The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[BH]

The Senator Al Franken nightmare continues...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors

Sure, but where was Senator Smalley when Obama was raping our children in those federally funded ACORN brothels?

I think we can all agree with spearNmagicHelmet.

" spearNmagicHelmet says:

republicans are pretty when it comes to rape. they did a really good job of this country.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
"

[R-V]

The Senator Al Franken nightmare continues...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors

Sure, but where was Senator Smalley when Obama was raping our children in those federally funded ACORN brothels?

I think we can all agree with spearNmagicHelmet.

" spearNmagicHelmet says:

republicans are pretty when it comes to rape. they did a really good job of this country.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
"

Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?

Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?

Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.

[PenFoe]

Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?

Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?

Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.

I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.

[R-V]

Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?

Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?

Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.

I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.

Chuck was being sarcastic. I guess those who voted against it just couldn't bear the thought of explaining to the teabaggers how on God's green earth they voted for an amendment proposed by a commiemedian.

[PenFoe]

Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?

Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?

Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.

I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.

Chuck was being sarcastic. I guess those who voted against it just couldn't bear the thought of explaining to the teabaggers how on God's green earth they voted for an amendment proposed by a commiemedian.

Fine, serves me right for coming in here anyway.
I'll just go back to buying up condemned houses in Detroit and painting them red, white and blue.

[BH]

Serious question. Why would somebody vote against that amendment? Am I missing something?

Why would you want to infringe on a private enterprise's ability to generate profit?

Another reason to vote against it: A Democrat proposed it.

I don't get all political, so maybe I'm missing the point or the green font, but if a private enterprise wants a piece of government funding, it seems pretty reasonable to ask them to give their employees the right to due process.

Chuck was being sarcastic. I guess those who voted against it just couldn't bear the thought of explaining to the teabaggers how on God's green earth they voted for an amendment proposed by a commiemedian.

Fine, serves me right for coming in here anyway.
I'll just go back to buying up condemned houses in Detroit and painting them red, white and blue.

That joke is PLAYED OUT.

[R-V]

What Nate Silver said.

Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action.

But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.

Now, if you could have a Jay Rockefeller-style, Medicare-for-Anyone type public option with no strings attached, would that be a superior alternative? Of course. But that amendment was rejected 8-15 by the Finance Committee and has very little chance of becoming law. Some sort of compromise is almost certainly going to be necessary. This is almost certainly the best compromise that has been floated so far.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Alan Grayson is back, and the man speaks the language of our time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ery7RZ4tZ2Y

Moneyshot comes at the end.

America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of healthcare reform and one party that's against it, and they know why. They understand that, if Barack Obama was somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation. They understand that, if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry. In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch they will try and ban bacon. But that's not what America wants.

[Quality Start Machine]

Let's see how this plays out...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/12/poll-reid-faltering-in-re-election-bid/

[CubFaninHydePark]

What Nate Silver said.

It's interesting that Silver would mention the behavior economics stuff--this idea has Cass Sunstein's fingerprints all over it.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn one day that he's the architect of this compromise within the administration/Obama's inner-circle of advisers. 

[Philberto]

This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445

[CBStew]

This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445

I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.

[R-V]

This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445

I think that Limbaugh believes that owning a NFL franchise will enhance his ability to obtain painkillers.

I hope that racist tub of foaces dies of taint cancer as soon as possible, but I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to buy an NFL franchise in the meantime.

[Quality Start Machine]

This might have been addressed by now and you can direct me as to where it has been, but what do you pinkos think of this: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4553445

Good thing he doesn't want to buy a hockey team, since he'd only want right wingers - am I right?