Monday, September 17, 2007

Sally Field: Liberal Unhinged

uncensored video here
Lol!!!!
I'm telling you, you get Jim, Hash and Sally Field to get on the campaign trail for the Democratic nominee and they might get as high as 25% in 2008

30 comments:

Parklife said...

And I thought you were going to be quoting Greenspan.

Hey, its not like we went to Iraq over the oil, (R)ight?

haha..

Just what did you guys do to the Republican party?

The Game said...

Greenspan is trying to sell a book, nice to see how easily fooled you are..
If we went to Iraq for oil, where is it?
Why is my gas almost $3.00 a gallon
Watch out for the black helicopters and the next govt planned terror attack...if you put on your tin-foil hat it might protect you.

Parklife said...

"If we went to Iraq for oil, where is it?"

Do you know how to read? Come on Game.. the quotes are all over the internets. Do some research.. take your meds.. and get back to me.

Realism said...

if you put on your tin-foil hat it might protect you.

I bet if I told you 10 years ago that our government would be imprisioning American citizens without charges and without access to their lawyers for months or even years and torturing them, you would've said the same EXACT SAME THING.

footballmom said...

Let's get Chavez's oil. It is closer. If it is all about the oil, where is my oil, damn it.

The Game said...

If we went to Iraq for oil, I we messed up there...we should have invaded Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico from liberal environmentalists.

hashfanatic said...

"I'm telling you, you get Jim, Hash and Sally Field to get on the campaign trail for the Democratic nominee and they might get as high as 25% in 2008..."

Game, if this is true, why is it that Newt Gingrich was heard on Pawn Insanity's show today, pretending Hillary would get 80% in the general election?

(Besides the fact that he's ready to hurl "Not Ready For Prime Time Freddie" under the bus....and, yes, I'd LOVE it if old Newt threw his hat in the ring!!)

Greenspan vs. Bush??

The war in Iraq is because of oil, and the Jews.

These two protaganists in the Iraqi Holocaust have been quite mindful not to get in one's another's way, until now.

But if you have a Jew...especially THAT Jew...talking trash about the POTUS and the oil men in almost criminal terms...well, how long do you think the POTUS and the oil men will take before they start blaming everything on the Jews?

Delicious. Absolutely dee-licious!

footballmom said...

I think Sally Field's(original topic)performance as the flying nun was much better.

Scorpion said...

Silly sally might have been tripping over her habit....

Jason H. Bowden said...

If the war is obviously about oil, why did so many Democrats vote for it, including Cleland, Edwards, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Schumer, Frau Clinton, et cetera?

Hello? Logic, anyone?

Anyway, Greenspan also believes in Ayn Rand's goofy philosophy, so it isn't like everything he says is gold.

"The war in Iraq is because of oil, and the Jews."

Just more proof of the fascist character of today's national socialists. You guys want the government to take over everything from energy to healthcare, and want to be friends with every dictator on the planet. And you're obsessed about the Jews. Look in the mirror, people.

Jason H. Bowden said...

"we should have invaded Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico from liberal environmentalists."

LOL! I love it!

PCD said...

hash just had to post more of his hate for the "Joooossssss".

The libs are taking the quote out of context, but that is the left mental illness for you on display.

Parklife said...

"The libs are taking the quote out of context"

Absolutely priceless.. He says it (again) in an interview with the WSJ.. you moron.

And, its funny to see Game call Greenspan a tin-foil hat wearer before waffling on his own stance. You guys get so twisted when conservatives turn on each other.. down right hilarious.

Realism said...

If the war is obviously about oil, why did so many Democrats vote for it, including Cleland, Edwards, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Schumer, Frau Clinton, et cetera?

Because, in some respects, they are really not any better than Republicans.

You need the thesis and the antithesis to bring about the desired synthesis.

Realism said...

You guys want the government to take over everything from energy to healthcare, and want to be friends with every dictator on the planet. And you're obsessed about the Jews. Look in the mirror, people.

You guys want corporations to take over everything from the military to education, and want to invade every country on the planet. And you're obsessed about the Muslims. Look in the mirror, people.

Parklife said...

footballmom.. were you born that dumb or did your kids drop you on your head?

We already take oil from Chavez, why invade? It would be just another endless war and I think two of those is our limit at one time. Besides, Chavez doesnt control the market and doesnt have plans of taking over the mid-east.

The Game said...

GWB controls the gas prices...don't you read dailykos

hashfanatic said...

"If the war is obviously about oil, why did so many Democrats vote for it, including Cleland, Edwards, Reid, Biden, Kerry, Schumer, Frau Clinton, et cetera?"

"Because, in some respects, they are really not any better than Republicans."

You took the words right out of my mouth, realism. Thank you.

One only needs to see the prissy, elitist Kerry watch impassively as a honors student gets held down and TASERED because he had the temerity to dare ask a question about a BOOK, to realize that Clinton, Kerry, etc. are cut of the same cloth as fascists like Lieberman, Hunter, Bolton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

It's a matter of the neocons being far more crafty and devious about their murderous schemes...

But they are now ALL savage degenerates motivated by revenge and the greed that only the corrupt philosophy of "free trade" (aka predatory capitalism) fosters in its adherents, even pseudo-intellectuals like our jason.

It's the same inherent selfishness that will cause such an interloper to cross-examine a homeless woman about her motives and her means in front of an upscale supermarket in a gentrifying Chicago neighborhood, without giving a moment's thought to whether or not the woman, her state of mind, and her presence might in any way represent a danger to the residents of that neighborhood and herself, and choose not to intervene.

These are your new, homegrown neighbors, America.

Do you like them?

hashfanatic said...

"GWB controls the gas prices...don't you read dailykos....


Game?

Wasn't the shrub IN the oil business that Pappy hooked up for him?

I guess this is easy to "overlook", when the object of your affections is too stupid to find oil in Bahrain...

Jason H. Bowden said...

"You guys want corporations to take over everything from the military to education, and want to invade every country on the planet. And you're obsessed about the Muslims. Look in the mirror, people."

Nope. I believe in consumer sovereignty. In addition, unlike the left, I believe in secular government, while the left makes excuses for gun toting dark age religious fundamentalists.

You people are becoming the very thing you claim you hate.

Realism said...

while the left makes excuses for gun toting dark age religious fundamentalists.

Since I'm sure that you would never spout bullshit rhetoric, perhaps you could provide some examples to back up that staement...

Jason H. Bowden said...

realism--

Where do I begin? Perhaps Noam Chomsky meeting with the Party of God (the Hezb'Allah) denouncing the West? Or should I start with John Kerry, the Democrat nominee in 2004, who was signing autographs for the Iranian Mullahs as he called the US an "international pariah."

If you believe in secularism and rule of law, join the GOP. If you think we should take primitive dark age fanatics seriously because they belong to an authentic culture, the Dems are the party for you.

The Game said...

Bravo!!!!

hashfanatic said...

"If you believe in secularism and rule of law, join the GOP."

Jason, just because you do not hold by the tenets of extremist Christian fundamentalism that has a death grasp on the party once known as the GOP, does not it mean it does not its excesses don't characterize the party itself.

Your fawning allegiance to the pro-Zionist elements alone shoot your "secularist" argument to smithereens, irregardless if your support of the associated faith tradition and beneficiaries thereof are of a gutter religion or not.

Nice try at dissociation, though.

Marshall Art said...

Well done, Jason.

As for Sally, it seems an inocuous statement to think that mothers ruling the world would somehow mean less war. But I can't think of anyone more potentially dangerous than a mother. They are territorial. They put their kids above everything, especially above other kids. They will cut your legs off if it means getting their kids in line first. No thanks. Moms are great for mothering, but they are unreasonable, irrational, and way too overprotective for leadership.

Jim said...

If you believe in ...the rule of law, join the GOP.

Jason, this is probably the singular most fucking ridiculous thing you have ever written here.

The GOP supports the George W. Bush administration. The George W. Bush administration wouldn't recognize the rule of law if they were taking a dump on it, which they do on a regular basis.

Marshall Art said...

"The GOP supports the George W. Bush administration. The George W. Bush administration wouldn't recognize the rule of law if they were taking a dump on it..."

Here's where you're projecting, Jim. You may disagree with the Bush's interpretation of a given law, and I'm assuming you're speaking of his decisions regarding the WOT, and indeed the courts may also disagree, but disagreement with interpretation is not dumping on the law. In fact, it's keeping with the law as he interpreted the law to read. And considering his intent is to defeat an evil force in the name of his people, he lacks the malice associated with disregard for the law. Now, if he was, say, a candidate who lost an election, and hoped to challenge a state's election laws and process by cherry-picking counties known to be sympathetic, that would be dumping on the law, particularly since there's the obvious personal profit of winning the election at stake. Now that's just the first example that came to mind, but I think it'll help you with the distinction.

Jim said...

What a load of crap, Marshall. I'm not projecting anything.

The president doesn't interpret the law, the courts do. The president signs the law and then he enforces it or carries it out.

When the president signs a law, he signs all of it. Signing statements are taking a dump on the rule of law. If he doesn't like the bill, veto it. A signing statement is equivalent to a line item veto which the Supreme Court held as unconstitutional.

Then there is FISA. They admitted to breaking the law on that one.

There's the national archives laws, the Hatch Act, and so many more.

And your inept description of what I assume is the perfectly legal request for a recount in 2000 presents absolutely no evidence or even an assertion of ignoring the rule of law. If you want dumping on the rule of law, read the majority opinions in Bush v. Gore 2000 and ask yourself why the court said that their ruling should never be used as precedent. I could go on and on on that and present you with more scholarly works than you'll ever want to read that will support my view of that "decision."

since there's the obvious personal profit of winning the election at stake

I quote from Scalia's ruling that halted the recount because the recount "would threaten irreparable harm to Bush by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

Somehow Gore had some "personal profit" to gain from winning the election that Bush didn't?

You way off on this one, Marshall. What a surprise!

Marshall Art said...

Don't be an idiot Jim. You know perfectly well that everyone interprets law in the sense that they wish to know if they are compliant in their actions. I wasn't putting Bush over SCOTUS in their job as interpreters. We're talking two different things and you know it. No law covers every eventuality and Bush was interpreting existing law in an effort to determine his complicity in the enactment of preferred actions and policies. That's a far, far cry from outright lawbreaking and you damn well know it. Your projection comes in by assuming you know the guy's fucking mind enough to know with certainty that he has such disregard for the rule of law, something for which you have no proof, evidence, or anything.

Signing statements are not unique to Bush or something he made up that no other president before him has ever done. If you don't like the policy, fine. But you can't dump on someone for using that which is within his rights to do. I don't believe the SCOTUS ruled signing statements unConstitutional, though they may have ruled on a specific statement. I won't swear to that, however, because I'm just not sure.

I don't deny a loser's right for a recount. My point was that the manner in which he did it, choosing specifically Dem areas for a better chance, denying military votes, using the "hanging chad" strategy, was all to overrule the voting laws, procedures and policies of Florida in order to have himself declared the winner. And Scalia was defending what already was certain, that Bush was the legitimate winner of the election. Since then, the constant sour-grapes, pants wetting by Gore and his loser supporters has indeed cast a cloud of suspicion upon the legitimante electoral win of GW Bush. The fact of the matter is, Florida has it's electoral laws, and Gore wished to find a way to make it work for him, rather than the nation.

hashfanatic said...

That whole court needs to be cleaned up, with Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and
Alito shitcanned, and replaced with forward-thinking, solid, progressive thinkers....Souter was absolutely correct when he was disgusted, at the time of Bush v Gore, of how government had infiltrated the court.