Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama's only detectable goal is to "earn" $100 million faster than Clinton did.
They are both corporate whores who deserve to die in federal prison.
The sooner the better.
He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.Mike is not center-right, though.Nah, the first Jew president will be a Center-Right candidate.
Can you hear me, Michael Bloomberg?
He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.
Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?
Fucking nanny state idiot.
Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.
ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.
You're not going SOFT are you, Lie?
FLUSH every elected Republican AND Democrat from DC in 2012 and put as many of the corporate tools as possible into prison for the rest of their lives, and freedom will ring in the land of Goldman Sachs.
Sissy.
Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch
Or are you too challenged to care?
Grow some balls.
Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?
I believe that no matter how far left on the political spectrum you are or how frustrated you might be with progress toward your ideals or what's perceived as campaign promises unkept, that challenging Obama from the left would be futile and risk doing a lot more harm than good.
It's possible that a challenge forces Obama slightly further to the left, so when and if he were reelected, he would have campaigned on a platform further to the left, but it almost certainly wouldn't effect how he'd govern anyway.
He won't be able to get as far to the left as he wants anyway, as the next Congress and subsequent ones will be further right than he is.
So basically I'm saying regardless of how frustrated anyone on the left is, a primary challenge is a silly option.
In a 2nd term he would move the agenda as far left as a center-right Congress would allow anyway. A primary challenge could only cause divisiveness among ranks, push Independents away, and possibly prevent Obama from beating the Republican challenger. It might be the only way the GOP could win.
There's certainly a miniscule chance that a Dem challenger would beat Obama in a primary, substantially less than 1%. If they were able to beat him (say 1 in 1000), it would only be because the Dems were weak at that point, and that challenger would have no chance of beating the Republican.
Your latent fascination with your scrotum, should such a thing exist, should not deter you from answering this simple question:Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch
Or are you too challenged to care?
Grow some balls.
Your fascination with my scrotum aside, gaylord, any felonies committed (allegedly) on Wall Street are not attributable to President Obama absent something the rest of us like to call "evidence."
I realize that you are flailing away at your parent's keyboard as you sit securely in your basement as your fingers pound on each key with a little extra force to REALLY make your "point."
You seem very agitated. You've gotten yourself worked up into a real lather.
But when it comes to the value I place on your inane mutterings, I must confess that I find it very difficult to give you any credence.
He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.Mike is not center-right, though.
He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.
Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?
Fucking nanny state idiot.
Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.
ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.
Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.
Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:
He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.
Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.
ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.
Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.
Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:
That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.
Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!
Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?
I believe that no matter how far left on the political spectrum you are or how frustrated you might be with progress toward your ideals or what's perceived as campaign promises unkept, that challenging Obama from the left would be futile and risk doing a lot more harm than good.
It's possible that a challenge forces Obama slightly further to the left, so when and if he were reelected, he would have campaigned on a platform further to the left, but it almost certainly wouldn't effect how he'd govern anyway.
He won't be able to get as far to the left as he wants anyway, as the next Congress and subsequent ones will be further right than he is.
So basically I'm saying regardless of how frustrated anyone on the left is, a primary challenge is a silly option.
In a 2nd term he would move the agenda as far left as a center-right Congress would allow anyway. A primary challenge could only cause divisiveness among ranks, push Independents away, and possibly prevent Obama from beating the Republican challenger. It might be the only way the GOP could win.
There's certainly a miniscule chance that a Dem challenger would beat Obama in a primary, substantially less than 1%. If they were able to beat him (say 1 in 1000), it would only be because the Dems were weak at that point, and that challenger would have no chance of beating the Republican.
Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.
Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:
That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.
Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!
That's the Narcissitic Hobo we all know as Simpleholic; making shit up on the fly when he has nothing valid to say.
I said nothing about "fear," you dishonest schmuck. What I am pointing out is that these fucking asshole uber liberoidals (in other words, scumbag statists such as you) have a bad tendency to act on our behalf WITHOUT our consent and AGAINST our wishes AND, as if that wasn't bad enough, with no proper basis in authority to do so.
It wasn't that long ago that nobody would have believed that the fucking nanny state would be requiring food industry retailers to post calorie and fat content on their public display menus and tell us how much transfat we may consume, either. But the much faster than creeping pace of you busybody nanny state statists knows no restraint.
You dumbass uber-liberoidal fuckers come in with your incrementalism, your "for the public's own good" paternalism, and you "bestow" upon the masses, drop by drop, your little helpful morsels -- and you say stupid shit like "nobody is gonna take your salt shaker," as though that were actually the issue.
Mike is not center-right, though.
He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.
Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?
Fucking nanny state idiot.
I'd say let's go to a bar and have a good Scotch and a fine cigar to discuss this in a more civilized way, but Mayor Nanny has already made smoking indoors a major crime. (I'm pretty sure he hasn't had the ballz to try to make it a felony yet, at least.)
You liberoidal Statists truly just don't get it. We don't WANT you sticking your noses into our private lives, our business or our personal affairs. Butt the fuck out.
Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?
I believe that no matter how far left on the political spectrum you are or how frustrated you might be with progress toward your ideals or what's perceived as campaign promises unkept, that challenging Obama from the left would be futile and risk doing a lot more harm than good.
It's possible that a challenge forces Obama slightly further to the left, so when and if he were reelected, he would have campaigned on a platform further to the left, but it almost certainly wouldn't effect how he'd govern anyway.
He won't be able to get as far to the left as he wants anyway, as the next Congress and subsequent ones will be further right than he is.
So basically I'm saying regardless of how frustrated anyone on the left is, a primary challenge is a silly option.
In a 2nd term he would move the agenda as far left as a center-right Congress would allow anyway. A primary challenge could only cause divisiveness among ranks, push Independents away, and possibly prevent Obama from beating the Republican challenger. It might be the only way the GOP could win.
There's certainly a miniscule chance that a Dem challenger would beat Obama in a primary, substantially less than 1%. If they were able to beat him (say 1 in 1000), it would only be because the Dems were weak at that point, and that challenger would have no chance of beating the Republican.
That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.
Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!
That's the Narcissitic Hobo we all know as Simpleholic; making shit up on the fly when he has nothing valid to say.
I said nothing about "fear," you dishonest schmuck. What I am pointing out is that these fucking asshole uber liberoidals (in other words, scumbag statists such as you) have a bad tendency to act on our behalf WITHOUT our consent and AGAINST our wishes AND, as if that wasn't bad enough, with no proper basis in authority to do so.
You're a fucking idiot. Without our consent? We elect them to do things without our consent. It's called representative democracy. And that elected status confers authority to do so. Moron.
Another lie. Do you even remember a time when you were honest?
YOU were the one crying about the nanny state and whether you would be allowed to have salt or not:
I'd say let's go to a bar and have a good Scotch and a fine cigar to discuss this in a more civilized way, but Mayor Nanny has already made smoking indoors a major crime. (I'm pretty sure he hasn't had the ballz to try to make it a felony yet, at least.)
I would be happy to go to a bar with you and enjoy an Oban or a Johnny Black. That wouldn't affect anyone else's health but our own. But I'm glad you won't be able to light up a cigar. Why should your pleasure take precedence over my health?
You liberoidal Statists truly just don't get it. We don't WANT you sticking your noses into our private lives, our business or our personal affairs. Butt the fuck out.
Ahh, but it's my business, too. One person, one vote. Sucks for you, huh?
Your latent fascination with your scrotum, should such a thing exist, should not deter you from answering this simple question:Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch
Or are you too challenged to care?
Grow some balls.
Your fascination with my scrotum aside, gaylord, any felonies committed (allegedly) on Wall Street are not attributable to President Obama absent something the rest of us like to call "evidence."
I realize that you are flailing away at your parent's keyboard as you sit securely in your basement as your fingers pound on each key with a little extra force to REALLY make your "point."
You seem very agitated. You've gotten yourself worked up into a real lather.
But when it comes to the value I place on your inane mutterings, I must confess that I find it very difficult to give you any credence.
Where are your beloved president's criminal investigations of the financial crisis. Is their existence at least as suspect as that of your scrotum?
"John Hueston, a former lead Enron prosecutor, wonders: 'Have they committed the resources in the right place? Do these scandals warrant apparent national priority status?'
"Nobody from Lehman, Merrill Lynch or Citigroup has been charged criminally with anything.
"No top executives at Bear Stearns have been indicted.
"All former American International Group executives are running free.
"No big mortgage company executive has had to face the law.
"How about someone other than the Fabulous Fab [7] at Goldman Sachs?
Is that the same Goldman Sachs that donated $997,095 to your president's 2008 campaign?
Are you that fucking stupid?
Now convince me Republicans will throw more rich parasites in jail than Democrats.
It's a CLASS war, STUPID.
I don't think it is necessarily a left/right thing. It would be about political principles. There ought to be a challenger who:
A) Voted against the unpatriotic act
B) Generally supports civil liberties
C) Generally doesn't support corporate cronyism
This is why I would like to see Russ Feingold run