Displaying 811 To 840 Of 10,917 Comments Once again, The Onion perfectly sums up the GOPTEA Party: Rumors Of Extramarital Affair End Campaign Of Presidential Candidate Who Didn’t Know China Has Nuclear Weapons » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 3, 2011 @ 2:58 pm Well, who likes “politicans” anyway? Personally, I hate politicains. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 3, 2011 @ 2:56 pm Kes that is a true outrage. Praetorian Guards. And don’t forget what Bloomberg said the other day: “I have my own army.” » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 6:22 pm Wow–it just changed when I refreshed–AWESOME! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 6:11 pm My take exactly, Sue. Mrs. Cain is no Tipper Gore. She seems like a real old-school church lady. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 6:09 pm Good point. When they broke up the OWS camp in L.A., Villaraigosa sent about one two cops for each protester. But he emphasized that there would be no overtime pay and that the cops who were there would have to take time off. But who determines the cost anyway? Frankly, it’s a boondoggle anyway–they said it’ll cost a million or so to replace the lawn and build a fence? Sure, if you have no-bid contracts. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 6:08 pm Sue, I have to believe this is blatantly unconstitutional. It’s probably all bluster. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 6:04 pm How can this be legal?! Scott Walker Wants to Charge Protesters to Protest in State Capitol Now, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, the Walker administration wants to make protesters pay to protest inside the state Capitol, a move that one legal expert calls “put[ting] a price tag on the First Amendment”: Gov. Scott Walker’s administration could hold demonstrators at the Capitol liable for the cost of extra police or cleanup and repairs after protests, under a new policy unveiled Thursday. The rules, which several legal experts said raised serious free speech concerns, seemed likely to add to the controversy that has simmered all year over demonstrations in the state’s seat of government. The policy, which also requires permits for events at the statehouse and other state buildings, took effect Thursday and will be phased in by Dec. 16. Walker administration officials contend the policy simply clarifies existing rules. State law already says public officials may issue permits for the use of state facilities, and applicants “shall be liable to the state…for any expense arising out of any such use and for such sum as the managing authority may charge for such use.” But Edward Fallone, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School, said the possibility of charging demonstrators for police costs might be problematic because some groups might not be able to afford to pay. “I’m a little skeptical about charging people to express their First Amendment opinion,” he said. “You can’t really put a price tag on the First Amendment.” http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/scott-walker-wants-charge-protesters-protest-state-capitol » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 5:51 pm I’d be surprised if she left him. She’s been married to him for 45 years–she knows who he is and she is a beaten down husk. She was probably happy with her role as a quiet housewife and believes her place is in the kitchen. I know women of her age just like that. Any woman who can live with his level of self-importance and ego won’t leave now. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 5:28 pm Sally I think you got it! Seriously, I thought Bush was dumb, but Perry actually makes him look like a deep thinker. Perry is really, really stupid! I am actually shocked at how stupid he is–and how unfairly lucky in life he is. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 5:11 pm funk I had that article up the other day and it didn’t even need to be translated–it was clear what Der Spiegel thought even in German! I thought it was actually hilarious–and true! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 4:55 pm Bito, you know, you are on to something there. Just when we think they can’t sink any lower in the muck, they do. So I seriously wouldn’t be surprised if the final “debate” has them all in a mud wrestling competition. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 1:00 pm KT, she’s a flaming bag of poop with a ribbon. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 12:38 pm “Huntsman Campaign Dumps On Trump Debate: “Lol. We look forward to watching Mitt and Newt suck-up to The Donald with a big bowl of popcorn,” Miller wrote in an email. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2361 And this: » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 12:34 pm Was that second clown Herman Cain? 😉 Ohh–here comes Michelle! (BTW, will The Donald ask the candidates what they will do to utilize his profound intelligence when elected? » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 12:29 pm Bwahahaha! “I am not an unattractive woman.” Ummm. Whatever, dear. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 12:20 pm This is actually astute and kinda brilliant! Jon Stewart explains Mitt and Herman: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-1-2011/indecision-2012—mittstorm?xrs=share_copy » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 11:58 am Bito–I just thought of an even better moderator: Victoria Jackson! 😆
» Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 11:25 am Hi Sally! Yes, I am fine–thank you! I had to leave to finish putting the Daily Planet together yesterday. My son, though, still had no power. But he found that his computer battery worked to light up one light bulb, somehow. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 11:10 am Bito, I just now read that and thought it was a joke. But then the entire Party is a bad joke. I love that he’d moderating–it really puts it all into perspective, and the Indies and the center-Right Repubs must be getting pretty disgusted about now. I hope so anyway. The only person they could get better than Trump to highlight what a disgrace the Repub Party is would be Glenn Beck. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 11:03 am Thanks, funk. I think it was a big mistake on Sanders’ part. He’s on the Purity Train at our expense. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 7:17 pm I still haven’t found an explanation of why the payroll tax vote failed, or why Sanders vioted against it. but it may be procedural. Here’s an idea from the NYT: With Mr. Obama leading the charge in Washington and political swing states, Senate Democrats have put proudly antitax Republicans in the position of opposing a tax cut for more than 160 million mostly middle-class Americans because they object that it includes a tax on about 350,000 people, those with more than $1 million in annual taxable income. For the moment, the legislative outcome will probably be a draw. Democrats are struggling to assemble the 60 votes they need for their bill to reduce the payroll tax for both workers and employers. Nor can Republicans muster that number for their hastily crafted alternative, which calls for a more modest tax cut, paid for by slashing the federal civilian payroll. The maneuvering suggests that the parties will agree to some continued relief before the payroll tax cut expires on Dec. 31. But how much of a tax cut and how — or if — it will be paid for remain to be settled, with some in both parties asserting that the tax break would further weaken the Social Security system’s financing. Politically, however, Democrats believe that they have already won this latest skirmish in Washington’s message wars. And some Republicans acknowledge that they are losing the exchange; party leaders have worked this week to bring the rank-and-file in line behind the tax cut. From Mr. Obama on down, Democrats have concluded from the payroll tax debate that Republicans are vulnerable over their opposition to any new taxes on the wealthy in a way they were not when Democrats proposed the taxes for deficit reduction. So they have reprised an old message — that Democrats fight for the middle class, Republicans for the rich — and are likely to sound it through 2012, in hopes of blunting the headwinds they face as unemployment remains high. So, does that mean the Dems will get a temporary stay on the payroll cut and then keep up the debate and then will bring it up for a vote again, after they make the Repubs squirm? » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 6:53 pm Unbelievable. Did he think it harms SS??? » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 5:46 pm The Dem bill just failed!! Up next is the Repub bastardization of it. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 1, 2011 @ 5:40 pm Hi Sally–totally agree. This is a feeble excuse. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 8, 2011 @ 1:02 pm Em! I’m so sorry it took so long to reply–and so good to see you! (Holiday shopping and I’ve been a bit under the weather with a cold.) I just wanted to add that as far as I now, PBO has said he will veto the Defense Authorization bill that contains these provisions. What really scares me though is how many voted FOR them! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 8, 2011 @ 1:01 pm Hey kes, I read that you’d missed the speech and I figured others did too. What was odd was how long it took to find it posted–it was posted by the news orgs (CBS, ABC) on YouTube twice and both times taken off “by user.” I don’t know what that means but I’m glad I finally found it. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 8, 2011 @ 12:59 pm Nirek, nice to meet you! You captured the spirit of the OWS movement really well. Thank you for your work! » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 8, 2011 @ 12:56 pm Just added: The Osawatomie Speech: » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 7, 2011 @ 8:04 am At worst they could cause a repeat of the 1968 Dem Convention in Chicago. For that I would gladly pepper spray them. But I don;t think so–for one, the OWS movement is still too young and disorganized, and for another many of them are doing more productive stuff. The anarchists will remain (and get most of the coverage), but the bulk of the protesters will move on to more solid pursuits. » Posted By Chernynkaya On December 2, 2011 @ 4:51 pmComments Posted By Chernynkaya
Jon Huntsman campaign spokesman Tim Miller had a rather frank response ready when Business Insider asked if his candidate would participate in the Dec. 27th Newsmax debate moderated by Donald Trump.
“I really think they feel I have a wonderful personality and they like me so much,” says Trump of the GOP candidates. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2356
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 – Mittstorm
Daily Show Full Episodes
Political Humor & Satire Blog
The Daily Show on Facebook
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats