>> The BP disaster is terrible and Obama visited the scene (we got that on our news), but I don't think the man can do a lot there. If footage would show up where he was cleaning animals, you'd call it a cheap publicity stunt anyway..<<

He could have mobilized US assets. As it was, only the Coast Guard did anything for a number of days. If BP can make a faulty "dome" structure, one can expect the US military capable of significantly more. Obama claimed to have been involved from day 1, but this was a complete lie.

>>The man cant win.  Too many are banking on his failure.  Was it Rush Limbaugh that said he hoped obama failed and ran the country into the ground?  i dont remember.  It was some republican(jealous).<<

Pointing out that he claimed to be involved from the start but was, in fact, not is not banking on his failure. It's reporting inaction AND a lie. I would rather he not have been slow to respond and that he had not lied about it. Rush Limbaugh stated that he hoped Obama failed in his attempts to socialize America. And you just told us that you listen to bullshit lunatic news sources and don't know your facts.

>>At least Bush had another 4 years before that to screw things up and earn his reputation. The other four he spent on screwing thing up even worse and destroy his succesor's reputation.<<

What is your fascination with Bush? Can't you talk about why Obama is being negligent and lying about it? It has nothing to do with Bush.

I do not agree that it was a joke. If it was intended as a joke, there would presumably be some conventions common to humor among all of that crap... but there aren't. It's bitterness with the "form" of a joke, extending to the "if you..." structure and no further, which does not constitute it actually being a joke. It's the obvious ramblings of ignorant idiots. And anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.

"They are meant for lulz."

Wanna commit to which ones you thought were real "lulz" material? Come on, embarrass yourself!

Billy Connolly is funny. The initial post is not.

It's just weird having you attack me for attempting to justify a system when I agree with you on those specific points so far as you've stated them specifically. I'm not proving your point when I'm agreeing with you. I merely objected to you debasing legitimate political discourse as part of the problem in your broad, vague statements.

For instance, "Clearly put, if you arguing one side or another,..." is a vague statement (it was followed by no additional qualifiers, only insults).

If your point is that the system is broken and everyone participating in it is full of shit, we're in agreement. But that doesn't somehow make capitalist-socialist, left-right (insofar as it's focused and specific) discourse unproductive. It is important that people be clear about where they stand on these spectrums. Which no Republicans nor Democrats are because they're both members of the "more power for me" party.

Well if you're going to keep making vague generalities, please do explain who designed this system you make reference to. You're obviously not referring to the founding of the USA and its founding documents.

I'm "proving" your point in making clear statements in agreement with your vague generalities? Then you reference my supposed "attempts" to "justify" such a system, which I just agreed with you was a dysfunctional and destructive... Ooookay then.

You're again throwing insults as if you've made any concise statements whatsoever. You, again, sound drunk. Weird.

Their lies are generally not technically true. Most often they're phrased in a such a way that the speaker can claim they're just too stupid to know how to speak the truth correctly. Sometimes they're just technically wrong, but it's become accepted to let it slide as long as it seems like they were just trying to be really sleazy and misleading, because to call them on it would involve a discussion of basic language skills, which neither the politicians nor the general populace understand enough to understand.

Jokes are supposed to be funny. Nobody reads that and thinks it's witty, clever, or humorous.

>>...You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and
appointed a President.<<

They stopped a targeted recount of hand-picked districts which were known to have disproportionately high rates of support for one candidate over the other. You incorrectly describe a "legal" recount which the Supreme Court found to be illegal. Get your facts straight.

>>...You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.<<

You call informing someone that they will not be seriously nor permanently harmed then subjecting them to considerable discomfort to be "torture," though you do not highlight how this differs from the "torture" of other peoples, which entails dismemberment and mutilation, generally followed by beheading. Is that not a noteworthy difference in definition?

Aren't you embarrassed to parade your ignorance in front of everyone? Virtually every point in your post is as ignorant. Do you think it discredits Republicans that someone who disagrees with them is so clueless and untrustworthy? Thanks for the laugh.

[]

[]

Any number of historical examples are further backing of his point that they're racist in passing "laws that benefit one race, and only members of that race frequently."

Miss that little point, did you?

That is to say, they are drafting, supporting, and passing racist legislation to this day. They have appointed and confirmed a racist Supreme Court Justice. (Possibly 2, soon.)