Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   Hillary Clinton tries to launch anti-Obama websites, apparently not realizing that unlike her own idiot staff, some people know about a little tool called WHOIS and see who they're registered to   (abcnews.go.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

37270 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2007 at 1:26 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



575 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-20 03:40:08 PM  
Rational Exuberance
What about STD testing? That could be a public health thing too. If you subsidize that, you are making it easy to not be careful.

Right, because having STDs only happens to whores. Except for the fact that 80% of people who have ever had sex will get HPV and, left untreated, certain forms can develop into cervical cancer.

/sorry, couldn't pass this gem up
 
2007-12-20 03:40:27 PM  
She really makes some farking ugly faces.
 
2007-12-20 03:40:29 PM  
Hickory-smoked: Is it? Go ahead and take the test for yourself.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (pops)

/In the interest of full disclosure, I got a Economic Left/Right: -6.12, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26


Wait, I can take the test??? That must mean that it's accurate.
 
2007-12-20 03:40:58 PM  
I'm sitting here reading ya'lls comments while eating fudge rolled in chopped nutz...mmmmm....fudge...carry on
 
2007-12-20 03:41:01 PM  
GaryPDX: Naw..I'll wait for you guys to realize the error of your ways and laugh my ass off. Anytime the government is involved in anything, it's all FUBAR'd. You should know that.

I'm assuming you include national defense in that as well. I'm with you. We should just rely on hired mercenaries to protect us. Get those lazy-assed welfare loving armed forces off of the government dole. If they want a job, they should compete with all the illegal aliens who would be willing to do our bidding for half the price.

/P.S. I'm kidding
/P.S.S Your statement on government is idiotic.
 
2007-12-20 03:42:09 PM  
Good day: Rational Exuberance
What about STD testing? That could be a public health thing too. If you subsidize that, you are making it easy to not be careful.

Right, because having STDs only happens to whores. Except for the fact that 80% of people who have ever had sex will get HPV and, left untreated, certain forms can develop into cervical cancer.

/sorry, couldn't pass this gem up


I'm not even quite sure of your point here.
 
2007-12-20 03:42:16 PM  
GaryPDX: Anytime the government is involved in anything, it's all FUBAR'd. You should know that.

Then you shouldn't vote for anybody. Just sweep that cave a little, finish installing your rainwater catch basins, and make sure your guns don't rust.

That should keep you busy.
 
2007-12-20 03:42:25 PM  
Recall all Repuglikkkans: rebelyell2006: 200 years ago they didn't have cars, vaccines, or any advanced medicine.

Imagine how advanced they could have been if the government had been able to spend money on research, like it does now. Again, the founders were selfish fool.

Education was rare, sure. Benjamin Franklin didn't have much of an education, but that didn't stop him.

Yes, some of the wealthiest members of society were educated. Great. The question is, were the slaves educated? No, and that didn't change until the government was willing to do it.

Housing was decent. Hell, you could build your own home without a government bureaucrat telling you what to do.

How much actual building do you think they actually did as opposed to having slaves do all day?

But I guess you don't like it because the government made people think and act for themselves, instead of expecting the government to take care of them.

No, I don't like it because it set this nation back hundreds of years. If we had elected people who were smart enough to organize and manage government like we have today, we would be a much more advanced society.


OK. Either you are naive, or you are joking/trolling.

And about Franklin: his family was poor. He went to school for two years before dropping out. He got further education by apprenticeships, like a lot of other people did at that time. He was certainly not an elite. He made money by applying what he learned and using his brain.

No, the slaves were not educated. Nor were the masses, beyond going to church and being taught by the preachers. Colleges back then were pretty new as well. They weren't as wide spread as they are now. And they primarily taught people to be clergy.

And slaveowners were rare, especially up North. How do you think the masses built their homes? By doing it themselves.

And during Franklin's time, the steam engine was a new invention. Do you seriously think they could have built the car if the government threw enough money at inventors then? The federal government was in debt enough from paying off war debts and assuming state debts.

You need to stop thinking of the past in terms of now. They are different socially.
 
2007-12-20 03:42:27 PM  
All i can think when i see Hillary

img2.freeimagehosting.net">
 
2007-12-20 03:42:28 PM  
Hmmmm how hard would it be to FAKE a WHOIS?

Yeah because as we all know Dotster and rest do all those background checks on what information is provided.
 
2007-12-20 03:42:30 PM  
eatit-She really makes some farking ugly faces. She's really ugly.

FTFY
 
2007-12-20 03:42:48 PM  
Asgate: I am a lot scared by people like you would would still vote Republican after the last 7 Years...

Is the fact that some people are so lazy, ignorant, and stupid that they intend to blindly vote for a party representative supposed to be reassuring?

Isn't that how Hitler, Satan, Palpatine, and even Dubya himself, got elected?

Anyone who's voting for a party-rep; I spit on you. Ptui.
 
2007-12-20 03:43:36 PM  
DarnoKonrad: Rational Exuberance: DarnoKonrad: Rational Exuberance:

Would you go skiing if you didn't have any insurance? What about skydiving? How risky would your behavior be if you knew you had to foot 100% of the bill every time?

Again this sounds insane. I don't do those things because I don't enjoy thrill seeking. People who do enjoy thrill seeking would tell you, quite honestly, they would do it regardless of the risks or insurace.

Secondly, you don't in the least think that is intellectually dishonest? What percentage of health care costs are due sky diving accidents?

Besides that, broken bones are not expensive. Long term illnesses that are particular to populations that live well into their 70s are. We're dealing with diseases that don't get to people until they are in their 40s and 50s.

A society that gets progressively older due extended life span is not a risk calculation.

Quit extrapoliting every tiny example I use to the entire argument. Skiing and skydiving are just examples of risk taking behaviors - there are lots more, both subtle and unsubtle. You're the one being intellectually dishonest on this one.

I find it hard to believe that you don't believe people evaluate risks, though. Risk compensation is a pretty well known phenomena, and it works with costs as well.


My post earlier got chopped. Show me something other than a wiki assertion.

It seems to be a useful metric device for all sorts of behavior, but health care just doesn't seem to make sense. You didn't address my point that getting old is not about risk assessment. .it's a fact. It's gonna happen.

I DO NOT SEE how risk assessment can apply to the parts of the health care that are expensive. I'm sorry I don't like your examples. . but they don't seem to make sense in the context of what I'm talking about.
 
2007-12-20 03:43:56 PM  
Giblet: Isn't that how Hitler, Satan, Palpatine, and even Dubya himself, got elected?

Hey, don't blame me, I voted for Mammon, not Satan.
 
2007-12-20 03:44:18 PM  
Giblet-Isn't that how Hitler, Satan, Palpatine, and even Dubya himself, got elected?

i201.photobucket.com
 
2007-12-20 03:44:20 PM  
eatit: She really makes some farking ugly faces.

Well, that decides it for me. Think I'll vote for that dreamy Mitt Romney. He has great hair. Puts John Edwards to shame.
 
SSP
2007-12-20 03:45:14 PM  
Snuke 2007-12-20 03:36:12 PM

SSP: The spittle drooling farktards that hate Hillary should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.

The spittle drooling farktards that hate Ann Coulter should just up and admit that they are unabashed misogynists.

/see what I did there?


Project much?
 
2007-12-20 03:45:45 PM  
I wasn't planning on voting for Hillary, but it would piss off so many douchebags, that it's starting to look appealing.
 
2007-12-20 03:46:37 PM  
Smarshmallow: Wait, I can take the test??? That must mean that it's accurate.

If it's inaccurate, you can go ahead and tell me what's wrong with their methodology. I'm perfectly willing to hear you out.

So far, your sarcasm seems entirely based on the fact that it contradicts your opinion.
 
SSP
2007-12-20 03:49:06 PM  
GaryPDX:

Anytime the government is involved in anything, it's all FUBAR'd. You should know that.

Just because the Republican party spent the last decade or so making government look as corrupt and inefficent as possible so that they could privatize everything, doesn't mean government naturally farks everything up....
 
2007-12-20 03:49:52 PM  
QU!RK1019-I wasn't planning on voting for Hillary, but it would piss off so many douchebags, that it's starting to look appealing.

You can just say you did then...:P
 
2007-12-20 03:49:56 PM  
Way back when -- kinda liked Geraldine Ferraro and Liz Dole; how times have changed.

Waiting for the '08 remake of "Anybody But Bush".

LMAO to see Congress' approvals outscored by the "9/11 Truthies"

Want my vote? Let's hear some proposals for:
> Vouchers for the kid's school-of-choice
> Vouchers for our health insurance
> Outlaw "Press 1 for english"

\yup.
 
2007-12-20 03:50:11 PM  
The_Shoggoth: I think Bush should be not only impeached, but tried for war crimes and hung. I feel completely betrayed by the Republican party, and I wish there were a hell for them all to burn in.

just bears repeating.
 
2007-12-20 03:50:38 PM  
SSP: GaryPDX:

Anytime the government is involved in anything, it's all FUBAR'd. You should know that.

Just because the Republican party spent the last decade or so making government look as corrupt and inefficent as possible so that they could privatize everything, doesn't mean government naturally farks everything up....


Hows that democrat led congress working out?
 
2007-12-20 03:51:04 PM  
I'll be honest, Hillary is the most phony candidate of them all.

All of the other front runners are much easier to peg what they will do once in office. Mostly because they have been working in politics as elected officials so we have a clear track record to work with.

Obama, Edwards, Guliani, Romney. They all seem pretty clear cut about their policies and the direction they will go. That is not an endorsement or an agreement, just seems there is more clarity.

Hillary just swims in complete bullshiat.
 
2007-12-20 03:51:26 PM  
DarnoKonrad: I DO NOT SEE how risk assessment can apply to the parts of the health care that are expensive. I'm sorry I don't like your examples. . but they don't seem to make sense in the context of what I'm talking about.

This is where things start to get unpopular. Things like genetic testing. That was the privacy issue I was speaking to earlier - and by excluding information (or not allowing people to act on it), you make it harder to calculate.

You have to understand the nature of what insurance is - it is effectively transferring your risk to another party. There are of course some diseases that are completely unforseeable and and have no preventative measures available. But technology makes that list smaller with every passing year.

And at a certain point, hard decisions have to be made. Something like 30% of all health care costs are induced in the final 30 days of life. All I'm saying is I would rather those decisions be made driven by data and statistics, rather than politics.
 
2007-12-20 03:51:37 PM  
Pincy: Dude, you do know that the wealthiest people in this country used to pay 60-70% on their income at one point? Now I'm no expert on her tax plan, but I'm guessing that her 40-45% tax rate would be for those in the higher income brackets, but please, correct me if I'm wrong. What I do know is that right now the super rich are only paying 15% on most of their income because it is from investments instead of wages and that is just unfair and wrong.

I have heard this argument over and over, and I am sick of it. People complain that the rich only have to pay 15% (thanks to GWB) on investment income, and its not fair ... well here is a news flash stupid people pay more in taxes that intelligent people. If you raise the investment income tax its only going to hurt the poorish people that are smart enough to have some investments. Rich people with their smart tax advisors are going to move there money to offshore businesses or other tax shelters to continue paying much less in taxes.
 
MFL
2007-12-20 03:52:15 PM  
It seems to be getting harder and harder for her the blame the vast right wing conspiracy.
 
2007-12-20 03:52:33 PM  
sluck604: The_Shoggoth: I think Bush should be not only impeached, but tried for war crimes and hung. I feel completely betrayed by the Republican party, and I wish there were a hell for them all to burn in.

just bears repeating.


Keep in mind that since we DIDN'T swallow the bitter pill medicine and do this, it's only going to happen again...

Like a tumor that wasn't removed, the cancer festers and spreads.
 
2007-12-20 03:55:09 PM  
The way I look at the candidates on either side is this: who is honest with me? or Who makes me believe they care about the future of America and not their own interests.

I come up with two names: Barack Obama and Ron Paul.

If I ask another question: who has the know how to effect change? I answer Ron Paul.

If I ask one final question: who has the political capital to effect change? I answer: not Barack Obama or Ron Paul.

*SIGH* Different day, same shiat. How did America come to this?
 
2007-12-20 03:59:19 PM  
img208.imageshack.us
a. wot kind of a god lets sh*t like this happen?

img208.imageshack.us
b. the point is?
 
2007-12-20 04:00:40 PM  
Pincy: I'm about as Liberal as they get and I'm not crazy about Hillary either. Personally I'm leaning toward Edwards at this point, but I live in Oregon and by the time I get to vote in the primaries Edwards may not even be around anymore.

But I'll tell you this, I don't care who the Dem candidate ultimately is, I sure as hell won't be voting for any of the Republican losers out there. The last thing we need is another 4-8 years of Republican Supreme Court nominations. So calling all Dems and Republicans with a conscience, you need to put aside your hate for Hillary if she gets the nomination because a Republican is still worse than Hillary.


agreed. i'm kinda leaning towards obama. my wife is all about clinton, but i'm not exactly sold on her. she does seem to be teetering on the edge of crazy. furthermore, i think that despite all the abuses and bullshiat the republicans and their cronies have done, i don't think america would vote a woman into office. mind you, i'm not against a female president, i just think that the sheep in this country would vote some idiot like "mitt" or guiliani in office before a woman.

i want someone progressive in office, but i don't know how those misogynists in the middle east would handle a female president. ironically, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the president of a country with (what i understand to be) a growing muslim population -- i wonder how they reconcile their attitude towards women with the fact of a female leader. not trolling, just putting some ideas out there...
 
2007-12-20 04:00:55 PM  
sab6300: I have heard this argument over and over, and I am sick of it. People complain that the rich only have to pay 15% (thanks to GWB) on investment income, and its not fair ... well here is a news flash stupid people pay more in taxes that intelligent people. If you raise the investment income tax its only going to hurt the poorish people that are smart enough to have some investments. Rich people with their smart tax advisors are going to move there money to offshore businesses or other tax shelters to continue paying much less in taxes.

Do your solution is what, eliminate all taxes? Why not go the other way, set it up so that the government owns all major corporations and can then make sure that people make their fair share of taxes?
 
2007-12-20 04:01:38 PM  
I'll be honest, Hillary is the most phony candidate of them all.


true... but PIAPS as POTUS....is 4 years of comedy gold.


/can't wait
 
2007-12-20 04:02:42 PM  
Rational Exuberance: decisions be made driven by data and statistics, rather than politics.

I'll buy that. But I'm still in favor of socializing the system. Either way, politics can only be moderated as far as adversely effecting good policy how ever it's played, never eliminated.
 
2007-12-20 04:02:47 PM  
Rational Exuberance: tweekster: Proof that everything is cyclical, communism is coming back into fashion as a derogatory word. I still like american history X when the fat guy from boy meets world calls the girl "you farking democrat"

For a few years after the collapse and the Berlin wall and the fall of the Soviet Union, it was pretty definitive what the superior system was. Now we have a new generation of people. Marxism is and always will be very intellectually appealing. That's why it keeps coming back - you can explain communism to a 5 year old. Capitalism takes a lot longer to sink in, if at all.


Capitalism is easy to explain to a 5 year old. "Hey son, capitalism means that you own all your toys and your brother owns all his toys. If you want to play with his toys, you have to ask him and negotiate with whatever you have that he wants. This is trading, which is the basis of all capitalism. Your other brother also owns his toys, and you also have to get his permission to play with them. As your dad, I will make sure you keep your promises to your brothers." That's it. Sure, there's more, but kids get that pretty easily.

Now, in my house, it is more like communism--most of the toys belong to everyone, but my wife and I regulate two things: no taking toys that someone else is already playing with, and designated ownership. That is, some toys really do belong only to one child. Most of them do not. Most of the time, the toys are communal. As the children are getting older though, this is changing. Why? Because they are better able to care for their own toys, and there is more disparate interest in toys. My second son has a very strong sense of ownership as compared to my first though. He is VERY definite that this is his cup or his train track. He has always been like that. The oldest, by comparison, just doesn't care that much about anything being his. On the other hand, he is also more competitive--he is much more interested in winning than #2. #3 is also quite possessive about items, but only with things he is currently playing with. If he's not playing with or using it, he doesn't seem to care (and since he's just starting to talk, its a little tougher to be sure). #4 is only 2.5 months old. There's no telling.

My point is that capitalism is pretty easy to explain, as is communism. The difficult thing to explain is why communism seems to work on small scales but not on larger scales, while regulated capitalism seems to scale pretty well as long as there is an equality (assumed or real) of power [I think this is necessary, but won't go into detail]. Frankly, I think it comes down to this: on a small scale, communism works because its easy to have common purpose and a rotating leadership that isn't in it for the money or power. Very selective membership, and very much a voluntary thing. To date, however, all large-scale communist societies have been forced upon the citizens and are really nothing more than government-owned property with a dole based on some arbitrary variable (maybe your family connections, maybe your work connections). Those closest to the leadership get priveleges (which is just the opposite of what communism is really supposed to be). [If I am wrong, please let me know...I'd be interested to know in a purely voluntary large-scale communist society.]

Finally, I personally support those that want to go and live in small communist societies and do the best the group can, giving everything to the group and only using what they need. I think it is actually a very laudable and selfless way to live. It must be voluntary, though, and it must be free from corruption. I think that we can all agree that any implementation on a nationwide scale of communism within the US (and most other countries) is going to lack those two requirements.

As a note, the reason it must be voluntary is explained by motivation. In a voluntary commune, individuals have a motivation to support the group and therefore work hard. In a mandated communist society, you end up with a lot of people who see it as a free ride, and this results in a very sluggish production. Until production and movement of goods are free, one must have people willing to work.

/I'll shut up now.
 
2007-12-20 04:03:18 PM  
The implosion continues.
 
2007-12-20 04:03:38 PM  
tweekster: Hows that democrat led congress working out?

Given the obstructionist Republican minority, a simpy president who seems to have just discovered what his veto pen actually does, and disingenuous corporate influence on the system as a whole, I think they're doing fine. A little limp and whimpy right now, but fine. Mostly that is due to the DLC, imho. Thanks for asking.
 
2007-12-20 04:04:21 PM  
pxlboy: Pincy:

i want someone progressive in office, but i don't know how those misogynists in the middle east would handle a female president. ...


Sweet, first person to genuinely come out and state the reason why I think FEAR will take Hilary out of contention. The irony is that this is a Republican stance. The party of Fear. Bomb them, fear them, hate them.

Appeasement! Appeasement! Appeasement!
 
2007-12-20 04:05:11 PM  
MagusAzod: Frankly, I think we are agreement in principle but perhaps not degree. Government has it's place in helping to protect the country and citizens. Sometimes this means social programs to help the poor, sick, and other needy. My concern is how easy it is to go too far. I couldn't find the quote I was looking for but it is something like this:

"No democracy have ever survived the realization that the people can vote themselves another entitlement."


Are you thinking of Montesquieu? I thought his quote was that all democracies will eventually dissolve when their citizens realize they can vote themselves another tax cut.

/I suppose both interpretations are valid.
//Though I do notice the entitlement-heavy nations of Europe are still managing...
 
2007-12-20 04:06:26 PM  
electromime: site is down but here is the WHOIS...

That's right next door to my office! (have to stop cutting through the parking lot).
 
2007-12-20 04:06:31 PM  
blackom: tweekster: Hows that democrat led congress working out?

Given the obstructionist Republican minority, a simpy president who seems to have just discovered what his veto pen actually does, and disingenuous corporate influence on the system as a whole, I think they're doing fine. A little limp and whimpy right now, but fine. Mostly that is due to the DLC, imho. Thanks for asking.


But but but Bush...

Glad to see America is doing so great after they enacted their 100 day plan. God knows my life totally changed for the better after that shift. It is like night and day. Oh wait, there wasnt even a glimpse of sunlight in change
 
2007-12-20 04:06:50 PM  
MagusAzod: Frankly, I think we are agreement in principle but perhaps not degree. Government has it's place in helping to protect the country and citizens. Sometimes this means social programs to help the poor, sick, and other needy.

I think you are right, we are in agreement on principle, something needs to be done, but just not quite in sync on implementation.

My concern is how easy it is to go too far. I couldn't find the quote I was looking for but it is something like this:

"No democracy have ever survived the realization that the people can vote themselves another entitlement."

Yes, I know you can't run a country on quotes, but the idea behind it sums up my concerns pretty well. I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences.


But the thing is that plenty of democracies have survived some form of Universal Health Care and in fact, they still survive to this day. But for some reason people seem to think that unlike the rest of the industrial democracies out there, we will for some reason collapse if we have Universal Health Care. You can give them numbers and explain how costs can actually be lowered under a single payer system. You can show them how these "socialist" democracies have better health indicators that we currently do. You can present polls which show that the majority of the populations in these countries are very happy with their system.

So, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you that Universal Health Care goes too far. I think you agree with me that some government intervention is going to be necessary in order to get the 50 million uninsured covered. We can't allow private companies to bilk people because they are forced to buy insurance. Even the auto insurance industry is regulated. I think we need to take the profit motive out of health insurance. I just don't buy the idea that the free market makes health insurance more affordable. To work correctly, the free market requires consumers who are free to make rational decisions about how they spend their money. Very few people rationally choose to get sick.


Nation destroying/building is the economic platform of neo-cons. Read "The Shock Doctrine" and you'll discover why Iraq fits in perfectly with the Republican agenda.

Never read it, but it sounds interesting. Is it from a reasonably unbiased source? I did a quick look on Amazon and frankly it doesn't look like it. Obviously you read it so please give me your opinion.


Is anything ever written from an unbiased source? But the book is crammed with facts and memos and quotes that you will never read or hear in the mainstream media. It gives a perspective on recent history and current political/economic agendas that you won't hear anywhere else. You don't have to agree with all of it, but I guarantee you it will open your eyes to a few new ideas you hadn't considered before.

Take care my friend. It has been nice talking with you.
 
2007-12-20 04:07:07 PM  
Recall all Repuglikkkans: Do your solution is what, eliminate all taxes? Why not go the other way, set it up so that the government owns all major corporations and can then make sure that people make their fair share of taxes?

Not quite, even though I hate taxes so very much.

I rather keep as much of my money as possible, and if that means streamlining or removing bloated governmental agencies / programs so be it. And get the federal government back to what it was intended for!
 
2007-12-20 04:08:29 PM  
Crown_of_Shoes: pxlboy: Pincy:

i want someone progressive in office, but i don't know how those misogynists in the middle east would handle a female president. ...

Sweet, first person to genuinely come out and state the reason why I think FEAR will take Hilary out of contention. The irony is that this is a Republican stance. The party of Fear. Bomb them, fear them, hate them.

Appeasement! Appeasement! Appeasement!


Hey dude, I never wrote that. You got me mixed up with someone else.
 
2007-12-20 04:10:29 PM  
Not only are they evil and rather corrupt even for politicians, they are inept at it. This is like the third time in a month that they have been caught red handed doing some really lame things.
 
2007-12-20 04:10:35 PM  
Levy a harsh tax on Stupid People and you'll find even fewer admitted supporters of the tried-and-failed system known as socialism.
 
2007-12-20 04:14:12 PM  
GaryPDX: Her policy is simply this, a government hand in solving all your problems. That's all there is to it. They need to just go build some roads or something and stay out of Free People's business.

It goes much further than that, she seems to believe that every possible human action should be governed by at least one (though preferably two, conflicting) Federal laws or statutes.

It's why some Americans half-heartedly prepare for a face-off which they feel is inevitable and unavoidable.

That "Don't Tread On Me" flag was the best, by the way.

No more authoritarians, please.
 
2007-12-20 04:14:43 PM  
me? I'd mostly classify myself as a Libertarian but I'd definitely like for Ron Paul to be president. I don't agree with all of his stances. But he's leaps and bounds better than anyone else in this race. This is the first time I've ever donated to a campaign. I'm sick of the War on Drugs, Iraq, etc. Can we stop wasting so much g-damn money on them? In fact, there are many, many other things that this government wastes my money on that are unnecessary. Christ, if you invested money on the same stock/bond/etc every year for 10 years and got negative return every year, you'd probably stop plunking your hard earned money down. Let's follow that concept now. RP FTW.
 
SSP
2007-12-20 04:17:09 PM  
tweekster 2007-12-20 03:50:38 PM


SSP: GaryPDX:

Anytime the government is involved in anything, it's all FUBAR'd. You should know that.

Just because the Republican party spent the last decade or so making government look as corrupt and inefficent as possible so that they could privatize everything, doesn't mean government naturally farks everything up....

Hows that democrat led congress working out?


Veto crayon?
 
Displayed 50 of 575 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report