Users who Dugg This
MediaSight
13125 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
nickchopperFeb 1, 2011
I gird my teeth several times a day. Oh, wait...that's "gird" not "grind". Girding means...uh...um...what does girding mean anyway?
drmangrumFeb 1, 2011
a. To encircle with a belt or band.
b. To fasten or secure (clothing, for example) with a belt or band.
c. To surround.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2011
We called gandma Girdy
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
It was spelled, Gertie.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
my bad didn't know that was short for girdren, thought that was for gertrude, probably spelled that word too,
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
crap meant "spelled wrong too"
WWZFeb 1, 2011
“Think about that violence now in relationship to what has happened in Tucson. You know, even though we know that this young man is just deranged in some way, there’s the side that drove him to that act, with the kind of vitriol, the kind of nasty, just villainous violence that is happening. The violence that happened even during, you know, town hall meetings.during the healthcare crisis, the healthcare debate and everything, all this kind of violence. Then you take, again, that, the war, the wars-King talks about that, how that violence-that violence comes home. That violence comes home to haunt us.”- Danny Glover
I love this guy. He is one of the greatest comedians of all time. His brand of satire is exquisite and this is a fine example.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 1, 2011
Particularly in light of all of the on-screen violence he's been a party to over the years.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
To understand the abhorrent hatred coming from the extreme right and the insane wingnuts, we have to use the benefits of history one more time. I offer an excellent example of good old boys exemplifying rape and mass murder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNsXIxBkqs&feature=related You tell em Sarah. Take the time to peruse the sidebar related videos as well. They tell a horrible story.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YJgoNJAyw&feature=player_embedded#
atomheartmotherFeb 2, 2011
Wow, that's about as ridiculous a "point" as I've ever heard. Want me to dig up some Bolshevik violence footage and attribute it to the modern American left? About as relevant.
WWZFeb 2, 2011
Wow, you don't do well concepts like sarcasm do you?
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2011
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it’s my belief, don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Did this dude say the equivalent of "hatas gonna hate even though Obama wants to make it rain?"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 1, 2011
Indeed he did, and on foreign soil no less. So much for heeding the president's call for civility.
reaper527Feb 1, 2011
FTA:
“The fact that five senators are for privatizing Social Security shows we’re not crying wolf here. This is a serious movement to undo the most successful government program of the 20th century.”
the sad thing is, he might be right. social security may be the most successful government program of the 20th.
the highlight of government programs is a corrupt ponzi scheme that is about to go bankrupt, that the current youth are being forced to pay into, while knowing full well they will never see a single dime of return on that investment.
the most successful government program of the 20th century is a massive failure.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crapolatimeFeb 1, 2011
Lets see. G.W. Bush purposely underfunds social security and medicare, so that they are destined to failure.
G.W. Bush also purposely underfunds NASA to not allow the constellation program to actually get off the ground, but stills give money out to contractors to "look busy" for the press.
The Space Shuttle turned into a pickup truck to space.
mrteflonFeb 1, 2011
You would rather invest in Haliburton or the big three? Where was your screaming and outrage back then?
Bush and Cheney Pentagon Budget was Corporate Welfare Fund
We all know that Halliburton raked in billions from the Bush Administration's occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. But in the long run, the biggest beneficiaries of that Administration's "war on terror" may be the "destroyers," not the rebuilders.
The nation's "Big Three" weapons makers--Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman--are cashing in on the Bush policies of regime change abroad and surveillance at home. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was on target when he suggested that rather than "leave no child behind," the slogan Bush stole from the Children's Defense Fund, his Administration's true motto appears to be "leave no defense contractor behind."
In fiscal year 2002, the Big Three received a total of more than $42 billion in Pentagon contracts, of which Lockheed Martin got $17 billion, Boeing $16.6 billion and Northrop Grumman $8.7 billion. This is an increase of nearly one-third from 2000, Clinton's final year. These firms get one out of every four dollars the Pentagon doles out for everything from rifles to rockets. In contrast, Bush's No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by $8 billion a year, with the additional assistance promised to school districts swallowed up by war costs and tax cuts.
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
"the Bush Administration's occupation and rebuilding of Iraq"
Newsflash: it's 2011, Bush is no longer president, and there are still 50,000 troops in Iraq. The occupation and rebuilding of Iraq is the result of both Democrats and Republicans at this point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 1, 2011
Considering the context of his statement was asking about lack of past outrage, and commenting on historical monetary gains...your "newsflash" isn't really applicable.
Plus those contracts are already in place, regardless who is in charge now.
The most we can hope for is the past mistakes aren't repeated in the future. * holds breath *
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
"Considering the context of his statement was asking about lack of past outrage"
Which makes his statement even more asinine. Bush's approval rating was at like, what, 20% when he left office? He managed to piss off his most hardcore neocon supporting base, so he definitely generated plenty of outrage.
Apparently some people choose to ignore that fact, but I remember first hand, from the several anti-war protests that I attended, the outrage from the ENTIRE political spectrum.
"Plus those contracts are already in place, regardless who is in charge now."
So you're telling me that the Democratically controlled Congress (2006-2010) didn't have the authority to nullify those contracts?
"The most we can hope for is the past mistakes aren't repeated in the future. * holds breath *"
I wouldn't hold your breath so long as war mongers keep getting elected to the highest office in the land.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 1, 2011
Bush left office in 2008. The OP posted about making billions in 2002. You're trying to conflate things that don't really go together. At the time his rating was considerably higher.
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
Perhaps amongst his core neoconservative base, but outside of that core group, howvever, there were plenty of people raging about war profiteering then, and there are plenty of people raging about it today.
My point is that the partisans seem to love to bitch about this sort of behavior when the other party controls the White House.
President Obama has greatly expanded the use of private contractors in Afghanistan. What do you think that results in? Why profits for corporations operating within the military industrial complex but of course!
How many additional billions of dollars has this increase in contractors cost us versus ending the war? Why aren't the liberals crying when Obama pads the pockets of "defense" contracting firms by sending 104,101 additional in a three month time period?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125971465513072063.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 1, 2011
A sidenote: stop generalizing liberals and conservatives. That goes for you and everyone else on here...it's getting really tiresome. I'm liberal and I think it's s**t regardless who's in charge. That's why I'm not sitting here and haven't mentioned Obama once. The broad generalizations are just a simpleton methodology and ignore granular reality.
To answer your question I think it's sadly simple...fatigue. I think people just don't give a s**t anymore. That's not a good thing, but I think that's the most likely explanation.
Get an article to front page about contractors and I'll Digg it.
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
Thank you for the candor.
"The broad generalizations are just a simpleton methodology and ignore granular reality."
How do you suppose we are ever to have a broad based political conversation without generalizing? I certainly recognize when I make a generalization, but if it is generally true, then the generalization is warranted. We can debate whether my statement was generally true in this instance, but to say that generalizations are always a, "simpleton methodology" is not true.
There are groups of people who identify themselves as "conservative" and "liberal". Furthermore, there were vast numbers of individuals calling themselves "liberals" who were very critical of President Bush for bolstering the military industrial complex and allegedly giving his buddies corporate welfare (as OP stated) but who are not critical of President Obama of doing the exact same thing today. Certainly you may not fall into this category, but you can't deny that making generalizations can be accurate and they are most certainly very convenient in some cases.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 1, 2011
Well that's the thing, I don't think political discussions need be so broad. The term liberal and conservative is so utterly meaningless that it doesn't even hold any weight. Everyone's definition for them differs.
I just think if we're going to have a far-reaching conversation politically it's best to stick to specific examples and people...things that are solidly defined.
This is also a good thing because then when we make claims like "there were vast numbers of individuals calling themselves "liberals" who were very critical of President Bush for bolstering the military industrial complex and allegedly giving his buddies corporate welfare (as OP stated) but who are not critical of President Obama of doing the exact same thing today," it actually means something. I can sit here and say anything I want if I attach a non-specific moniker to it.
If we're striving for accuracy let's drop the shenanigans and cite specific examples.
In any case, I appreciate the civil discussion. It's a welcome change on here.
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
Perhaps a better alternative in my posts would have been, "Democrat" or "Republican".
My generalization still sticks though because a large percentage of people who self describe as "Democrat" also accept the label "liberal" and the same goes for "Republican" and conservative". I don't know the exact numbers here, but of the people I've meet far and wide using those labels I have found this to be true. Before any of my European friends bury me hard, I'm speaking in regards to contemporary American politics.
"Well that's the thing, I don't think political discussions need be so broad."
But that's the problem, we have two whole parties which supposedly represent us that broad discussions are inevitable.
"The term liberal and conservative is so utterly meaningless that it doesn't even hold any weight."
Even though you are likely correct, that still doesn't change the reality that many people feel that they fall under the banner of "liberal" or "conservative".
"This is also a good thing because then when we make claims like "there were vast numbers of individuals calling themselves "liberals" who were very critical of President Bush for bolstering the military industrial complex and allegedly giving his buddies corporate welfare (as OP stated) but who are not critical of President Obama of doing the exact same thing today," it actually means something. I can sit here and say anything I want if I attach a non-specific moniker to it."
Again though, I was admittedly generalizing. And I have established that my generalization was at least partially accurate, have I not? My clarifications are present, I wasn't intentionally trying to lump every liberal into the same category. Point of information, I am a liberal, but of the classical sense. I wasn't trying to slander liberalism, but the hypocrisy of those who apply the term which in this particular case is liberals.
Lets do another generalization for sake of argument. Most people who enjoy Fox News self identify as conservative. True statement?
"If we're striving for accuracy let's drop the shenanigans and cite specific examples."
Agreed.
"In any case, I appreciate the civil discussion. It's a welcome change on here."
I've been here, you can find my impartial and occasionally generalized comments in the red section. Dissenting view points aren't popular on most of the threads.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 1, 2011
Oh hey, I agree with all that. I wasn't calling you out as specifically as it probably seemed.
I was soap boxing. I'm guilty of it all at one time or another.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2011
oh... thats right!
democrats were supposed to just pull everything out on day one
republicans want more troops, democrats want out... democrats compromise, republicans refuse to compromise and complain democrats dont compromise even when they are. and they complain without seeing the hypocrisy
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
The president can withdrawal troops from Iraq without Congressional approval. President Obama clearly stated, on several occasions, that he would end the war in Iraq in 2009... it is now 2011.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2011
so you are saying the president should not compromise at all and not give 2 f**ks what anyone else in the country thinks? instead of compromising?
linuxpersonFeb 1, 2011
Reading comprehension fail?
I'm saying that President Obama is just as complicit in bolstering the military industrial complex as President Bush was.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrteflonFeb 1, 2011
The United States will have six brigades in Iraq, by far its smallest footprint since the 2003 invasion. Those that remain are conventional combat brigades reconfigured slightly and rebranded "advise and assist brigades." The primary mission of those units and the roughly 4,500 U.S. special operations forces that will stay behind will be to train Iraqi troops. Under a bilateral agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.
rednipFeb 2, 2011
He also talked about Clinton, which obviously you didn't complain about. Two years ago there were more than 100,000 troops trying to finish a war started in 2003. Obama's net deployment of troops is about -(35,000) during his term so far; Bush ended with more than 140,000 additional troops deployed to combat zones than the beginning of his term.
hawkmoon78Feb 1, 2011
This could have been funny, weer it not for the crappy reference to Stalin, or the weak statements from Tush, Palin and the like presented as being somehow meaningful.
jugglingjonFeb 1, 2011
You have to have a pretty ignorant mindset to look at this list of quotes and call them all absurd. Sure there's some misstatements by Chris Matthews, and a gem by (my congressman) Jim Moran, but concerning most of them: you may disagree with statements like 'Obama is a moderate', or that he is a "job creator", but those things aren't patently false; they're just opinions you don't share. And it's not even like those opinions have no basis in fact, Obama has held back on some endeavors important to liberals, and has pushed a number of programs to add jobs.
bookantFeb 1, 2011
The fact that the "Obama is moderate" quote is on there is all you need to know about the "authors" of this piece.
Obama IS moderate, even to the point of being slightly right-of-center, by any objective standard. On a host of issues he's to the RIGHT of past Republican presidents including Reagan, Ford and Nixon. The fact that the "authors" consider it absurd to call him moderate just demonstates that they are so far off the scale to the extremist right that they live in their own alternate reality with it's own revisionist views of politics and history. (Which I guess explains their denial of the 3/5 compromise, as well.)
Soooooo buried.
ajajadudeFeb 2, 2011
If you compare Obama to both parties and he really does fall more in the middle of everything than anything else.
He certainly hasn't been frothing at the mouth to enacting every liberal wet dream there is. Hell, he hasn't touched the issue of guns except to allow people to carry in national parks. Doesn't sound very much like a liberal to me...
jarysmFeb 1, 2011
*face palm*
Ok, number one, put dates on quotes to show us you aren't just pulling these quotes from before the shooting, rendering your point moot.
Number two: get a BA in history, Stalin's quotes have nothing to do with your point. You could post the transcripts of every speech of his, it will still have no bearing on post-Arizona shooting politics.
number three, calling someone a balloon head isn't violent.
number four, you missed a great opportunity to nail Democrat representative Cohen. Seriously, don't let me do a better job at this than you.
number five, President Obama speaking about combat in Afghanistan has no bearing on your point. But if it does, why not respond to what he's saying with some facts.....do you have any? You may be right,about whatever uncommunicated thing you are trying to say about Obama's comment....but we have no way of knowing that or what the point IS.
Number five: Why put in things conservatives have said. You are making them look bad. Isn't that against your point?
garykukisFeb 1, 2011
I do these quotes once a week. In most cases, unless I missed a good quote, they all were said in the past week. I did not give the column the name "Liberals Say the Funniest Things." I generally list quotations which caught my ear from liberals and conservatives.
This is just one article from an ezeen I do called the Conservative Review:
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.pdf
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.htmComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jarysmFeb 2, 2011
So then why is the "liberal" section of the post prefaced by "Finally, Democrats stopped with the crazy talk and the violent rhetoric. Just kidding."?
Why does Josef Stalin have a mention here? He didn't say anything this week.
Sir and or Madam, I find your entire article curious to have made the front page of Digg.
garykukisFeb 2, 2011
The first few quotes were about as uncivil as they could be, all made this past week. Other liberal quotes were simply added as they struck me. If someone even thinks that Sarah Palin used the term "blood libel" incorrectly, it is all over the front page of our newspapers. However, if Obama says all of our fighting is over and done with in Afghanistan (a real misstatement), it is completely ignored.
I threw in the Stalin quote because I just heard it for the first time this past week. However, it reminded me about how so many Democrats have been promising that, once the healthcare act is passed, then everyone will just love it.
And I am as clueless as you are how this made the front page of Digg.
jarysmFeb 2, 2011
Well, thank you for the civil response.
garykukisFeb 2, 2011
I see no reason why we cannot be civil toward one another. If I called you some nasty name because we disagreed about something, then I would be admitting that I had lost the argument.
dekuscrubFeb 1, 2011
When a Conservative says something dumb, they're "idiots."
When a Liberal says something dumb, they "misspoke."
Great spin, libs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 1, 2011
When a liberal says something dumb, they're being dumb.
When a conservative says something dumb, they're being dumb.
When a zealot hears a politician say something dumb they use it for political advantage and lump all of their opponents with the lowest common denominator to feel superior. That goes for both sides.
rednipFeb 2, 2011
Then there are those 'special few' who lump everyone into neat little piles, no nuance, no attempt to understand, just a superiority complex.
houseofcardsFeb 1, 2011
Then, why am I not laughing?
houseofcardsFeb 1, 2011
Then, why am I not laughing?
volfie99Feb 2, 2011
Dude, if you think Stalin was a liberal, your head is so far up your ass, that lump in your throat is your nose.
b1nary1sfunFeb 2, 2011
LoL now I'm picking on Dems. Too funny,..
torisutanFeb 2, 2011
Hoh boy, if this isn't a steaming pile of conservative bulls**t, I don't know what is.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
So its ok to make a list of things liberals say and then compare them to Stalin? Isnt that.. what you're arguing about with this article?
You guys have the right to say whatever you want, but when Glenn Becks show goes off the air because no one wants to be associated with his fear mongering, dont call it censorship. NYC and Philly have already dropped him and his show has tanked severely.
Yea you have the right to say whatever you want, but dont get pissed when no one wants to listen to it.
The more time you spend pointing fingers at us the less time you spend on actually taking a look around and at least question why Obamas rating is going up. You would rather try to drag liberals down to your level instead of trying to climb up the ladder, which is why you crazy people are in this predicament.
Not to mention Wikileaks released their first Fox Leaks tonight. One firework, long way to go until the finale. And when we catch you guys in the act, you wont be able to blame it on us.
Keep talking, keep finger pointing. It makes liberals look better.
anomaly100Feb 2, 2011
Some of those are funny.
slangitmanFeb 2, 2011
Awwww . . .idn't cute when conservatives try and make the other guy look just as dumb as they are?
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
yeah - and so creativenesslessly - and so very boresome. :P
all halfway acceptable george doublewho who?? jokes echoed
a few weeks later, as william jefferson (aka stumulus-bill !) joke.
garykukisFeb 2, 2011
I use the term liberal for those who tend to favor government control, government solutions, and a stronger government in general. I use conservaive for those who favor limited government and individual deicisions, responsibilities, and the idea that a person takes care of himself and his own family, rather than relegating this to the government.
Conservatives are not anti-government nor do they favor no government at all. Conservatives want the government to do things they cannot (e.g., organize an army and a police force); but conservatives want to be in charge of their own individual responsibilities (their retirement, their family, their healthcare, etc.).
Interestingly, the difference between these two political ideologies has become much more pronounced today than it was during the time of, say, Nixon and Kennedy, or during the time of Hoover and FDR (Hoover was far closer to FDR in political philosophy than he was to Calvin Coolidge, his same-party predecessor).
garykukisFeb 2, 2011
Obama is a moderate? Compared to who? Stalin? On that scale, maybe. But, you will notice that all of Obama's solutions, even in his SOTU message, are big government solutions. I guarantee you, whatever "jobs bill" he proffers, it will be filled with government subsidies and government money. A conservative would want to reduce taxes, reduce spending, simplify the tax code, remove healthcare from government purview (or reduce government regulation to 2 pages), and then let the free market work...without incentives, without taxpayer money.
So far, we have seen 2 years of liberal (big government) solutions. They have been great, haven't they?
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2011
my heart beats left my heart-beats left
tyler1413Feb 2, 2011
Liberals do say the finniest and dumbest things. Just replay the State of the Union.
downinit369Feb 2, 2011
Conservatives say the stupidest things?