That piece didn't look like it was meant as comedy.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

You know, that post regarding "Harlem dumbells" was a horrible post but you should see the post at our Comedy Stop regarding Andrew Jackson, George Washington and President-Elect Obama - NOW THAT IS DEFINITELY RACIST..

I pulled this from a diary from the Daily Kos, made me giggle. Some of it is arguable of course, but grossly true nonetheless. It is a list of how conservatism and communism are the same.

1. Anti-Environmentalism Radicalism. (Cons put the economic interests of the corporation first. Communists the economic interests of the govt bureaucracy first. The rest of us put the people first.)

2. Anti-Middle Class Tax policies (This is at the cornerstone of both philosophies. Sadly, conservatism is worse.)

3. Boy Scout/Pioneer type groups for children. Compare the right wing forces behind the Boy Scouts and the Communist programs of their Pioneers. They're mirror images of each other.

4. Bureaucrats Making Medical Decisions (HMO bureaucrats are basically the same thing as communist health care bureaucrats. The rest of us want doctors and patients making these decisions.)

5. Censorship

6. Civil Rights Opposition

7. Death Penalty Fanaticism - Granted there are many progressives, liberals, and moderates who support this but it is usually communists and conservatives who are most gung ho about the death penalty.

8. Excessive and Unwarranted Use of Military Force. War is profitable, peace is not. Both philosophies also tend to distrust people.

9. Flag Desecration means jail.

10. Govt Owns A Woman's Womb Yep, even on abortions the communists believe they control a woman's womb.

11. Habeas Corpus Denial

12. Illegal Wiretapping of Citizens

13. Immigration Hostility - Both philosophies tend to be distrustful of immigrants and seek to deny newcomers opportunities.

14. Individual Rights Denying - Both philosophies hate the individual and don't believe in individual rights.

15. Lack of Due Process.

16. Media Consolidation.

17. No Right To Privacy.

18. Occupational Safety Denying -

19. Orphanages That Suck - Compare Newt Served Wife With Divorce Papers While In Hospital Bed Undergoing Cancer Treatment Gingrich's plan for orphanages to the communists plan for orphanages. Both support run down abuse centers straight out of Oliver Twist.

20. Patriotism Misdefined-- Both define it in terms of shallow symbols and blind nationalism.

21. Police Abuse and Brutality - Both conservatives and communists oppose good cops and instead want to see law enforcement run by rogue cops who misuse their public positions for political witchhunts.

22. Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

23. Rote Learning In Education (NCLB's teach to the test curriculum is Soviet communism education revamped.)

24. sex police - Both philosophies want to regulate consenting private sexual activity between adults.

25. Sexism -- Both philosophies tend to view women as inferiors out of the twisted Victorian era and not as equals.

26. Tort Rights Destruction -- (including govt bureaucrats not jurors making decisions, denying plaintiffs access to courts, and loser pay schemes)

27. Torture

28. Underfunding of Schools

29. Unions -- Both philosophies oppose democratic unions.

30. Voter Rights Denying - both oppose free, fair, and honest elections where all adults are registered to vote and their votes are accurately counted.

31. Wasteful Defense Spending - Both philosophies actually oppose strong national defense. Instead they support using the military budge as a welfare distribution center for cronies and unnecessary expenses.

32. Welfare For The Well Connected Neither philosophy believes in merit or opportunity. It's about power and using that power to reward your cronies and ass lickers.

33. Workplace Discrimination Permitted - Both philosophies believe that govt bureaucrats and corporate management may discriminate against their workers for illegal reasons and the screwed employees shall have no recourse.

If you take every bit of humor or joke completely literally perhaps you have Asperger syndrome. This is a high-functioning autism.

Your inability to understand the irony behind jokes/humor must make you a very hard person to deal with on a personal level. The world must seem to be a very cold and forbidding place for you.

There is no known cure for autism or Asperger syndrome. There may, however, be a cure for someone who intentionally makes themselves appear stupid in order to put forth their own agenda.

GOP Challenger to Sen. Clinton Quits Race

Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro (R) ended her campaign against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday, bringing to a close a brief and decidedly rocky attempt to unseat perhaps the country's most famous Democratic officeholder.

Even as she announced she would shutter her campaign against Clinton, Pirro jumped into the state attorney general's contest. A recent independent poll showed her trailing the two Democrats seeking that office.

In a statement released by her campaign, Pirro said her law enforcement background better qualifies me for a race for New York State Attorney General than a race for the United States Senate.

Pirro's exit leaves the Republicans adrift for now, with only two obscure candidates vying for the nomination: former Yonkers mayor John Spencer and tax lawyer William Brenner.

From the start of Pirro's Senate campaign in mid-August, she was beset by questions about her fundraising ability and readiness for such a high-profile contest.

Pirro is the second Republican to drop a bid against Clinton, who is seeking a second Senate term next November. New York City lawyer Ed Cox, the son-in-law of President Richard M. Nixon, left the contest Oct. 16 when New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) announced his support for Pirro.

We know at some point the Republicans will sort out this process and choose a nominee, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said.

Cillizza is a washingtonpost.com staff writer.

Karl Rove - too smart by half. He came up with the brillant idea to aid the corporate republicans by manipulating the low-information voters who live their lives by unexamined slogans, prejudices, and fear-based principles. This worked for a while -- as shown by not only the election but the REelection of George W. However, he did not anticipate that this large, unruly group would actually take over the republican party and elevate the unexceptional -- i.e, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber, to hero status. Their thinking being, "I are smart enough to run this here country, so why not Sara Palin - she are one like me!" Just imagine -- I savor this image - the faces of the corporate repubs - Mitten Romney, Rudy-the-911, George HR, etc., when they realized that the group they wished to control to do their bidding against their very own self interests had coopted the party!! I love it.

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11�indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade�, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Herskowitz�a longtime Houston newspaper columnist�has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers�expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript�pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior�who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush�personally�in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"�because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing. At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.

I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said. I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush. Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura. I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.

I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary. I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far. I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America. I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.