissed all charges against Kolb and her company in 2008. But not before this female businesswoman had her company completely shattered by the pathologically ambitious attorney general.

I'm sorry, I know you need to be on television every single day, Dick, but that's not enough of a reason to destroy innocent citizens' lives, much less use taxpayer money to do so.

Kolb was far from the only innocent citizen persecuted by Blumenthal. The reason we know her story is that, instead of moving as far away from Connecticut as she could, Kolb turned around and sued the state for violating her constitutional rights.

The jury agreed, awarding her $18 million for Blumenthal's "pattern of conduct" that destroyed Kolb's business and impugned her integrity.

Noticeably, the attorney general who spends most of his waking hours phoning reporters, holding press conferences and issuing press releases did not make a peep about Kolb's total vindication in court, despite his having earlier blackened her name. Perhaps he was busy attending a fake Vietnam veterans' reunion that day.

To the contrary, Blumenthal continued using the power of his office to persecute Kolb. This is the problem with government officials using taxpayer money to further their own political ambitions: No one could tell him to cut his losses and stop harassing Kolb.

Blumenthal filed a blizzard of motions -- at taxpayer expense -- appealing the jury's verdict in favor of Kolb. One of them finally succeeded in getting a judge to reduce the damages to Kolb, who presumably is now living in Hawaii under an assumed name so Blumenthal doesn't start making crank calls to her.

(She should go to Vietnam! Blumenthal will never find her there!)

Connecticut taxpayers spent millions of dollars harassing this innocent businesswoman, successfully destroying a profitable, job-creating computer company in the state and one law-abiding taxpayer in the process. Thanks, Dick!

Blumenthal's 24-hour publicity office managed to produce a gleaming press release on the reduction of Kolb's damages award, in which he vowed to "continue fighting to overturn this verdict."

Asked by Charles Kochakian of the New Haven Register about the case and whether Blumenthal ever released a statement when a victim of his legal harassment was vindicated, Blumenthal essentially said: No one is ever vindicated. Just because no wrongdoing was found, he said, doesn't mean wrongdoing didn't occur.

Welcome to Connecticut, where you're guilty until proved innocent (and you can never be proved innocent).

Most shockingly, Blumenthal said he would never issue a press release about one of his publicly accused targets being vindicated because "new evidence may well emerge."

"New evidence may well emerge" that Dick Blumenthal is a child molesting ax murderer. But until it does, no one has a right to say so. Hello? ACLU? Heard of Dick Blumenthal?

Everyone in Connecticut knows Blumenthal's name, largely on account of his daily press conferences for nearly two decades as attorney general, announcing lawsuits to combat every minor inconvenience. Arby's served jalapeno poppers at 114 degrees? Blumenthal is holding a press conference at noon!

This hyperactive, publicity-mad lunatic is constantly announcing new lawsuits far beyond the purview of his office, like some New England version of Hugo Chavez. This won him the title: "Worst Attorney General in the Country" from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He's sued power companies for contributing to "global warming," asking the courts to impose cap and trade -- a bill so absurd neither Obama nor the Democratic Senate will touch it.

He's sued gun companies, trying to hold them responsible for criminal acts by third parties involving guns.

He's sued tobacco companies so he could extort millions of dollars for his old law firm and other legal cronies overseeing the shakedown -- I mean "settlement."

Blumenthal is now in a tight race with Linda McMahon for the U.S. Senate. I understand why Connecticut would like to get rid of him, but that's no reason to foist this menace on the rest of the country. How about sending him to Vietnam?

Why doesn't someone just shoot his azz????

TitoMorelli
10/14/2010, 07:30 PM
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/dweebius/ScarlettJohansson16218285754.jpg

u1hnwvWhbJw


http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/dweebius/xlk.gif

Don't mind me, guys, I'm just too lazy to look for the Testing board.

pphilfran
10/14/2010, 07:46 PM
Damn noob...

Is that considered a scantily clad lady?

NickDangerThirdEye
10/14/2010, 08:36 PM
Just wanted to let you f*@kers know Danger is in the house. And, yes, I spell my name ..... Danger.

NickDangerThirdEye
10/14/2010, 08:38 PM
Let's see if we can get a sig in here.

NickDangerThirdEye
10/14/2010, 08:39 PM
Well, not yet.

diverdog
10/14/2010, 10:59 PM
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/recovery-graphs400.jpg

So 16 months after both recessions had ended, Reagan had things moving in the right direction.. Obama? Not so much...

Reagan did not have to contend with two wars, $14 trillion in a deficit and a huge crisis in the financial markets, NAFTA and GATT. He did have to deal with inflation.

NickDangerThirdEye
10/14/2010, 11:01 PM
Reagan did not have to contend with two wars, $14 trillion in a deficit and a huge crisis in the financial markets, NAFTA and GATT. He did have to deal with inflation.

But...but....but....Obama is....nuanced.

diverdog
10/14/2010, 11:02 PM
Oh dear, 11/2 is gonna be a blood bath.
http://i54.tinypic.com/33feq2f.jpg

And the Republicans had nothing to do with the deficit and unemployment?

diverdog
10/14/2010, 11:05 PM
But...but....but....Obama is....nuanced.

I am not defending Obama. I just do not think you can make any kind of correlation between the two recessions.

A few other things I forgot to mention. Obama does not have the luxury of reducing interest rates since they are near zero and tax cuts.....well tax cuts should not really be an option. In other words, he does not have an arsenal of bullets to fire at the economy like Reagan did.

NickDangerThirdEye
10/14/2010, 11:05 PM
Reagan did not have to contend with two wars, $14 trillion in a deficit and a huge crisis in the financial markets, NAFTA and GATT. He did have to deal with inflation.

No, but tell me what the prime interest rate was when Reagan took office. oh, and he did have to go fix Carter's Iran blunder - of course, the Iranians were scared sh1tless of Reagan, so they basically waited until he took office and then gave the hostages back so he wouldn't kick their ***.

NickDangerThirdEye
10/14/2010, 11:08 PM
I am not defending Obama. I just do not think you can make any kind of correlation between the two recessions.

A few other things I forgot to mention. Obama does not have the luxury of reducing interest rates since they are near zero and tax cuts.....well tax cuts should not really be an option. In other words, he does not have an arsenal of bullets to fire at the economy like Reagan did.

In case you forgot, the President doesn't set the interest rates in this country.

But Obama did say that if we didn't act quickly and pass his stimulus bill that employment would go over 9%. I guess he isn't as smart as he says he is.

TIMB0B
10/15/2010, 12:53 AM
rAETyz0Dupo

LosAngelesSooner
10/15/2010, 01:19 PM
Aw...how cute. The n00bs are gonna try and talk all political.

:pop:

tommieharris91
10/15/2010, 01:45 PM
Aw...how cute. The n00bs are gonna try and talk all political.

:pop:

Yea, but they (along with Ike and Tuba) are throwing around new bar graphs and charts.

Ike
10/15/2010, 02:08 PM
Yea, but they (along with Ike and Tuba) are throwing around new bar graphs and charts.

Oh you haven't seen the last of graphs and charts my friend!


http://www.verysmallarray.com/images/051026_stupid.gif
http://www.glenturpin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/FoxPieChart.jpg
http://www.webresourcesdepot.com/wp-content/uploads/image/css-ctacked-bar-graph.gif
http://www.fangraphs.com/tgraphs/20101006_Reds_Phillies_0.png

Obviously, these speak for themselves and prove me righter than all of you.

tommieharris91
10/15/2010, 02:32 PM
This is a good time for that 120% percent of Americans have an opinion on global climate change poll Fox News threw out there about a year ago.

SouthCarolinaSooner
10/16/2010, 10:31 PM
Bush was part of the problem too. To me he was just another left winger in office. But he and his fellow republicans were nothing compared to the democrats and Obama over the last 4 years or so. The spending is getting bigger and bigger. We need to quit the spending, get our troops home, put them on our borders to shut them down from the drug cartels, and start trying to find ways to cut our own spending. You can't be afraid to go after entitlements with how they continue to grow. Eventually they will go over 100% of GDP.
I'd be terrified of what you would call a "right winger", especially with domestic policy. I'd agree he was part of the problem, he really started the spending problem and...well Iraq...