R.I.P.

It is with great sadness that I report the passing of our member Dick
Thompson this morning in Flushing, New York. May he rest Rest in Peace.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Granny Jan and Jihad Kitty: All Hail, Dear Leader's Feet on the Furniture

http://www.grannyjanandjihadkitty.com/2011/08/all-hail-dear-leaders-feet-on-furniture.html

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Not exactly a Barbie Doll...

Not exactly a Barbie Doll... dcgere | August 24, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Tags: Herman Cain, Janeane Garofalo | Categories: Culture War, Idiots In General, Race | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8VH

Remember Janeane Garofalo's racist rant on Herman Cain?  This was part of what she said:

Garofalo also said successful businessman Herman Cain is either being paid to run or is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because he is a "person of color" running as a Republican in the party's presidential primary.

Well, now you can have a doll of her likeness!  Would make a good chew toy for your dog! Hopefully the thing doesn't actually speak...

h/t Big Government

DCG

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

CALIFORNIA EXPLAINED

 

Self-Explanatory… unfortunately.

 

 

Subject: CALIFORNIA EXPLAINED

 

 

 

 

 Have you ever wondered why folks in California can appear so confused?

Consider this:

Chief Heather Fong (left), is the first SFPD

female, lesbian chief of police.

Theresa Sparks (center), a former male, is president
of the San Francisco Police Commission, CEO of a
multimillion-dollar sex toy retailer,

and a transgender
woman.

Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right), a former female, is the
first transgender male SFPD police officer.

Their Representative in Congress is Nancy Pelosi.

ANY QUESTIONS? 

---

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

I sit on my koran and fart because it makes it smell better.

AWG - The Angry White Guy's Blog

---

Fart Free Freedom Fighting Posted: 25 Aug 2011 05:49 PM PDT For Marines in Afghanistan: be careful where you fart So here's the news:  audible farting has been banned for some Marines downrange because it offends the Afghans. I know there are many things in the Afghan culture that don't seem normal to Americans and it's hard to spend seven months working in someone else's back yard.  Still, the Marines I saw downrange are doing a pretty good job at trying to do the right thing around the Afghans. They're not supposed to cuss because it could be misunderstood (that one goes out the window a lot). And they stay away from talking about politics, religion or girls because those topics could escalate into major disagreements (they can't communicate anyway because of the language barrier). But farting?  That's practically a sport.  Ok, it's not soccer, but a good contest could open the door for cross-cultural exchanges, jokes and other gallows humor. You've got to be f**king kidding me – Marines can't fart because it might offend a bunch of dirty ragheads? I swear I'd eat beans, cabbage and drink cheap beer (I know that don't have beer in Afghanistan but you get the idea) every damn day. We liberated these ungrateful mountain monkey's from tyranny of the Taliban and that are going to be offend if someone has a natural body function of passing gas. Like they don't? Give me a f**king break. If these medieval madmen don't like the way we live then defend your damn self and live in total oppression. I'm telling you I get so sick of bending to every other culture on the planet while ours is being trampled right here at home… that offends me and it's high time some other assbackwards culture puts up with ours – like it or not. Frankly, I think the fart ban an unlawful and unenforceable order and it is one I'd go out of my culinary desires and wishes to spite. What is the Marines HQ going to do if you do fart? Someone point out to me which article in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) flatulence violates… I'd love to see the Court Marshall on that charge. And who is the ass sniffer fart free enforcement officer that's charged with finding the perp? This country is getting dumber and dumber everyday… Farting is not a crime it's a bonding event… Click here to view the embedded video. h/t ItsmeMr Wright for the reminder Related posts: Where is my free money? Obama's War (which one is he fighting) Economic Freedom of the World Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

	Email delivery powered by Google

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Podcast interview re Afghanistan w/ Ronald E. Neumann, former U.S. Ambassador to Kabul (2005-2007)

Posted this morning at Electric Politics, a podcast interview with
Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, a career diplomat whose last assignment
was as Ambassador to Kabul (2005-2007).

If you're interested in what they're thinking about Afghanistan inside
the U.S. government, this interview is a fairly good indicator.

If you like the podcast please feel free to forward the link.

Thanks for listening!

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2011/08/wheres_the_strategy.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [3] new discussions on LinkedIn

Linkedin Groups	August 26, 2011
Campaign for Liberty
Latest: Discussions (3)
New Discussions (3) Why Is Huntsman Invited to GOP Debates, and Not Gary Johnson? Like » flag » Started by Mike Shaner, Content Writer at Shaner media services The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows most of the candidates easily clear the 4 percent threshold. Only two don't: Santorum... More » By Mike Shaner, Content Writer at Shaner media services RON PAUL: Investing Genius Like » flag » Started by Charlie Adkins, CAM, Director of Operations Ron Paul soars to 10-point lead over Obama among fastest growing voter segments Like » flag » Started by Mike Shaner, Content Writer at Shaner media services Perhaps the most revealing spread of polling numbers comes from the latest Rasmussen poll on Tuesday showing that among voters that do... More » By Mike Shaner, Content Writer at Shaner media services   Don't want to receive email notifications? Adjust your message settings. Stop inappropriate content the moment it is posted. Send me an email for each new discussion » Do you know anybody that might like this group? Invite others to join » LinkedIn values your privacy. At no time has LinkedIn made your email address available to any other LinkedIn user without your permission. © 2011, LinkedIn Corporation.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [DailyKos] *? 2 ALL: KUCINICH CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OF WHITE HOUSE JOBS CZAR - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

Hi Team!

*? 2 ALL:

KUCINICH CALLS FOR RESIGNATION OF WHITE HOUSE JOBS CZAR -

(above): Jeffrey Immelt, Obama

 

Liberty Underground News reports:

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich has called for the resignation of White House jobs czar Jeffrey Immelt, and urged the White House to fire him if he doesn't step down.  'Jeffrey Immelt has a conflict of interest,' Kucinich said in a statement. 'He cannot ethically advise the president on how to create American jobs and promote American competitiveness, while at the same time leading a company that is exporting American technology and, along with it, American jobs.'

"True, but President Obama needs the General Electric money for his reelection campaign.  Does anybody doubt why Immelt got the job?  How could anybody on the planet believe Immelt cares if Americans have jobs?  These questions don't get asked in our hopelessly corrupt mass media, and any reporter knows they'd lose their job just by asking them.

"When GE can make more profit by hiring people they will do it, meanwhile they will grab every dime they can from the treasury while paying no taxes themselves and offshoring American jobs as fast as they can make a dime in profit from it."

Kucinich calls for resignation of White House jobs czar - what are your comments? 

Greg Dempsey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/
Voice of the People

 

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

[DailyKos]
A group for readers of DailyKos and other progressive sites.
Group Email Addresses
Post message:       DailyKos@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe:       DailyKos-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:       DailyKos-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner:       DailyKos-owner@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

A bad score is 579. A good idea is checking yours at freecreditscore.com.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: OMG

 

Bi-Partisan approved, available in all sizes. Get one while supplies last!

I was eating lunch on the 20th of February with my 7 year-old granddaughter and I asked her, "What day is tomorrow?"

She said, "It's President's Day!"
She is a smart kid.

I asked, "What does President's Day mean?"
I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln ... etc.

She replied, "President's Day is when President Obama steps out of the White House, and if he sees his shadow we have one more year of unemployment."

You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose...

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?

Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
May 18, 2007

Toward the end of his life, Russell Kirk, one of the great founders of American conservatism, became contemptuous of Republican militarism. Didn't know that? Neither do most readers of National Review, for which Kirk wrote for so many years.

Kirk's opposition to relentless war makes him a "liberal" in NR's lexicon. Now it'd be kind of hard to describe the key founder of modern American conservatism as a liberal ­ harder even than NR's task of making the obviously corrupt (and personally sleazy) former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani seem like something we should want in a U.S. president. So the whole Kirk problem is simply passed over in silence.

Young conservatives, take note: what you are about to encounter is the voice of the real thing, whose opinions are worth more than those of a million talk-show ignoramuses put together. That these views would never, ever get published in the typical "conservative" magazine today tells you all you need to know about the state of the "conservative movement": so remote is it from the genuine article that Kirk himself would be unwelcome.

The remarks from which I draw here are taken from a 1991 speech to the Heritage Foundation. What a difference a decade and a half can make: these opinions would never be permitted at Heritage today. Of that you can be sure.

Oh, once in a while you'll still get tributes to the great Kirk, but his foreign-policy views will be ignored -- or greeted with awkward smiles and a cough, if anyone is so discourteous as to break the silence on the subject.

Now remember, this is 1991, so Kirk is speaking of George H.W. Bush, not the current president, for whom these remarks could be amplified many times over.

"Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world," Kirk said in his speech. "Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a 'One World' candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs."

President Bush, Kirk said, had embarked upon "a radical course of intervention in the region of the Persian Gulf. After carpet-bombing the Cradle of Civilization as no country ever had been bombed before, Mr. Bush sent in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to overrun the Iraqi bunkers -- that were garrisoned by dead men, asphyxiated."

And why, exactly? "The Bush Administration found it difficult to answer that question clearly. In the beginning it was implied that the American national interest required low petroleum prices: therefore, if need be, smite and spare not!"

Kirk then recalled Edmund Burke's rebuke to the Pitt ministry in 1795, when the British government seemed to be on the verge of going to war with France over the issue of navigation on the River Scheldt in the Netherlands. "A war for the Scheldt? A war for a chamber-pot!" Burke said. Today, said Kirk, one may as well say, "A war for Kuwait? A war for an oilcan!"

Since a war for an oilcan turned out to be not so popular, President Bush "turned moralist; he professed to be engaged in redeeming the blood of man; and his breaking of Iraq is to be the commencement of his beneficent New World Order." Kirk said Bush had embarked on what Herbert Butterfield called "the war for righteousness." "It has been held by technicians of politics in recent times," Butterfield wrote in Christianity, Diplomacy, and War, "that democracies can only be keyed up to modern war -- only brought to the necessary degree of fervor ­ provided they are whipped into moral indignation and heated to fanaticism by the thought that they are engaged in a 'war for righteousness.'"

"Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous," said Kirk,

but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?

And now Russell Kirk ­ conservative among conservatives ­ makes the obvious point that the loudmouths today ridicule and condemn: perpetrating large-scale violence can make people angry. Only Americans get angry when violence is committed against them ­ no one else!

Now here is Kirk: "We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States -- even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems."

Well, away with Russell Kirk, then: he "blames America" for terrorism! To be sure, anyone who is both 1) truthful, and 2) has an IQ above 50, knows he's done no such thing, but since our politicians and journalists do not distinguish themselves in either of these qualities, we can imagine their pretense of shock at the outrageous Kirk.

Oh, and what kind of leftist said the following? "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness -- that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that 'God is on our side,' and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals."

The founder of American conservatism, that's who.

These are the words of a civilized man. I have my differences with Kirk on important questions, to be sure, but this is a learned, serious thinker whose work and thought anyone can and should respect ­ which is more than can be said for the sloganeering Ministry of Propaganda that now dominates official conservative media.

So who plans to be first in line to denounce even the deceased Russell Kirk as an "unpatriotic conservative"?

Thanks to Chris Rhoades for bringing this particular speech to my attention.