How in the world does Painter have a job in the NFL?
This guy is flat out awful.

The other guy Freeman is not setting the world on fire either, but Painter makes Kitna look like Elway.

Both teams are bad football teams.
Missed field goals, a dumb azz receiver steps out of bounds that eliminates a touchdown, then does a look at me dance...

Defense in both uniforms having a hard time finishing the tackle.



http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Another post by murf calling attention to black qb

T, are you too cool to log in any more?

There's no excuse for Indianapolis to have a stiff for a backup QB.

I was in the process of typing that when Painter threw the 84-yard TD pass. A good chunk of that was in the air.

I guess we'll see if it was just a lucky play.

Hey dich head...Painter is about as White as you can get...
Glad you know what you are talking about...
Loser...
between you and Dacow...I don't know which one is the bigger d-bag.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I had to start laughing, when Painter hit him stride.
Blount looks like a pretty solid back...got knocked on his azz, but he is a beast with good speed.
I wonder how high he would have went if he didn't sucker punch that kid on national tv.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

OUCH...
That was nasty....

Both teams are very bad...
Senseless flags, missed field goals...

I am wondering if the Colts have a MLB...I watched Tampa dump the ball off in the middle of the field about 10 times in the first half and nobody is around the guy.


http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

I thought this was going to be about Hank Williams Jr. and a murf rant on how it was wrong for him to be reprimanded.

I am convinced Tv needs to use the flex schedule and start picking Monday Night game two weeks in advance. This game was horrible and everyone knew it would be going into it.

I am also sure TV execs somewhere are laughing at how they influenced the NFL rulebook for them to get more commercials. They stopped play to review a touchdown and then had a head coach challenge a reviewed play and allowed it.

The new rule where every touchdown is reviewed is just another rule to make the game longer for more television commercials.

Painter is horrible but the entire Colts offense is a joke.



"I will torture him, I will crucify him,...REAL BAd!" - Clubber Lang

Why even waste the time on the Hank stuff?

Liberals and thumpers only cry when their side is silenced.

I don't like it when anyone is silenced.
People need to get over their sad little feelings for a minute.

He didn't say anything negative about anyone.
he made a reference about some dead whack job.
Get over it...



http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Not too good to log in...home computer has virus and still deciding whether to fix or upgrade to ipad....and i dont like to log on from work i have been using my phone to lurk and weigh in.

Murfy...you racist lil shamrock ...you ripped freeman you mental midget..and now you defend hank jr use of comparing our president to hitler...way to show ur colors like a gay pride parade.

...and yes ..i have a virus due to all the porn i download

T

Tired of the racial comments.
If you can't have a normal conversation about football or football players without worrying about the color of their skin, then shut the fuch up and stop responding to threads.

You are nothing but a fuching loser and pathetic liar.

Please show where I said anything negative about Freeman...
If I did say something that you deemed negative about Freeman, get the fuch over it d-bag.

I don't recall Hank calling Obama Hitler...and I don't remember defending him.

And if he did, get the fuch over it.
Do we need to go back in time and post some pictures of the whack jobs wearing t-shirts with Bush portrayed as Hitler?
I didn't think so.

People like you are the reason why they developed birth control










http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

My question is: WHO CARED ENOUGH TO WATCH THE MNF GAME?!?!!?!!?!?

Man--just one bad game to televise nationally. I wonder what the rating of that game was. If it beat the Yankee/Tiger Game, then I'd be real surprised.

The NFL really needs to do something with those Primetime Games. They need to switch those games up if the matchup doesn't meet enough interest. Do a poll or something.

I would bet that under 25% of all NFL Fans cared about that game. Put the Ravens or Patriots Game on during that time.

First time in a long time that I skipped the MNF Game for anything. Not even DVR--nor one iota of interest from me.

I would have rather watched soccer.





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

I watched it...
Turned out to be a decent game between two bad teams...

I think Tampa has a decent thing going and in that division...hard telling what could happen.

I believe football is beating baseball by like 70%...
I am watching the Tigers get spanked right now...very boring.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Wow...not only are you a racist...but you are an angry racist...

NFL made the call on Hank Jr. not ABC. No one was fired. He made his millions and won four Grammies. 20 years is a long run.

NFL is in talks with Madonna about the Super Bowl halftime show come 2012. She has the same dumb comment issues as Hank Jr. No problem there. I wonder why?

I watched the game and it was actually a good one. I don't really have anything else to watch on Monday Nights anyways although if John Stewart and Colbert were new episodes they probably were having a field day with Hank. Considering that I've seen the Colts three times now, this was their best overall performance (they were awful vs. Cleveland, lucky and opportunistic vs Pittsburgh, but almost looked on par with the Bucs). And while I am not a racist Freeman hater, I think that he is a bit overrated right now. He may be the next McNair or Ben, but he surely is not there yet.

USC, I'm not sure what you're implying. The NFL (namely Goodell and most owners) and ABC are both blatantly conservative operations (especially ABC compared at least to CBS and NBC). There is nothing wrong with Republicanism, but the likes of Hank definitely represent the racist and hateful ways of Tea Partyism. I'm glad that the NFL and ABC want no part of that. He should be done. Just bring in Faith Hill and whore her out as the foremost authority on prime time football pregame music!

Not sure how a MNF thread got turned into a political thread. Hank said something stupid about Hitler and the President. I can't really comment on that since I don't know what he said.

As for the Tea Party? I would point out the Tea Party is nothing new. The Republican Party has always been about watching spending and less government programs. What happened is they elected a Republican (George W)who spent through the roof and it pissed them off.

The same anti Bush anger that elected Obama is the same anger that led to the so called Tea Party. The Republicans have been considered racist for the last 50 years. It should be impossible to have a racist group, suddenly become not racist, so you can call the Tea Party racist.

The difference now is Republicans stopped doing what they were elected to do and it pissed off the party and they are calling for accountability.









"I will torture him, I will crucify him,...REAL BAd!" - Clubber Lang

ABC not conservative at all. C'mon dude, maybe you think they are because Disney operates the ABC Family Channel. They promote domestic partner relationships by offerring benefits. Gay couples, yikes! That is definitely not a conservative principle. That's putting your money where your mouth is...
We can discuss how much of the personal life enters into the business world all you want. Corporations are on the side of whoever is in the White House. Make no mistake about it.

Roger Goodell probably is Republican/conservative in the voting booth (son of a US Senator) but it does not translate to the business he is running.

Madonna, put up a bracketed photo of McCain and Hitler during her World Tour in 2008. Yet, it is ok for her to be considered for the Super Bowl halftime show?

Roger Goodell allowed Snoop Dogg to promote NFL Countdown without any interference. Mr. Brodus is a convicted felon and a member of a murderous LA street gang. J-Lo allowed to become an owner with the Dolphins. Lyrics in some of her songs are considered pornographic by conservative groups. Then we have Rush Limbaugh, tried to gain an ownership role in the Rams....denied. He is a divisive bastard if I ever heard one. Why the inconsistency if Goodell is conservative? Wouldn't he want to help his cronie Rush out?

A little consistency please.

Good post USC.

Tea Party = Racism...
Only in the minds of the people that are scared that the Tea Party will have a voice in the next election.
That is the worn trump card for this next election...if have to be racist to not vote for Obama and if you are in anyway connected to the Tea Party, then you must have a hood in your closet.

That is absurd thinking and a chicken sh!t excuse for the failures of this Amdn.
As I have said many times...it does not matter who is in the White House..Congress runs sh!t.
Both parties have failed for many many years.

The Hitler talk is beyond stupid.
As I asked the d-bag earlier...do you want me to show the evidence of the whack jobs portraying Bush as Hitler?

Pointless horse sh!t.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Technically, gay marriage advocacy is truly a conservative principle - Government, get out of my life, bedroom, ect. Anti-gay marriage laws would also be an example of "big government" as well.
Talk to any REAL libertarian or conservative and they should agree. They may disaagree on moral grounds, but not on legal or government involvement grounds.

Its the social conservatives and their never ending hypocrisy that has a problem with it.



"Insert witty quotation here"

The tea party is, by itself, not racists.

It just has a ton of racists that belong to it.

Essentially, its full of lots of old white conservatives (majority) who got embarrassed when the rest of the voting country figured out that the Republican leadership in the last 30 years loved to spend, spend, spend.

These folks freaked out when they were exposed and the more radical looney right ones formed the tea party.

They still rank among the lowest in political factions as to current events and American History. Amusingly, they still like to dress up like colonial americans and carry an Ak-47 with them to parades and kids baseball games.

"Insert witty quotation here"

I would say the people responsible for killing gay marriage are the insurance companies. They don't want to cover more people then they already do. Its not the social conservatives that are holding everything up. The social conservatives or the religious right don't have the numbers to hold it up, which is why so many states have passed it.

The insurance companies would have to cover more dependants if gay marriage became legal. The problem if gay marriage goes through for insurance companies is how many straight men and women are going to claim to be gay to get health insurance?

You laugh but how many single mothers are going to claim to be lesbians so they can get health insurance from a friend to cover their children? The problem would then be proving they aren't, which would be impossible for a health insurance company. What are they going to start videotaping everyone having sex? The insurance companies are scared of gay marriage because of the doors it could potentially open, not because they hate gay people.

I guarantee this is the real reason why gay marriage has not passed because the fear it could bankrupt an already flawed system.



"I will torture him, I will crucify him,...REAL BAd!" - Clubber Lang

This notion that the TEA party is teeming with racists is nothing but a giant lie by the loony left. The TEA party by and large is made up of middle age, middle class conservatives who simply want their country back. They want this current group and anti-capitalist, illogical buttheads out of power. Are they angry? You bet they are. I am too. Are they any angrier than the people blocking Wall Street right now? Heck no. They don't block streets and spit on people, they sit in lawn chairs and hold up signs.

The real racists are those who shout racism at every opportunity without merit or evidence. There are racists across all political spectrums and sorry bronco but that includes the left at least as much as the right. And now two of my all time favorite actors, Samuel L. Jackson and Morgan Freeman want you to believe the TEA party is racist. Despite all evidence to the contrary, with Herman Cain surging in the polls mainly due to TEA party support, they are convinced people are against Obama because of his skin color. Ridiculous. The problem with Obama isn't his race, it's his policies. IMO he's an extremist. He has appointed the most left leaning czars, senior staff and cabinet members in history. His EPA wants to shut down the entire coal industry and is doing everything they can to stall oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. There are countless more examples of this extremism and I won't attempt to bring them all up here. Now I know what he says. I've heard his wonderful speeches ad nauseum. But there's a big difference between what this guy says and what he does. And the American people are finally wising up and realizing this now.

The scariest thing I can think of is a 2nd Obama term when he no longer has to pretend he's a moderate. If you think this first term is a disaster then you ain't seen nothing yet. He's bad for business. PERIOD! Only 8 percent of his appointees have ever even had a private sector job. Every time this President opens his mouth the stock market does a triple lindy. I'm overjoyed there is a TEA party. It gives me hope that maybe America isn't doomed to fall into the socialist trappings that have failed time and again.

Hank jr. poopcanned!

No more Joe Theisman calling games, got rid of Emmitt and now this? ESPN getting it done. Damn he sucked. I hate that song.

USC,

it is almost fact that ABC is the most conservative of the three major networks. Even someone like Bill O'Reilly would tell you that (I have read most of his books BTW and his opinion is clear on this subject). But like it was said NFL made the decision to pull Hank even before ABC got the chance to react so I guess that that point is moot anyways.


Bronco,

a true conservative would believe in almost every word of Ron Paul and kind of go from there. However they never do seem to elect him for whatever reason...

"IMO he's an extremist. He has appointed the most left leaning czars, senior staff and cabinet members in history. His EPA wants to shut down the entire coal industry and is doing everything they can to stall oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico."

I really wanted to avoid this thread, but oh well, here we go...

I actually think he is pretty moderate.

Look at his foreign policy: moderate to hawkish

The debt ceiling impasse: capitulated to Republican demands, was the only one willing to compromise it seemed to me. Moderate stance.

Tax cuts: was willing to extend Bush-era tax cuts. Moderate.

The stimulus: 2/5 was tax cuts. One of the largest tax cuts in history. Moderate.

you can say he appointed this guy or that gal 'til you're blue in the face, but what matters is policy, not whatever you read about some appointment. Ultimately the buck stops with the president, not his appointments.

The most liberal things he has done: ended don't ask, don't tell, instituted universal health-care. Not so sure those were extreme positions. You may not like them, but these were major tenets of his campaign, so he was just doing what he said he would if elected. If you think that is extreme, welcome to "extreme" America. He did what he was elected, by the people, to do. Almost every industrialized nation in the world has universal health-care MORE socialistic then ours. Again, not an extreme position. Ending don't ask don't tell was supported by MOST (not all) of his military advisers. Again, listening to the military on military issues, not extreme. Even the stimulus was a major part of his campaign, so it's not like he ran as a moderate and then suddenly adopted all these extreme positions no one had ever heard about.

Disagreeing with someone does not mean they are an extremist. Perhaps your views are the ones that are extreme? (I don't mean that as a knock on you JB. I like you and I like many extremists that I have met, the ones that are not pro-violence anyway.)

I would be interested to see when the EPA announced they wanted to shut down the coal industry. Obama, going all the way back to his campaign to this day, has always talked about supporting clean coal, and I haven't heard of any proposals from him to shut down the coal industry. I am concerned that maybe you are getting information from less than honest sources. I know you are an intelligent person capable of weighing arguments, so please tell me when he proposed shutting down this industry.

Yes the EPA is probably holding up new oil drilling in the Gulf. But you act like that's because they just hate oil companies, not because of the recent massive environmental disaster in the Gulf from, you guessed it, oil drilling. That spill cost our government billions to clean up and we are still paying. Many people that depend on the Gulf, not for oil but as a food source, did not have a job to go back to after the spill. Yes oil is important, but not quite up there with food. There are legitimate questions that most people want answered before we go drilling for more oil there. Again, I don't think that's an extreme position either.

He is, for the most part, doing what a solid majority of voting Americans elected him to do. By definition, isn't that not extreme? I view extreme as "outside of mainstream," and therefore not someone who would garner a majority in a national election. Extreme does not mean wrong. At one time abolitionists were very extreme. I think most of us would agree that they were morally correct on that issue.

The only argument I see that can be made that Obama is extreme is speculation about what he "would like to do." I prefer to deal with facts, like what he has done, rather than speculation. Frankly, there is no telling what any politician would actually like to do (except Ron Paul, who is undoubtedly more extreme in his proposed policies than Obama). There is what they tell you they want to do to get elected, and then there is how closely they stick to that. The rest is just speculation, propaganda and distortion.



"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Fair enough CIN-C. I appreciate your tenor. Here are a couple links to the Obama administration's proposed clean air standards.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732032/posts

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/08/04/lisa-jackson-is-using-the-epa-to-destroy-the-coal-industry/


A conservative, by definition is someone who prefers to stick to what works instead of changing something just for the sake of change. And my opinions are rooted in traditions and based on a long line of "lessons learned." So the words "conservative" and "extremists" at the very least imply opposite views. And I would mostly agree with you insofar as Obama only doing what he said he would do. But I hold to my belief that what he said he would do is nonetheless extreme. I would also argue that the devil is in the details. It's really easy to get on the soapbox and get people to agree that they need better health care. That kind of generalized statement gets the public's blood flowing but then when you find out how they plan to do it you have to step back and say Whoa, this isn't what I thought he was going to do. And if I recall correctly the biggest selling points Obama used to promote the healthcare bill wasn't for better care, it was for cheaper care and more people having the availability of it. We know now the costs will be considerably higher, not lower. I think comparing our healthcare system to all the European systems just makes my point. Our system is way better both in quality and availability. If your Doctor says you need an MRI you can probably get one tomorrow. But if you live in England or Canada you might have to wait six months. And since its' passage the CBO has consistently disagreed with the Obama administrations assessment of the costs vs. the benefits. So, staying with the current system and tweaking it so that pre-existing conditions must be accommodated and making other common sense improvements is not extremist. It IS extremist imo to create this overreaching new bureaucracy that threatens to become an unmanageable leviathon that sucks up money for more government employees, boards, commissions, ad-hoc panels, study groups, oversight committees, etal.

Now getting back to cap and trade... I can't imagine how anyone can consider that this policy is anything BUT extreme. I think it's an example of big government run amok. Again, I don't believe I'm the extremist here when Obama's own words call for "radical reforms." I believe the people in the south whose lives depend on the ability to exploit the natural resources of the Gulf would disagree with you that the stalling of exploration is needed. And while I'm sure we had some unrecoverable costs incurred for the cleanup, BP paid the lion share of it and most people down there seem happy with the outcome.

Other extremist actions of this administration, while less consequential are nonetheless very telling. From his association with the murderer William Ayers, to his nomination of avowed communists to his inner circle, to the intentional lies he told in his own book, and even to the inclusion of a Mao Tse Tung Christmas tree ornament inside the white house it's not unreasonable to draw certain conclusions as to where his heart lies. I believe these things matter. And again I would argue that his views and actions are the extreme, not mine.

And by the way I like you too. It was my pleasure to meet you at the Mike Brown Futility Awards and
it's enjoyable having a grown up debate about these issues even when neither of us are likely to change our beliefs.

Cap and Trade is a concept drummed up by conservatives. Look it up.

The health care plan that was passed mirrored the plan drummed up by Bob Dole & Company in 1993, look it up.


Extremist? Hardly.

And many middle aged white guys with money are prejudice and racist. My experience in Ohio and Nevada tells me that. Its not a guy with a sign in a lawn chair. Its the small talk in bars and BBQ's.

If I have to listen to one more person call Obama a "socialist", I am going to hurt someone.

Our system of government and business is nothing close to socialism. Not close! We still have millions of millionaires and billionaires and people making tons of money. Go to a place where the government ACTUALLY OWNS ALL BUSINESS and then talk to me. People need to quit F*cking exagerrating and lying on this issue. Its factually inaccurate.

"Insert witty quotation here"

Bottom line..

Both sides represent........FAILURE.

Don't care about God
Don't care about the rich
Don't care about the poor
Don't care about the homosexuals
Don't care about abortion
Don't care about saving the planet

I care about working and providing for my family and the only group on this planet preventing hundreds of thousands of people from working are the ignorant sons of b!tches that worry about all of the pointless sh!t listed above.

The rich will be fine.
The poor live better than most middle class americans
The homosexuals will still have a normal life with or without Insr.
The homosexuals are just as equal to be killed fighting a pointless war in Afghanistan as the straight guy.

When God appears...then we can talk about him as a relevant topic in politics.
Until then, who gives a sh!t what fictional character you talk to on a daily basis.


Less government = easier life.
Leave my guns alone
Leave my family alone
Leave me alone.
I will gladly pay my taxes for the services needed, but I am no longer willing to provide a free and easy life for free loaders while I continue to make sacrifices.

BTW--
The only reason why the Tea Party is called racist, is b/c that is how the left operates.
Degrade and devalue anyone or any group that is not following the cult.

The group is not racist...until you can provide real evidence that the group or even the majority of the people in that group are racist, then it is wrong to call them racist.

Just b/c someone is old, white and rich, does not make them racist.


http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

I have friends that are tea party members out here in Nevada. Pretty involved as well.

They both are two of the most racist people I know. LOL

They dont carry signs saying "I hate N*GGERS", but they do it in the quiet way - at bars and at BBQ's, when they think other people wont care as much (their comfort zone).



"Insert witty quotation here"

Wow, where is SF2 in this conversation? A month or so ago, he whined about political statements being posted that weren't posted....in fact which he pulled out of his arse. Now, in the midst of a Bungle season, there is a genuine political discourse going. Where's the phony outrage now?

That being said, here's one more supplemental to Bronco's summary that disputes the "extremist" Obama initiatives. And it regards taxes.

That has been one of the most phony, factless and victim-embracing screams from the Fox News Zombies. If Obama had his way on his original proposals, a family with a taxable (note, I didn't say gross) income of $300k, it would have had its federal taxes increased slightly less than $2,000 (or 3.5% of the taxable portion above $250k).

That amounts to a tax increase of less than 0.7% on the taxable portion of their income. If they've got only standard deductions (don't file Form A) their gross income is probably close to $320k. That makes their "massive, extreme" tax hike total out very close to 0.6% on the gross.

Frankly, given how historically low all our federal taxes actually are, especially in time of war, I think Obama should have called for more extreme measure. What he did call for were only extreme in their passiveness.

I won't blame slashed tax rates on the rich for reversing the massive increase in employment that occurred in the 1990s (after Clinto increased taxes a tad bit). But in refenence to JB's comment about assessing historical precedents, there were a lot more people being hired when the rich were paying a tad more. Not acknowledging such facts is simply to ignore history.

...but here is a little something to lighten the mood

"And by the way I like you too. It was my pleasure to meet you at the Mike Brown Futility Awards and
it's enjoyable having a grown up debate about these issues even when neither of us are likely to change our beliefs."

Right back at ya' buddy

But be careful, associating with people like me might want day warrant someone tabbing you with the "extremist" label, lol


"BTW--
The only reason why the Tea Party is called racist, is b/c that is how the left operates.
Degrade and devalue anyone or any group that is not following the cult."

It's not "how the left operates," unfortunately it's how everyone seems to operate. That is one of the big problems with the political discourse today. To the left, all Tea partiers are racist. But to the right, all leftists are socialist. It's a total distraction that does not help our country move on to solving the very real and serious problems we face.

The way I look at it is this: Some tea partiers are probably racists. Some leftists probably are socialists. What good does it do to paint the whole group with that one broad stroke? I prefer to point out that the racist ones are racist, and we should all hold them accountable. Socialists are socialists, and we should all debate them about the relative merits of different forms of government and the drawbacks/benefits. Just because members of one group (racists, socialist) gravitate toward another larger, more influential group (tea partiers, democrats) doesn't mean they represent the whole group or even a sizable percentage of the group. Democrats AND tea partiers have some legit concerns imo. Much more useful for everyone if we deal with those, than to dismiss their concerns because their most extreme members have unpalatable views.

@Bo: LMAO!

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

I saw a statistic that says 40 percent of Americans don't pay taxes. If this is true close to 50 percent of Americans are living off the other 50 percent. I'll let you decide if thats fair.

My experience is the bigger the tax refund the bigger the drain on the American society. I worked with a dude that was married, had three kids, and got a 6,000 dollar refund. He didn't use it to help his family, he bought a set of $4,000 dollar rims.

We could argue what about the kids all day, the harsh reality is people are being rewarded for being crappy parents to kids they shouldn't have. I understand people fall on hard times but until people are held responsible for their life decisions it doesn't matter because that section of the population is outnumered by lowlifes.

I do believe you should be drug tested after a said amount of time and if you can't pass, you don't get jack.

These are the people that continue to claim financial difficulties because it pays too. I'm all for helping out people that deserve it but the fact is the kids aren't seeing any of the money they are supposed too. In alot of cases the parents spend the money on drugs or alcohol.

Its a sad reality, but one that is not being addressed.

"I will torture him, I will crucify him,...REAL BAd!" - Clubber Lang

WTF happened to this train wreck of a thread? Something called MNF includes gay muslims that want a purple rain jihad?!?!?!!?!?!?

Christ. Where's Prince when you need 'em?

As for the last MNF--if you guys watched that trash--then you are willing to watch the California Mountain Lions or the Arena League.

That's called I just had 20 beers and I'm at a Meat Market Club going 300-lb'ed Hoggin' Das Desperado.

WHO WANTS TO BE MY WINGMAN?????

Come'on Murf--you know you wanna be my Goose. LOL!!!!!!





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Bo that's hilarious!

Here's another one I always liked.

Cinci--
I agree with everything that you just said.

Bo..great pic, and I agree with everything you just said.

I might sound like I am all for the right...there is nothing further from the truth.
I don't believe that all Democrats are whack job liberals.
I don't believe that all whack job liberals are even that extreme.
I don't believe that the leadership like Dingbat, represents the majority of the whack job liberals.

The only problem is that the media controls the ignorant.
Both sides are criminal.
Both sides lie, cheat and steal.
Neither side gives a rats azz about you or your family.
Neither side has an answer on how to fix the cluster fuch they created.

Both sides attack and slander the other side.

I have said this in the past and I want to bring it up again b/c the ads are going to start flying soon.
Count up the amount of money these weasels use to get elected.
In the millions in each district...how many districts are in the United States?

If they took all of that money and used it on the citizens that are in real need...we can solve a sh!t load of issues.


http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Lesbians against Bush!!! LOL that's frikken hilarious! Does that qualify as an oxymoron?

"I saw a statistic that says 40 percent of Americans don't pay taxes. If this is true close to 50 percent of Americans are living off the other 50 percent. I'll let you decide if thats fair."

I will say this: I am probably among that 40 percent.

I am a college graduate, as is my wife. I have worked since I was 15, paid my own way through college while working full time, have never collected unemployment or even applied for it, even managed to find two jobs to work at once when my wife was pregnant and finishing her degree up in the worst economy of my lifetime (and several generations from what I understand). I quit going to school to find those jobs and it did take a couple months where it was pretty scary, it wasn't easy, and we had to go to the food bank a couple times.

I am currently employed, found work right out of college even though I am in a difficult field to find work in. I work very hard at what I do to provide for my family and only make $29,000 a year but do get benefits, fortunately. My wife is currently applying for graduate school. Taxes are taken out of my check just like everyone else, but by the time we file in April we probably "don't pay any taxes," although of course we pay sales taxes and other taxes, like everyone else.

I don't mind someone suggesting I should pay more as a matter of fairness, if that is their opinion, but I do resent being told I am "living off the other 50 percent." I certainly don't mind working hard and have never looked for or asked for a handout. Maybe that applies to some of those 40 percent but I am a living example that it is certainly not true of all of them.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Barry Sanders tweeted that he is indeed replacing Williams as the intro. Weird selection, IMO.

It better be good to replace something that has played for 20 years.

On second thought, the intro is when I'm getting a beer.





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Also Whit I believe a large portion of those 40% are elderly living off social security and their pension plans. I don't think they are "living off of" others either, they already paid income taxes their whole life.

Are you familiar with a book called "how to lie with statistics"?

Without context statistics can be misleading or even distorted rather easily.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Speaking of statistics, Obama's buzz words these days are that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. Well there's a blanket statement we can all agree with. But my question is, what is their fair share? I've seen the statistics that say the top 2% of taxpayers pay 56% of the taxes and the bottom 42% pay no income taxes at all. But here's another one I've seen. Even if the federal government took tripled what the wealthy pay it would barely even make a dent in our national debt.

So the question is simple. What is their fair share? And how do you define who is wealthy. Well, Obama says anyone who makes more than $250k per household per year is wealthy. That amount is certainly way more than me and my cruise director rake in, but to thousands of small business owners that's not all that unusual. Indeed, Obama is getting a backlash on that figure from his own party right now. Sen. Schumer from New York has lots of friends and donors who make way more than that and are heavily protesting that amount. Schumer wants the wealthy to be adjusted for regionalism now. Good grief does this never end?

So who can tell me how much if their fair share and who should be forking it over?

JB, I've got to admit I'm a little intrigued by the statistics you referred to, especially the one about tripling taxes on the wealthiest Americans would not make a dent in the federal debt.

Whose statistics are you quoting?

By merely suggesting the richest Americans pay an extra 3.5% of their taxable (not gross) income over $250k, Obama's camp is claiming that would reduce the debt by 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2093763,00.html

Again, what's remarkable to me, is that his proposal is so tame by past historical precedents. Taxes were higher for most all of us, including the richest among us, during many boom times since WWII.

No one is suggesting the richest Americans have their tax rates tripled. His proposals would result in less than a 1% tax hike on a family making $300k.

We've got two wars that have to be paid for. We've got a military budget that, rightly or wrongly, is the largest by far of any country on this planet. This stuff has to be paid for.

All the posturing from Fox Fanatics aside, discretionary spending on non defense items could be cut 20%, and that would have no significant impact on our country's debt.

The US is simply a non discretionary insurance company (social security, medicare and medicaid) and a military organization. All other non-discretanary spending is paltry and insignifacant as a percent of the total.

I have a touch of respect (if not agreement) with the few republican leaders who want to address discretionary spending. But they buckle quickly when the elderly (including conservative elderly) get a load of their suggestions.

So increased revenues are going to have to be part of the budget solution.

This country roared with vitality in the 1990s when the rich paid a tad more. It's not an extreme measure to suggest that they pay a tad more once again.

I've never heard or read of one conservative who disputes Obama's claim of the $1.5 tillion in revenues recoverable by his tax proposal. So, again, I'm puzzled by whoever it is that says extreme taxation on the rich would have no impact.

Who are these people and whose arse were their statistics pulled out of?

As a percentage of GDP, you're just not able to get tax revenues above 19% Maybe barely, once in a great while.

TaxProf Blog points to a Wall Street Journal piece by W.
Kurt Hauser showing a hard fact that has yet to sink in on most
budget-balancers: Since World War II, federal revenue as a
percentage of GDP hasn't budged much from a bit shy of 19 percent.
Regardless of tax rates and what have you, that's the amount the
feds have been able to collect.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o

And I expect that, if Obama gets the rich to pay a tad bit more, that graph's slope will hardly change. And that makes the point....it's hardly an extreme notion to push that overal taxation rate up about a half of one percent.

But it's not going to do much good, either.

Well, I go back to the figure that Obama projects and his political opponents do not dispute: $1.5trillion in revenue over 10 years. That's a pretty sizeable dent to put in the budget and debt deficit.

Going back the "what's fair" argument, that is certainly a philosophical one, which is great.

The connection between political and moral philosophy is certainly not one that our founding fathers shied away from and something we should all engage in rather then relying on someone else's opinion.

To me, "rich" is making more than most of your peers. Median incomes by state can be found here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index.html

It varies quite a bit from state to state, from $36,000 to $64,000.

So to me, being rich would be making more than 2/3 or maybe 3/4 of your peers, your city, state, nation, whatever.

I suggested $100,000 a year income was rich when we had this debate during the campaign, and pretty much everyone on the board scoffed. If you are making six figures almost anywhere in the country, you seem to be doing pretty damn good to me based on the median incomes of your neighbors.

Sure, you wouldn't be able to buy EVERYTHING you want. To me, being rich does not = so much money greed is eliminated form the equation. That is setting the bar awfully high, especially for a species that has created new bounds for greed.

I'd say being in the top 75% of your state, which is probably the top 1 or 2 percent living standard in the world, is pretty rich.

I look at my own income and my family and I are able to live a happy life and make due with far less. I know New York City is way more expensive to live in than other places, but no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to live anywhere in particular. If you are making $250,000 a year one would think you'd be able to live a pretty good life even if it means -- gasp! -- living in new Jersey and commuting to NYC!

That is what I consider rich anyway. As far as what's "fair" in terms of their tax burden? That's a difficult question and I don't really know to be honest. I don't want anyone to be taxed oppressively or have to pay more so others can continue to make bad decisions with their life. At the same time I don't view a progressive tax schedule as particularly unjust and it seems to have worked in this country for quite a long time. It's not like all the rich people have just up and left because of it, we still have many of the richest people on the planet proud to call themselves Americans.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

If you don't stop spending, no amount of taxation is going to do anything.

Congress loves this sh!t.
Keep all sides bickering at each other, while they continue to play.

The greatest scheme on earth.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Hank Jr sucks balls. I could give a damn about his politics. He is a bumblin idiot that has been ridin his daddy's coattails for his entire life and that "All My Rowdy Friends" spot for MNF was seriously one of the most annoying things I have ever heard in my life.

He wants to cry about his freedom of speech being infringed? I say, thanks for the resulting freedom of consequences so that my ears may suffer no more. He's a big boy. He'll be just fine.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who hated that opening theme. All My Rowdy Friends should have been retired after a couple of years rather than a couple of decades. MNF is worse than Disney in thinking everything they do is an instant, timeless classic.

The Michaels-Dierdorf-Gifford trio annoyed viewers for a decade, too. They were so bad, they're the reason why the broadcasts are delayed by two seconds. You know, so people can't listen to the radio instead.

"MNF is worse than Disney in thinking everything they do is an instant, timeless classic."


Disney owns ESPN--which owns the rights to MNF's telecast. Good point, Psycho!!!!!





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Hook, I don't remember where I heard the statement about how what effect taking all the wealth from billionaires would have. Probably television but I've heard it more than once. I did a little research and found some interesting facts, to wit:

There are 403 billionaires in the U.S.
There are 13,487 $10 millionaires.

A distinction has to be made between wealth and income. Most of these billionaires, although they control about 35% of the wealth don't earn anywhere near that amount per year. Wealth is the value of all your properties and liquid holdings that can be readily converted to cash. Whereas income is the cash we earn per year FROM those holdings.

I'm not opposed to raising the rate for the super rich as long as we don't get stupidly punitive about it. But with a national debt of about 14.4 trillion and counting, the math doesn't indicate real benefits. We have to cut spending.

Another related subject here is how do you slice up the pie. In past years we could talk about this as being an American pie (no pun intended), but we now have to talk about it in worldwide terms due to the number of former third world countries who have become exporters and gained a bigger slice of the pie. Back in the 1980's when Jack Kemp talked about this he had two statements that made lots of sense at that time. First he said instead of fighting for a bigger slice of the pie that we should just bake a bigger pie. Second he coined the phrase, "a rising tide raises all ships."

But now we are neck deep in a global economy. Now we have to compete for whatever pie we can get. And everyone likes competition until they're the ones that have to compete. Now we've got young people occupying Wall Street and other places protesting capitalism itself. It seems to me these people are little more than a bunch of spoiled brats angry that they have to buy domestic chablis as they walk around with their Ipads. They want someone else to pay off their student loans because they can't start off at the top of their pay scale. The greed is certainly not just from the wealthy. So, increase the income tax on the super rich but I can't believe it's going to result in a significant reduction in the national debt. America currently has the largest corporate tax rate in the world. Is it any wonder corporations are moving to other countries? And now the Obama admin. won't let Boeing build a new factory in S. Carolina because of labor unions protestations. They can't build where they want to in America but there's nothing stopping them from building in China or India or Mexico. There's something wrong with this picture.

But it's refreshing to hear a Liberal say we have to pay for our wars, etc. It seems to me that most of them have a cavalier attitude toward debt. So hopefully if we can all agree that this debt will soon be unmanageable (if it isn't already) then maybe we can get past this debate and begin the bigger and more important debate of spending cuts and downsizing the federal government.

Its sort of nonsenical to assume the rest of the world would stay at a 3rd world pace as time progresses.

I analogize it to the idiots that think we can keep the status quo of nations who own nukes. Technology advances, countries progress. Do you really think we can keep that technology all to our selves into perpituity???? Kinda arrogant, no?

"Insert witty quotation here"

I agree 100% that we have to pay down the debt to strengthen our place in the global economy for exactly the same reasons you just spelled out JB. We are in a global economy, like it or not, and our currency is currently positioned to drive markets. We should retain some autonomy over the value of our currency, rather than selling it all to someone else, like China, which happens to be an undemocratic, totalitarian nation, for a short influx of cash.

The Simpson-Bowles commssion recommended 3 parts cuts in spending, 1 part tax increases from what I understand.

I believe that is the rate that Obama began negotiations with, and the Republicans said they would not accept any tax increases whatsoever.

Both sides caved on the total amount that was recommended be cut as they scrambled to save face while pandering to their base and in the process our credit rating was downgraded.

It seemed to me the Republicans were putting their ideology above what was good for the American people by refusing to negotiate.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

"Now we've got young people occupying Wall Street and other places protesting capitalism itself. It seems to me these people are little more than a bunch of spoiled brats angry that they have to buy domestic chablis as they walk around with their Ipads. They want someone else to pay off their student loans because they can't start off at the top of their pay scale."

I thought that was the case too but I had to cover an "Occupy Staunton" protest today and the thing that surprised me was there was only one 20-something there and they were with their dad who was 56.

It was actually a bunch of middle-aged and old people, worried about entitlement cuts and pissed about the bailouts.

Here in the Shenandoah Valley at least, this "Occupy Wall Street" thing is really just a bunch of retired teachers and middle-aged white guys. Kind of weird huh? I'll post the link to my story when it comes out if your curious.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

As far as MNF?

Well, this game is even worse than last week's. Sloppiest first quarter I think I've ever seen. At one point the Bears had a 17 play drive going, and there was 7 penalties in the drive, lol. I don't think they converted a 3rd down yet by making a play, but had like 3 converted for them by Lions penalties.

Hence, the long posts

Hopefully it picks up.

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

"But it's refreshing to hear a Liberal say we have to pay for our wars,"- murf2.0

Yes I remember in 2003 the liberals hit the street saying "ENOUGH OF AFGHANISTAN, LET'S INVADE IRAQ. AND WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, JUST PUT IT ON THE NATIONAL CREDIT CARD!!. Then the poor little soft spoken conservatives would say "but at least let us raise taxes a little to help pay for it, not to mention the cost of lives"
Liberals "NO"


Hahaqhahahahahahaha Ideologues with short term memory loss at its finest. I'm not going to defend this administration because it has been a disappointment, but to call the pres. an extremist is completely ridiculous.

I, for one, would love to see your story, Cin-C.

That's consistent with what I've read about the protesters (nation-wide), in that they're a pretty diverse group.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/08/reasoncom-on-occupy-wall-stree

I'd like to read it too CIN-C. I had deduced you were in the writer business just from picking up bits and pieces of dialogue here and there.

Who do you write for? And I would make a bet there a couple of authors in this place.

Would I be mistaken?





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

"I'm not opposed to raising the rate for the super rich as long as we don't get stupidly punitive about it. But with a national debt of about 14.4 trillion and counting, the math doesn't indicate real benefits. We have to cut spending."~JB

What's curious to me, JB, is that I was musing the the irony of the righties who claim that Obama is some sort of extremist. You have pretty much quoted the Obama fiscal perspective, and I don't believe you would proclaim yourself as some sort of socialistic extremist.

The tax increase portion of Obama's fiscal outline on the wealthiest Americans is very modest and well below historical highs from other periods, including some other booming economic periods. The tax decrease portions of Obama's fiscal outlines on working class Americans are largely ignored.

He's hardly a socialistic extremist. He's more of an Eisenhower Republican.

And much like the Eisenhower model, Obama is committed to try and stimulate the economy with investments. Eisenhower was rightly credited with infrastructure investments that fit the definition of stimulus spending, even though that term probably wasn't coined in the 1950s. We're still reaping financial benefits from those investments.

I don't believe for an instant that an Eisenhower would be welcome on the stage of the current Tea Party crazed GOP.

I remember a very conservative high school teacher who complained that FDR was given credit for bringing the USA out of its 1930s depression with government spending programs, because it was actually wartime spending that brought the USA out of the depression.

And then he frothed in rage when he couldn't answer a classmate's question about who was placing the orders for the US military machine.

So you and Obama are right. There needs to be some revenue cutting and there needs to be some very modest tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. But there's another aspect to our fiscal health. There needs to be some investments in our economy to spur economic growth.

Simply feeding more and more money to the wealthiest Americans hasn't worked. The emperical evidence is in on that score. Unemployment was up to 11.5% before Obama got the first, very modest, investment program implemented in a decade.

I hope Obama goes Eisenhower big on the next one.

I guess if I googled it, maybe I could find one of these prominent liberals that you proclaim exist, or existed, who you indicated said that deficits don't matter. But I don't know of one right off the top of my head.

In recent history, though, Dick Cheney proclaimed that deficits didn't matter when asked why there were no fiscal adjustements made to pay for two wars. That was a peculiarly extreme fiscal perspective, just like exposing CIA operatives was a peculiarly extreme and treasonous perspective.

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20111011/NEWS01/110110326/Protest-Staunton-style?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage%20DontMiss

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Hook, you make some good points. I remember when Dick Cheney made that statement about deficits. Within the last few weeks he has claimed those remarks were taken out of context and that other explanatory statements made as part of that same response weren't even reported. If that's true then it's just another example of hack job journalism.

And my understanding is that the person who outed Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, not Dick Cheney.

My statement about the Liberals cavalier attitude toward deficits are based on solid history. It's evident today even moreso. With one huge bailout having already failed the Libs in Congress are planning yet another. And who knows how many will follow. By calling this an investment I think we do disservice to the word. The cavalier attitude comes into play by slinging taxpayer money all over the place without regard to which investments show promise in favor of who donated to the presidents campaign. This Solyndra scandal is a prime example. What the government needs to do is get out of the way. The private sector will chase down the promising investments by themselves without the government deciding who the winners and losers are. If you have a huge international company that wants to build a big manufacturing plant with high end jobs you should encourage it, not try to stop it. Yet that's exactly what the Obama admin. is doing to Boeing. And we shouldn't forget that there is significant opposition to the presidents job bill coming from the presidents own party too. To me the answer is simple. If I can't pay my monthly bills the worst thing I should do is go out and get another loan.

The Republicans idea of green jobs is to give tax incentives to the technologies that show promise and have good results. The best and most innovative companies therefor will be the winners, not the ones who donated to the presidents campaign. Let's not forget that President Eisenhower didn't have a 14.4 trillion dollar debt with suffocating social and entitlement programs to pay for.

Liberals are in bed with the Green freaks.

the Green Freaks are part of the problem...

We can't continue this path of absurd regulations on manufacturing and building.
It simply is not going to work.
Companies can make products cheaper without all of the strict regulations in other countries.

I do have a typical media hypocrisy complaint.

When Bush was president, we heard HALIBURTON in the media more than Mike Vick on ESPN.
Dingbat has a much juicer little problem that is being ignored...
Do your own research azz bags...solar panels and family members.
not to mention the fact that Holder should be facing charges and questions on a daily basis.

Amazing how modern media insults the simple minded.

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

The convicted felon (although I don't believe the only guilty party) was not Dick Armitage. It was Scooter Libbey, Cheney's Chief of Staff, who lied to federal investigators who were assigned to unravel the treason.

Regardless, the debacle with the energy company was unfortunate. But JB, that's not even an on-scale rebuttal to stimulus projects in general. The DOE loaned Solyndra 535 million dollars. A lot of that money flowed into our economy and generated some tax revenue. But let's just assume that none of the loan was repaid (I don't know if that is or isn't the case) and every dollar went down a rat hole.

That Solyndra investment accounted for 0.07% of the last Stimulus Plan ($788 billion). It contrasted with the tax cut portion of the plan at just 0.19% ($288 billion). And of the portion of the last stimulus package that went into job creation in the form of grants, loans and contracts, the Solyndra debacle likewise accounted for 0.19% of $275 billion budget. It also goes without saying that Solyndra was competing against Chinese companies who are subsidized to a much higher extent by their government.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulus.htm


If that's the biggest waste Obama critics can find, they better hope their constituents are extremely math challenged. I absolutely appreciate your thoughtful and civil tone, and that you're not inventing quotes in some sort of spastic fit, which has occurred from other posters. But JB, some of your cohorts fit that math-challenged description.

It does frustrate me that democrats do a terrible job of selling their wares. I don't expect them to do an endzone celebration, but unemployment was skyrocketing as the Bush years came to a close and stood at a whopping 11.5% before the last stimulus was enacted. Dropping the unemployment rate by over 2% doesn't paint a picture of a failed plan.

Our infrastructure is crumbling around us. That's the number one priority for the new round of stimulus spending. If we play checkers instead of chess, it's going to cost us a lot more down the road if we don't tackle such projects now. And Obama's newest proposal is paid for....if we agree as a society to enact those very modest tax increases on the most affluent among us.

History shows that stimulus spending can work. History shows that our economy has thrived with tax rates much, much higher on all of us than Obama is proposing.

And that just refocuses my original impulse to join this thread. The "extremist" labels regarding an Eisenhower Republican like Obama are ridiculous.

Good luck with the masses understanding the fundamental differences between Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Ronnie Raygun, Bush I and Bush II.

Seriously, they believe what Cunningham and Hannity spoon feed them on a day to day basis.

Why is it that Fox News watchers score consistently lower in Current Events tests and American History tests?



"Insert witty quotation here"

Good stuff, Cin-C. Thanks for that. Staunton, Virginia, huh? I'll have to update the MBS Out-of-Towners thread, assuming that you don't mind.

The one common thread for the Occupy Wall Street protestors really does seem to be their anger for the too-big-to-fail bailouts. That, and only that.

BTW, as I looked through the Newsleader website, I noticed the "Shakespeare Leader" page:

http://topics.newsleader.com/shakespeare/

Cool!

Don't mind a bit Psycho.

I agree that anger over the bailouts seems like the ONLY common thread. I think what loosely galvanized the movement may have been the insistence that we can't have ANY tax increases to help pay our way out of this mess, especially with the debt ceiling "negotiations." They feel like we bailed them out when they were in trouble, and now ordinary American people are in trouble and they won't give anything to help us out.

It's kind of interesting. The Tea party seemed equally angry about the bailouts, but galvanized over the stimulus spending and, to a lesser degree at first, Obamacare.

What I see is two groups that ARE pissed about the deficit and what they see as irresponsible fiscal policy on the part of government, but one side is angry at the government for giving away all our money and the other side is angry at big corporations for asking for all the money and then taking it.

Too bad we can't all agree that it's the corruption BETWEEN the two that is to blame. Perhaps the two can unwittingly work together to hold government AND corporations more accountable, by each focusing on their respective red herrings. That is if the crazies in both groups don't drown out the message of and marginalize the whole.

The bailouts were such a huge debacle, I get mad again thinking about it. $700 billion to buy bad assets, with no accountability?!!? Really unbelievable. With Bush leading the closed-door, white-house meeting that Obama and McCain both attended right before they rushed it through Congress in a matter of hours. Does no one in our government have any judgment or sense? Are they really so afraid of screwing up/in over their heads that they just do whatever "the markets" ask without questioning it? Anyway...

Yes, we have a Shakespeare theatre here that is supposed to be top notch. I've heard great things from a lot of people. If you like bluegrass and/or Shakepseare and/or hiking, hunting or fishing (Shenandoah National Park on one side of me, the 1-million-acre George Washington National Forest on the other), then this is an incredible place! Certainly is beautiful. Let me know if you are ever in the Valley...

"We do do, and we do it at a very, very high level," Lewis said.

Wow, where is SF2 in this conversation? ~ Trooperhook

Pretty sure SF2 does not do political threads during football season. A good policy.

USC, it was a tongue in cheek comment. SF2 not only joined made frothing political comments in a football thread a month or so ago, but in his zeal he embellished and fabricated points much like a common political poster.

All hail Trooper....
He is the only person that has all of the poltical answers...just ask him.

LOL!

You are such a d-bag

http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

Murf, you rose to the level of an irrelevent moron once again. Factless, frothing rage. You can't debate like an adult so you pout like a punk.

I guess on the bright side for you, you've been sort of subdued with your attempts at analysis lately. Even a retarded moron like you must have finally got his fill at being called out and exposed as a liar and a victim-wannabe ignoramus....again and again and again.

Your recent silence suggests that you might have finally figured out the adults have been laughing at you. I don't blame you for your embarrassed retreat.

Staunton, VA, eh? Anytime I stay there overnight it is Mrs. Rowe's Restaurant for breakfast!

Definitely a convenient place to stop/sleep when traveling from the Carolinas to Ohio.

I ends up in Murf vs.

Usually Murf vs. Trooper

Usually something political

Usually something that has to do with racism.

Trooper, you can tell you've never been busted for "racial profiling".

I guess everybody in your neighborhood that you patrol is one color? LOL



Well, I haven't been in a pissing contest lately. I guess it's high time. haha!





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

Cin-C:

What I see is two groups that ARE pissed about the deficit and what they see as irresponsible fiscal policy on the part of government, but one side is angry at the government for giving away all our money and the other side is angry at big corporations for asking for all the money and then taking it.

That captures it nicely, I'd say. It's crony capitalism. It's mercantilism. It's corporate welfare. It's meddling government run amok. Everyone across the political spectrum should hate it.

Too bad we can't all agree that it's the corruption BETWEEN the two that is to blame. Perhaps the two can unwittingly work together to hold government AND corporations more accountable, by each focusing on their respective red herrings. That is if the crazies in both groups don't drown out the message of and marginalize the whole.

I personally don't see how this gets fixed without structural changes to government, like a balanced budget amendment. But that's another debate.

BTW, given the proximity of your local theater company, it might be better to say, "each focusing on their respective Rhenish wine and pickled herrings." I definitely let you know if I'm ever out that way.

JB, I hope you don't mind that I jumped in here. This side-topic to this sprawling thread is interesting.

Rage?
I have no rage.
LMAO..

There is no reason to debate a d-bag like you.
It is like trying to convince Olberman that he is not God.

Did you buy yourself some flowers today?


The typical liberal tactic

THE "ISM" CARD
THE "phobia Card"
THE "BLAME BUSH CARD"
THE "LIAR CARD"
Then when all else fails, just call anyone that is not in the cult, an uneducated Fox News zombie that will never understand the intelligent lefty whack jobs.



http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/