^ Meh. Really. I don’t see anything to get worked up about.
Hehe Probably.
Texas says hey, you can come down here and perform if you want.
Interestingly enough, my job is looking at transferring me to missouri or texas. I’m kind of leaning more towards texas. Doesn’t seem like texas has any problem giving these types of people the middle finger.
Hehe, I thought this was kind of funny. Tells me how much of a robot these anchors are.
TV Reporter Identifies Pilots Of Plane Crash With Fake Racist Names | ThinkProgress
Well, whatta ya know. Ole “Hanoi Jane” Fonda is back from the crypt!
Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan in ‘The Butler’ Rankles Vets; Protests Underway
This time she’s playing Nancy Reagan in ‘The Butler’, which incidentally portrays the Reagans as racists.
Not surprisingly, this has a lot of Vietnam Vets upset that the woman who used to go around call them all murders should get to portray someone as honorable as Ms. Reagan.
Self-absorbed and narcissistic as ever, Jane was recently quoted as telling the Vets to “get a life”.
Hey Obama – I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you stop picking on Ed Snowden and arrest this treasonous woman instead!
…I see the movie did beat ‘Kick Ass 2’ at the box office over the weekend. That was some fierce competition. This could be the next ‘Schindler’s List’ (not)
This is crap. Apparently, illegal immigrants can sneak into any country, [I]claim “refugee status” because of some alleged persecution which they fear[/I] — and, according to the U.N., that country is obligated to roll out the red carpet for them.
Currently in Australia — U.N. castigates Australia for treatment of 46 refugees | Reuters
And in the U.S. — Asylum-seekers overwhelm the border | Human Events
Australia and the U.S. should both tell the U.N. where to stick it. And there’s a fair chance that Australia will do just that. But, here in the U.S., you can forget it. As long as we’re stuck with Obama and Holder — the Fast and Furious Twins — our southern border will remain the greatest threat to our national security.
:42:
[QUOTE=“Clint;521581”]This is crap. Apparently, illegal immigrants can sneak into any country, claim “refugee status” because of some alleged persecution which they fear — and, according to the U.N., that country is obligated to roll out the red carpet for them.
Currently in Australia — U.N. castigates Australia for treatment of 46 refugees | Reuters
And in the U.S. — Asylum-seekers overwhelm the border | Human Events
Australia and the U.S. should both tell the U.N. where to stick it. And there’s a fair chance that Australia will do just that. But, here in the U.S., you can forget it. As long as we’re stuck with Obama and Holder — the Fast and Furious Twins — our southern border will remain the greatest threat to our national security.
:42:[/QUOTE]
The border will never be secured, immigration laws will never be enforced, amnesty will eventually be handed out… Why? Because all of the illegals have babies… LOTS of them… These become citizens at birth, and one day they turn 18… Do you know what happens then? They can vote! Now we have millions of Mexican babies who are American voters who will be pressuring politicians (who only care about winning votes and keeping there jobs) to “fix” immigration laws… That means eventually amnesty is given. There is absolutely zero chance that this process can be reversed.
— Poll —
Edit: Go ahead and vote, but ignore the advertising that comes up after you vote.
After I saw the ad, I tried to delete this post — but, for some reason, Babypips won’t allow me to do it.
screw Jane Fonda she is not fit to play Nancy Reagen and screw Oprah Winfrey. First she cries racist about the clerk in Sweden than she gives away a car. All just promoting a movie that was directed by a bigot!
I’ll give The Butler a pass
President Obama:
We need to talk about Syria.
Are you really planning to start another war? This time with Syria?
You need to re-think this thing, Mr. President, before you make a huge mistake.
Your war record is dismal. In Afghanistan, you forfeited victory in favor of a strategy of cut-and-run, leaving behind a political and military disaster, the dimensions of which are just now becoming apparent.
In Libya, you instigated a war which you claimed to be “leading from behind”, which degenerated into a CIA arms-smuggling operation. And, when “the chickens came home to roost” in Benghazi, and terrorists were beating, raping, torturing and killing Americans in our Consulate there, you couldn’t deal with it — so, you bailed out of the Situation Room and hid, until it was over.
And, now, you want to start a war with Syria?
Does it come as a surprise to you that two-thirds of the American people have no confidence in your threatened involvement in Syria? Does it come as a surprise to you that no nation with any military credibility will join you in a coalition to start a war with Syria?
You are suffering from a self-inflicted wound. By threatening to punish the Syrian regime, should they dare to use chemical weapons, you painted yourself into a corner. Now, you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.
If you start a war with Syria, simply to make good on your threat and avoid looking weak, you will be labeled as a trigger-happy warmonger. Do you really want to risk igniting a regional conflict in that part of the world? Do you really want to risk starting World War III?
On the other hand, if you back away from your threat, and withhold military action against Syria, you will lose what’s left of your credibility as a world leader. Your threats, your ultimatums, and your demands will all be seen as empty bluster.
You never should have threatened action against Syria, without knowing in advance that the American people endorse your threat, and without knowing in advance that America’s important allies will join you in the war you are threatening to start. It was not smart to make that threat without support at home and abroad to back it up. To paraphrase one of your own statements: The president did a stupid thing.
Next, Mr. President, we need to talk about The Constitution of the United States. You may have heard of it.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says, in part: “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
The Congress. Not the president. Not the United Nations. Not a coalition of our friends. The Congress.
And Congress has refused to authorize your intended war with Syria.
If you order the U.S. military to start a war with Syria, without a Declaration of War from Congress, no doubt the military will obey your order and start that war, because it is not the proper role of the U.S. military to question the constitutionality of the president’s orders. But, such a war will be patently unconstitutional, and by ordering it, you will be guilty of an impeachable offense.
If you start a war with Syria, without a Declaration of War from Congress, I, for one, will demand that the U.S. House of Representatives impeach you for High Crimes and Misdemeanors; and I, for one, will demand that the U.S. Senate try you, convict you, and remove you from office.
Eighty percent of the American people demand that you obtain authorization from Congress, before embarking on your reckless military mis-adventure in Syria. If you proceed without authorization from Congress, eighty percent — or more — of the American people will demand that you be held criminally responsible for your actions.
Proceed with great caution, Mr. President. The stability of the Middle East, the credibility of the United States, and the remainder of your term as president depend on whether you decide to start this war with Syria.
Well said Clint. 
Thanks, Kymberly.
Obama is getting the message —
“President Barack Obama reassured an uneasy nation on Saturday that any attack on Syria will be limited in scope and will only come after a debate of the people’s representatives in both houses of Congress.”
Obama: Military Response Warranted in Syria
:42:
Kymberly took the words right out of my mouth. Well said Clint
Conservative talk-show hosts — Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham — speak out against Obama’s planned attack on Syria. In the minority, Hugh Hewitt says Obama should have launched an attack on Syria, but blew the chance.
Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin Join Rush in Opposing Attack
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough admits that there is no allied support for Obama’s planned attack on Syria.
WH Chief of Staff: Keep Chemical Weapons Off Front Lines
Opposing point of view: Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, says that Syria should be hit, as punishment for using chemical weapons on its own people. But, he says, Obama has totally mismanaged this situation, and has failed to act decisively or to make the case for attacking Syria.
Rep. Rogers: Obama’s Plan on Syria ‘Confusing Mess’
Meanwhile, Spin-Meister Obama will go on national television Tuesday evening to work the political angles of this debacle for all they’re worth. Advice to Obama —
:42:
Awesome! Thanks for sharing those links. Definitely a huge help with everything that’s going on in Syria and the U.S. What do you think could come out from all of this though?
So Mike Rogers said as punishment for using chemical weapons on their own people we should attack them? They kill their people and as punishment we go over there and do the same. That doesn’t make any sense
I’m totally cynical regarding the Obama Regime, and almost everything they do. I don’t trust Obama, or any of the people who work for him.
I don’t expect statesmanship to prevail in this situation. And I don’t expect the rule of law, particularly constitutional law, to prevail, either. Instead, I expect hardball politics to determine the outcome.
Obama has a public relations disaster on his hands — a disaster of his own making. He drew a “red line” on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad Regime, implying that, if Assad used those weapons, the U.S. would take some sort of action against him.
But Obama didn’t want to commit himself to an irreversible position, so the threat he issued was pathetically weak: He said that if the Assad Regime crossed his “red line”, then it would force him to “revise his calculus” on Syria.
Assad must have been laughing out loud.
Imagine a tin-horn dictator like Assad disrespecting the Great and Powerful Obama in that way! When a man with an ego as big as Obama’s gets laughed at, he becomes a dangerous man, indeed.
And now, a huge majority of the American people, and a substantial majority of Congress, are disrespecting Obama, as well, simply by telling him “no”. You don’t tell Obama “no”. Such insolence will not go unpunished.
Obama will do [I]whatever he can do[/I], to get his way. Whatever he does, going forward, will not be done for the good of the United States, or for the good of the Middle East, or for the good of humanity. It will be done for the political gain of Barack Obama.
If he can buy, cajole, or coerce support from the Congress and the American people, he will do that. If he can’t get the support of a majority, he might just do what he wants to do anyway, and dare the Congress to stop him.
So, what will he say in his televised propaganda on Tuesday evening? No doubt, he will try to blend a tough-guy Commander-in-Chief persona with some lofty-sounding stuff about international norms against the use of chemical weapons.
In its raw form, it might just come down to this:
"I’m going to show you some heart-wrenching pictures of dead children in Syria.
"And, then, I’m sure that you will give me the go-ahead to launch air strikes against the evil Assad.
“But, keep in mind, I can start this war without you. I don’t need your permission. It would just be nice.”
Good one Cyco! :18: