http://www.allhatnocattle.net/ann%20coulter%20scary.jpg


I've always preferred 'Ilsa-Ann'

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/185778959_6016ff8fc2_m.jpg

if you stare at it for a while, one of her eyes twitches.

i that's pretty much if what was on ann's inside was on her outside, that's what she would look like. but i personally always thought she had a funky face anyway. she just has the nice hair and cakes on the makeup but you take a good long look at that face... she's not that pretty. her proportions are all out of whack, i think she looks downright... equine.

if you stare at it for a while, one of her eyes twitches.

i that's pretty much if what was on ann's inside was on her outside, that's what she would look like. but i personally always thought she had a funky face anyway. she just has the nice hair and cakes on the makeup but you take a good long look at that face... she's not that pretty. her proportions are all out of whack, i think she looks downright... equine.


Her nose is huge.. I mean.. huge!

He ya go one of my all time favorite pictures!!!!


Very kinky,Spacey ;)


if you stare at it for a while, one of her eyes twitches.

i that's pretty much if what was on ann's inside was on her outside, that's what she would look like. but i personally always thought she had a funky face anyway. she just has the nice hair and cakes on the makeup but you take a good long look at that face... she's not that pretty. her proportions are all out of whack, i think she looks downright... equine.

You sounded so gay,right now  ;D

Very kinky,Spacey ;)
You sounded so gay,right now  ;D



If they had used a different color of duct tape it would have let his eyes stand out a bit more. ::)

You sounded so gay,right now  ;D

http://i9.tinypic.com/6eute81.jpg

pfft! talk to the tung.

http://i9.tinypic.com/6eute81.jpg

pfft! talk to the tung.



I could say something VERY facetious but this IS a family board and I'm sure Chucky wouldn't appriecate it.




Cat

Democrats are ugly..ugly people.

So long as I'm still registered, I can't exactly contradict that statement!
;D

I'll say one thing of Lterhune, she kept the politics board hopping. 

I'm sure she forgives us.  We're all a bunch of heathens and sinners and we know not what we do!  If she was going to get banned, she could have at least tied Harmonica for the most vicious Christian, and made some death threats...or some bomb threats!
:o

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/ann%20coulter%20scary.jpg


Thanks.  I'm gonna have to sleep with the light on tonight!
:o

Did anyone mention Katrina?

I have really only started getting into Politics since the last election, so I am trying to learn more about both sides.  However, I consider myself independent and alot of what I know, its just from my observation and what I have read so far.

I find it funny that if you mention anything about the scandals in this administration, right wingers are so quick to lash back about "Well Clinton did this, Clinton did that."  Doesn't really matter to me.  What Clinton did doesn't really make whats happening now any less important.  The scandals are happening now, so thats what I care about.

The Political game, see who's name you can discredit by calling them flip flopper, digging up dirty laundry, etc, is a joke to me.  Right wingers will accuse liberals of these things, but they never do them.  Nope, not the pure conservative republican zealots who can do no wrong.  Right wingers can be downright mean and nasty when they want to be.  What a lovely way to run a country.  Each side has their problems, maybe if we agree on that, this country can move forward.  I dislike career politicians, and I think our government is moving away from a government of the people, to a government of how I can give myself a raise and keep this cushy job.  Alot of us vote solely on party lines and that seems like a big problem.  Voting without caring about what the other guy has to offer isn't very smart. 

The hardest thing I have in agreeing with the Republican agenda and the party is, supposedly they see themselves as the Religious party in America, yet I haven't seen a whole lot in their platforms that reflect anything at all religious.  Although, I guess you can classify their views on abortion rights, gay rights, and banning stem cell research is religious in nature.  Big business and greed.  Is that a Christian ideal?  Judging people.  Is that a Christian ideal?  I am not religious in anyway, but I would think that programs helping people who are less fortunate, IE welfare, universal healthcare, are a good thing.  There are also alot of religious Democrats as well.  Which brings up a whole other debate, separating church and state.  There are people who use their religion for good and those who use it as a status symbol in society.  I would hope that they would use it for good.  Of course I'm not trying to generalize anything.  There are two sides to every story.  Liberals definitely have their problems as well.  A big one is their failure to find common ground within the party.  They need to find a candidate that has more than a plan, but tells America what this plan is, backs up that plan, and show that they are competant enough to be President. 

You cant blame everything on Bush?  Well, I sure think I can.  He is the President, America's voice and leader.  He is ultimately responsible for his administration and what goes on.  If our country is divided, its his job to bring us back together.  If he fails there, it is not the fault of Americans.   

Did anyone mention Katrina?

I have really only started getting into Politics since the last election, so I am trying to learn more about both sides.  However, I consider myself independent and alot of what I know, its just from my observation and what I have read so far.

I find it funny that if you mention anything about the scandals in this administration, right wingers are so quick to lash back about "Well Clinton did this, Clinton did that."  Doesn't really matter to me.  What Clinton did doesn't really make whats happening now any less important.  The scandals are happening now, so thats what I care about.

The Political game, see who's name you can discredit by calling them flip flopper, digging up dirty laundry, etc, is a joke to me.  Right wingers will accuse liberals of these things, but they never do them.  Nope, not the pure conservative republican zealots who can do no wrong.  Right wingers can be downright mean and nasty when they want to be.  What a lovely way to run a country.  Each side has their problems, maybe if we agree on that, this country can move forward.  I dislike career politicians, and I think our government is moving away from a government of the people, to a government of how I can give myself a raise and keep this cushy job.  Alot of us vote solely on party lines and that seems like a big problem.  Voting without caring about what the other guy has to offer isn't very smart. 

The hardest thing I have in agreeing with the Republican agenda and the party is, supposedly they see themselves as the Religious party in America, yet I haven't seen a whole lot in their platforms that reflect anything at all religious.  Although, I guess you can classify their views on abortion rights, gay rights, and banning stem cell research is religious in nature.  Big business and greed.  Is that a Christian ideal?  Judging people.  Is that a Christian ideal?  I am not religious in anyway, but I would think that programs helping people who are less fortunate, IE welfare, universal healthcare, are a good thing.  There are also alot of religious Democrats as well.  Which brings up a whole other debate, separating church and state.  There are people who use their religion for good and those who use it as a status symbol in society.  I would hope that they would use it for good.  Of course I'm not trying to generalize anything.  There are two sides to every story.  Liberals definitely have their problems as well.  A big one is their failure to find common ground within the party.  They need to find a candidate that has more than a plan, but tells America what this plan is, backs up that plan, and show that they are competant enough to be President.   

You cant blame everything on Bush?  Well, I sure think I can.  He is the President, America's voice and leader.  He is ultimately responsible for his administration and what goes on.  If our country is divided, its his job to bring us back together.  If he fails there, it is not the fault of Americans.     



Wish I could give you Karma again...

Wish I could give you Karma again...


Since you couldn't, I did!

What it boils down to regarding Katrina is the problem of having people running the government who don't believe in government. 

They're interested in fattening their wallets and not much else.  They made money where they could off of Katrina and left the rest to rot.

Since you couldn't, I did!

What it boils down to regarding Katrina is the problem of having people running the government who don't believe in government. 

They're interested in fattening their wallets and not much else.  They made money where they could off of Katrina and left the rest to rot.
yeah, katrina was pretty much the proverbial bathtub in which the neocons drowned our government.

this also explains the hinky political appointments also. since the loyal bushies don't believe in government anyway, why not staff government with their old college roommates and golf buddies, regardless of how much experience they actually have? after all, the duties they're going to pretend to perform are totally gonna be taken care of by the private sector, anyway.

this whole magical belief in the all-healing power of the free market is really getting the country all hosed up.

yeah, katrina was pretty much the proverbial bathtub in which the neocons drowned our government.

this also explains the hinky political appointments also. since the loyal bushies don't believe in government anyway, why not staff government with their old college roommates and golf buddies, regardless of how much experience they actually have? after all, the duties they're going to pretend to perform are totally gonna be taken care of by the private sector, anyway.

this whole magical belief in the all-healing power of the free market is really getting the country all hosed up.


The ironic thing is these clowns are much better off in government than in the private sector.  When they run amok in the private sector, you get Enron.  In government, they've discovered, they can be as corrupt and irresponsible as they want and the taxpayers will always pick up the tab (remember the Keating 5?).  Now it doesn't even matter if the voters turn against them because they've figured out how to steal elections!

Since you couldn't, I did!

What it boils down to regarding Katrina is the problem of having people running the government who don't believe in government. 

They're interested in fattening their wallets and not much else.  They made money where they could off of Katrina and left the rest to rot.




yeah, katrina was pretty much the proverbial bathtub in which the neocons drowned our government.

this also explains the hinky political appointments also. since the loyal bushies don't believe in government anyway, why not staff government with their old college roommates and golf buddies, regardless of how much experience they actually have? after all, the duties they're going to pretend to perform are totally gonna be taken care of by the private sector, anyway.

this whole magical belief in the all-healing power of the free market is really getting the country all hosed up.


You both said it. So now they can all say, "See the government does not its job so let's turn all this stuff over to the private sector" and they preceed to hand contracts to their buddies.  ::)  Look at all the contractors who has been robbing this nation blindly-Halliburton anyone? And then there are the insurance companies-State Farm and many others who did NOT meet their obligation and no one says didly squat to them. The whole thing just really pisses me off.


There is a former collegue of Carlos' who has a statement on the door to his office which says, "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention!"




Cat

You both said it. So now they can all say, "See the government does not its job so let's turn all this stuff over to the private sector" and they preceed to hand contracts to their buddies.  ::)  Look at all the contractors who has been robbing this nation blindly-Halliburton anyone? And then there are the insurance companies-State Farm and many others who did NOT meet their obligation and no one says didly squat to them. The whole thing just really pisses me off.


There is a former collegue of Carlos' who has a statement on the door to his office which says, "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention!"




Cat

The "free market" simply cannot meet human needs without government.  However, the government cannot meet human needs without collaboration with the marketplace. 

The "privatization" lie the Right keeps selling is the market will impose discipline on spendthrift politicians.  From HMOs to military contractors, we see neither the guarantees of big government nor the vigor of the free market.  We see instead the corruption of big government bureaucracy in league with the corruption of big business greed.

  Aware of all except the Wolfowitz-girlfriend-raise-world bank thing...

  For the time being, keeping track of none of them...

   Aware of all except the Wolfowitz-girlfriend-raise-world bank thing...

   For the time being, keeping track of none of them...


It is a so so scandal with major implications for him.  He may be bouced out, the excuse they(the World Bank) were looking for.

It is a so so scandal with major implications for him.  He may be bouced out, the excuse they(the World Bank) were looking for.



And WHEN he is bounced out, they will probably give him a nice severance package.  ::)




Cat

And WHEN he is bounced out, they will probably give him a nice severance package.  ::)




Cat


And the girlfriend will get the book deal and so on, and so forth. :P

Iraq was supposed to be the "free market" answer to the Marshall Plan. 
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

;D

It is a so so scandal with major implications for him.  He may be bouced out, the excuse they(the World Bank) were looking for.


  Thank ye... :)

Iraq was supposed to be the "free market" answer to the Marshall Plan. 
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

;D
i remember reading that when it came out. who'd of thought the iraqis wouldn't want a taco bell on every street corner? isn't that what freedom IS?

there was a story in the washington post today about a dude in state who's getting called a "stalinist" because he wants to re-establish some of the state-owned industries that used to give people jobs in iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301165.html

its more of this wacky free-market-conquers-all ideology, ::)

i remember reading that when it came out. who'd of thought the iraqis wouldn't want a taco bell on every street corner? isn't that what freedom IS?

there was a story in the washington post today about a dude in state who's getting called a "stalinist" because he wants to re-establish some of the state-owned industries that used to give people jobs in iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301165.html

its more of this wacky free-market-conquers-all ideology, ::)

Yeah, they were talking about Paul Brinkley on the Ed Schultz show today. 
Let me get this straight...Brinkley is a "Stalinist" because he favors free enterprise and you can't start opening factories because the Sunnis and Shiites will fight?
:D
What is "Stalinist" here is the absolutist attitude of the Rand Corp., et al., who will at any cost prevent "government" from contaminating "free market," even if it means neither works!

Now, you take a guy like Brinkley who predicts "Wal-Mart selling Made in Baghdad leather jackets by the end of the year," and he sounds just like one of those neo-con Kool-Aid drinkers...his mortal sin is thinking the state has any role in civilian life other than surveillance and punishment!

The "free market" simply cannot meet human needs without government.   However, the government cannot meet human needs without collaboration with the marketplace. 

The "privatization" lie the Right keeps selling is the market will impose discipline on spendthrift politicians.  From HMOs to military contractors, we see neither the guarantees of big government nor the vigor of the free market.  We see instead the corruption of big government bureaucracy in league with the corruption of big business greed.


All the "scandals" of the Bush Administration aside...the failure of the "privatization" philosophy is one of the most glaring "errors" of the Big Government/Big Business conspiracy to milk the American economy to satisfy the immoral capitalist greed.

All the "scandals" of the Bush Administration aside...the failure of the "privatization" philosophy is one of the most glaring "errors" of the Big Government/Big Business conspiracy to milk the American economy to satisfy the immoral capitalist greed.

It's not "government" that the Right hates, it's collective ownership of anything...and poor folks, especially poor folks who ain't white, voting for their own leaders.
::)

What is in question is distribution of wealth---who gets what.  The idea that it's liberals who like "big government" is a canard.  I never heard any hippie protesters chanting:
"What do we want?"
More government!
When do we want it?
Now!"

Government got bloated in the 20th century because the private sector was not meeting the needs of the people and our democratic republic was in jeopardy because of this.
I always say, it's not the government's fault we need a welfare state!

By 1980 the horrors of the Gilded Age had receded into history.  Nobody who bore witness to it was alive anymore.  Thus, when Reagan declared, "The nine scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help," the public saw little reason to disagree.  Most folks associated "government" with onerous bureaucracy, meddlesome regulations, and taxes.

So we put our trust in the private sector once again...

Hey, pull my finger!
:P

is it collective ownership, or things that aren't owned -- i.e., public property? i think the distinction is instructive, since the former points toward a communist ideal whereas the latter is an essential prerequisite of a liberal democratic society. and the tricky part is the distinction isn't always that clear.

yanno what i mean? things like the WPA, the new deal, social security, the interstate highway system, these belonged to the people but weren't expressly meant to empower the poor against the big bosses. but collective ownership, to me, reminds me of things like imminent domain -- taking privately owned things, properly earned, for what's called the public good (but actually often boils down to empowerment and enrichment of corrupt government power). this DOES seem scarily like communism, but the right has managed to muddle the distinction between collective ownership and public property, and so are now able to defend the private ownership of things improperly earned.

does that make any sense?

is it collective ownership, or things that aren't owned -- i.e., public property? i think the distinction is instructive, since the former points toward a communist ideal whereas the latter is an essential prerequisite of a liberal democratic society. and the tricky part is the distinction isn't always that clear.

yanno what i mean? things like the WPA, the new deal, social security, the interstate highway system, these belonged to the people but weren't expressly meant to empower the poor against the big bosses. but collective ownership, to me, reminds me of things like imminent domain -- taking privately owned things, properly earned, for what's called the public good (but actually often boils down to empowerment and enrichment of corrupt government power). this DOES seem scarily like communism, but the right has managed to muddle the distinction between collective ownership and public property, and so are now able to defend the private ownership of things improperly earned.

does that make any sense?

Yeah, that phrase smacks of communism.  I didn't mean state ownership of industry so much as I meant "public property."
Of course, Ayn Rand's Objectivists chant "there's no such thing as public property."  But those guys are a bunch of ree-tards!
If the Republicans could privatize the highway system, they would.  You'd have highway robbery in the form of private turnpikes with with $50.00 tolls (you don't want to have to drive alongside the rabble, do you?), and the GOP would have no problem with that because it's not "the government"!
::)

there's actually something they're working on that's like that, where you get to play exorbitant fees to go through privileged lanes at rush hour. i think they're calling em "snob lanes" or something like that.

i think this collapse of public property and collective ownership is instructive, though. it's very infused into the culture at this point, and the failure of most people to make the distinction between the two has really enabled the right wing to push this far-right-wing market economy stuff. people have no sense of common enterprise -- which is where the idea of public property comes from, that if one of us suffers, we all suffer -- which probably has to do with the loss of community, the homogenization of the american geography (so that you can't tell one town from the next, and the people in a given town don't feel any sense of connectedness with their neighbors), i mean, i think there are very complicated reasons why such an extremist notion of the virtues of selfishness could get traction in a culture.

but that probably calls for smarter minds than me. :-[

there's actually something they're working on that's like that, where you get to play exorbitant fees to go through privileged lanes at rush hour. i think they're calling em "snob lanes" or something like that.
That's when I start marketing spike strips you can throw into the snob lane while you're stuck in traffic.  I'd call them "The Equalizer."
^ I wish lterhune was here to read that, she'd flip!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/firedevil.gif

i think this collapse of public property and collective ownership is instructive, though. it's very infused into the culture at this point, and the failure of most people to make the distinction between the two has really enabled the right wing to push this far-right-wing market economy stuff. people have no sense of common enterprise -- which is where the idea of public property comes from, that if one of us suffers, we all suffer -- which probably has to do with the loss of community, the homogenization of the american geography (so that you can't tell one town from the next, and the people in a given town don't feel any sense of connectedness with their neighbors), i mean, i think there are very complicated reasons why such an extremist notion of the virtues of selfishness could get traction in a culture.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  The problem with the Ayn Rand privatize everything hogwash is that it doesn't work. 
Our country is less safe, less healthy, more vulnerable, and more ftup than it was in 1980.

but that probably calls for smarter minds than me. :-mine.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif
;)