Just a Little Humor for Your Weekend
| After the last few weeks of political battles, I thought it was time for a couple of pics designed to make you laugh. The first one is a little subtle. I can understand the anger towards Harry Reid, and I've even commented on it in past blogs, but even Reid haters should be able to laugh at this sign that was prominently in south east Las Vegas in the days before the election. An educated electorate is a good thing. And then a good friend sent this over to me, appropriately titled... "Adam and Eve in the Garden of Islam"  Have a great weekend... Labels: Adam and Eve, Harry Reid, humor, Islam, Sharron Angle |
posted by Dave Miller at 10:10 AM
Comments on "Just a Little Humor for Your Weekend"
-
BB-Idaho said ... (1:05 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (2:09 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (2:50 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (12:05 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (9:26 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (9:40 AM) :
-
Tim said ... (4:21 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (6:44 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:00 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (10:31 PM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (4:32 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (5:41 AM) :
-
BB-Idaho said ... (11:10 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (11:35 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (3:00 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (3:35 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (4:22 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (6:33 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (6:35 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (12:48 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (9:43 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (7:50 PM) :
-
Lista said ... (8:51 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (11:14 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (12:45 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (10:37 AM) :
-
Lista said ... (1:35 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (7:27 PM) :
post a commentThought I heard that 'chicken voting for.."
humor before. Sure enough,
the statement is almost as
old as the original
Colonel!
My favorite BB is the 4 years line, not understanding that a Senate term is for 6 years...
I missed the 4 year part.
Can I claim she wouldn't last 6 years because she was cleaning her AK-47 and looked into the barrel...or
shall I confess to being a poor proofreader? Either way ya got me! :)
Sharron Angle didn't Win, though, did she? Unbelievable, and here in California we are Still Stuck with Jerry Brown and Boxer. I so Wanted to be Rid of them. Jerry Brown has been our Governor before and he Taxed and Regulated and Drove Jobs out of California. I can't believe that the People Voted him in again. I just don't get it.
And as for Boxer, well, don't get me Started.
Well, maybe with more Republicans over all in the House, Perhaps the Democrats will be Forced to Work with us.
Lista I think we will have two years of complete gridlock. I have 2 suggestions for Obama.
1) Fire Geithner.
2) Extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years.
Obviously the election is a message that people are not happy with his economic policies. Much like Bush fired Rumsfeld and revamped his Iraq strategy, Obama should revamp his economy policies if he want to be re-elected.
Well, if Gridlock Slows Down the Things that Obama is Currently doing at a Much Higher Speed than what is Good for our Country than it will be a Good Thing.
Did I Mention that Obama seems to Think that the Reason why the People are all Upset and Voting for Republicans is because he Thinks that he didn't Enact his Programs Fast Enough. Could he Possibly be more Far Off than that? I'm shaking my Head.
I personally am glad for the auto bailout, and healthcare reform. I voted straight Democratic on Tuesday. My only gripe is the economic recovery is taking too long. If there is gridlock for two years it will have been worth it to get what we have already gotten with the healthcare law and financial regulations. Gridlock will only hurt the Republicans.
History has Shown that the Economy Gets Better when Republicans have Control of Congress. People Credit or Blame the Presidents that are in Office at the Time, yet it is Really and Congress that Usually Makes the Decisions that Make the Real Difference in the Economy.
If I am not mistaken, the economy was pretty darn good under President Clinton, and the budget balanced too.
It is not as simple as some think on this, but as for the deficit, it could not be clearer.
It goes down when Dems are in office and up when the GOP controls 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Hi Dave,
I Checked this again really Quick Before Bed and I Only have a Quick Minute to say that Republicans Explain the Clinton Era Differently than Democrats. Democrats Point Out that Clinton was the President and Republicans Point Out that the Republicans had Control Over the Congress. I don't know what to Make of this and I don't Know who to Believe.
Yet what I do Notice is that you are Focused on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or the Presidency, which is Exactly what I said Democrats are Focused on. Republicans are more Focused on the Behavior of Congress and which Party has Control of that and Unfortunately, they come to Different Conclusions and have Facts to Back them up.
It's just Like Obama has the Presidency Right Now, yet the People Voted in a Way that Gave the Republicans Control over the House. Now you just Watch. Some Good Things are Going to Happen due to Decisions Made in the House and Obama and the Democrats are Once again going to get the Credit for it.
If you Truly are Balanced and Intellectually Honest, you will see that there is another Side to this Story.
"If you Truly are Balanced and Intellectually Honest, you will see that there is another Side to this Story."
There seem to be any number of sides about tax
breaks, trickle down and the economy. Let's look at the factual side ...
BB, that's why I like graphs. They are quick and visual.
Here's another interesting article that while not absolving the Dems, is pretty hard on the GOP.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html
But is is not from what one might call, the usual sources. It is from David Stockman, former Reagan Budget Director.
It should also be noted that before President Bush the Elder took office as VP, he was very upfront in calling the Reagan financial plan "Voodoo" economics saying it would lead to massive deficits.
Again B, returning to facts, any honest broker in politics now needs to tell me why the GOP is so intent on extending the Bush Tax cuts for those making more than 250K a year, but remain totally silent on the package of Obama tax cuts that were part of the stimulus that are also set to expire.
It seems financial purity for tax cuts and tax reduction for Americans comes only if the person proposing it has an R after the name.
I suppose it is a faulty analogy, but every time I hear 'tax cut' juxtaposed with 'reducing the deficit', I think of a landlord. He is sinking into debt...so he LOWERS
the rent?
I am still waiting for someone to explain to how decreasing revenue raises revenue.
We've yet to see this really work, as Stockman points out.
But you can bet BB, we will hear lots of people advocating for it pretty soon.
Come on, now. I Really do Need to Hear from some Republicans, cause I Know there are some out there that are Smarter than me. It Looks Like there are Two Links that I will Need to Look at, but what I Really Need is a Similar Link Posted by a Republican.
Dave,
Reagan's Financial Plan did not, however, Lead to the Deficits that Bush Predicted, now did it?
That's a good Point about the Obama Tax Cuts, though.
The Cutting of Taxes does not Necessarily Decrease Revenue, Dave, for when the Economy is Stimulated and the GDP goes up, the Revenue Goes up, Even if the Percentage is Less. It Does Work. Reagan Proved it.
Yes BB,
That is a Faulty Analogy because Renters do not Hirer People and Stimulate the Economy.
Dave and BB,
I'll tell you what's Odd. I Consider what I just said about Tax Cuts and Revenue very Basic and yet I Know that Both of you are Quite Intelligent, so I'm quite Confused by the thought that you don't already Understand what I have Said.
What I Need is for a Republican to Explain their Version of the History, so that I can see what the Actual Difference is in the Interpretation of it.
Guess again Lista, it did not happen under Reagan. This is what the GOP never admits, even though the budget director under reagan has said as much, and even though the graph linked by BB clearly shows it.
Lista you are not going to find a republican to explain it, because the evidence does not support it.
With history as fact, we can show that since 1972, we have seen an increase when the GOP has the White House, and a decrease when the Dems hold the White House.
Now, some GOP'ers will claim that Bush I set the stage for the Clinton revival. But what they will not is that Bush I pushed through a tax increase, in spite of his "no new taxes pledge." So we could glean from that, that if they want to give Bush I credit for reducing the deficit during the Clinton Admin., they need to acknowledge that it was done with a tax increase, something the GOP in not a fan of.
By "It", I guess you mean the Deficit. There are also Other Things to Consider, such as Unemployment Rates, GDP, Average Income Levels, Inflation, etc.
"With history as fact, we can show that since 1972, we have seen an increase when the GOP has the White House, and a decrease when the Dems hold the White House."
Once again, you have Focused on the White House and the Presidency and have Not Settled the Question of Who had Control Over the House and Senate. Certainly you are not going to Deny that there are Times in Which the Congress does Stuff, for which the President Gets the Blame or Credit for.
The president always has the power of the veto. For instance there is no way deficit would have grown so far under the Bush Admin and the most recent GOP Congress [2000 - 2006] had GW exercised restraint and vetoed the spending bills sent to him.
Conversely, let's remember that in 1992, a Democratic Congress passed a budget laden with tax increases that the GOP said, and this is fact ad on record, would kill the economy, because we were in a recession. That budget was passed without a single GOP vote.
What was the result.
Lista, we can debate and talk about theories all we want, but the record does not support the GOP claim that we can lower the budget by simply cutting taxes without addressing the spending side.
We can also look at the 1980 Congress, again controlled by the GOP with a GOP president. Result? Lower taxes, higher deficit.
How else can we interpret these happenings?
As for who gets the blame, or credit, yes, it is a mixed bag, depending on the issues.
These three examples though, leave little else to consider as the same party was controlling all levers of power.
I guess i should add that as of election day, the budget deficit that President Obama inherited, had shrunk, again, under a Democratic Congress and with a Dem in the White House.
Pretty interesting verifiable facts aren't they?
Have you read Stockman's article yet?
Lista, I'd love to hear from some GOP supporters who can discuss this stuff rationally without resorting to name calling.
DMarks is about as close as I get here on that front.
He's always a gentleman and generally is a little more conservative than I am.
I think Sometimes that Presidents Give in to Stuff that they otherwise wouldn't because of the Continuous Gridlock. Also, a good Part of Republican Related Deficit is Related to War.
"the record does not support the GOP claim that we can lower the budget by simply cutting taxes, without addressing the spending side."
I Never Said that, Dave. It just so Happens that Limited Spending is also a Republican Idea. They have a Tendency to not Only Cut Taxes, but also Reorganize and Limit Government Programs, that's Government Spending.
I'm not Talking about Theories, either. I'm Talking about the way Republicans Report the History.
Remember, also, Bush is a RINO that a Lot of Republicans are not too Happy with.
All I Know, Dave, is that I am not a History Expert and yet Democrats and Republicans are Telling me different Things. I just Asked my Husband about the Deficit going down and he Said that he will show me Tomorrow, Right on the Internet, how that just isn't so.
"I'd love to hear from some GOP supporters who can discuss this stuff rationally without resorting to name calling."
Amen to that! Hey, DMarks, are you Out there? I Desperately Need your Help. And don't Assume I Know Stuff. Go right ahead and Give me a History Lesson.
Lista, I'd love to see where your husband thinks the GOP passed and got signed a budget that limited the size of government.
But that is all past stuff, and as is the case with much of it, open to interpretation.
The GOP now controls the House. Let's see the 100 billion in cuts Boehner and the rest of his team have been talking about.
If you noticed yesterday, none of the GOP winners would name even one program they are targeting for cutback.
Even Congressional earmarks, a key thing the GOP grass roots, Tea party, and even me want to see cut, have been spared the budget ax.
So we'll wait and see what concrete ideas they have.
I suspect we will hear how whatever they are proposing will wipe out the deficit, but of course that will not happen.
Every Budget Limits something, Dave. It Limits what can be Spent and therefore, Limits Government.
I'm in the Process of Trying to Get my Husband involved both in this Discussion and also one of the Other Ones that I'm Currently Involved in, so stay Tuned.
And Yes, we will "wait and see what concrete ideas they have."
The Budget is so High Right Now, that there isn't anybody in Either Party that is going to be Able to Wipe it Out.
You Know, I Got Thinking about this Comment, Dave, and then Realized to what Extent Republicans are not Succeeding at Communicating with Democrats. Don't you see? High Taxes Result in Larger Government, for when there is More Money to Spend, Government is Increased. Low Taxes Result in Smaller Government, because this Situation Forces the Government to Cut Unnecessary Programs, thus Reducing the Size of Government.
So you see, this does not so much have to do with Budget as it has to do with how much Money the Government has and How much of the Money Remains in the Private Sector.
Hubby is Tired Tonight. I'll Involve him in this Tomorrow.
The belief that high taxes does not necessarily result in larger government.
There is no reason larger numbers cannot be served with the same amount of government. If they are efficient.
But I wonder about this. Does the GOP have a problem with big government, or do they have a problem with government that seems to reward "lazy folks."
Or to put it another way, how many GOP people, in their belief that "Big Government" is always inefficient and wasteful, are calling for cutbacks in Medicare, Social Security, and Defense?
Obama is getting killed right now by the GOP for even proposing cutbacks in Medicare. Why is that?
Obama gets killed when he, or his Republican Sec. Def call for defense cutbacks.
Why is that?
Aren't these also attempts to limit the size of government? Of course they are, just not the particular cuts the GOP wants to see.
All of this is politics and until both sides make a decision to get past that part of the discussion and work together on mutually beneficial compromises, something the Tea Party adamantly opposes, we will not see any meaningful change or reform coming out of DC.
Republicans Want more of the Money to Remain in the Public Sector. If you would Like, we can Forget the Words "Large" and "Small". The Point is, if the Government has most of the Money, then the Private Sector doesn't. There are X Amount of Dollars in this Country and if the Government has most of it, then the Private Sector will have Less of it. It's Simple Math, Dave.
Some Republicans Think that all Poor People are Lazy. This is One of the Ideas that is Imbalanced and Extreme. Yet Some of them are Lazy, so we Need to Watch for that and not Fall on the Government Assistance Side of the Issue to Excessively either, for that is Imbalanced as well.
I Agree with you about Compromise, Dave. When things get out of Balance, though, it is the Extremists that Make the Noise. Then in Response to this Noise, the Moderates are the Ones who Get Things Done.
So much can be saved by cutting overpay. We are at a point where we have government workers raking in millionaire salaries, and the number increases.
In Michigan, the top legislative Democrat proposed a minor change in the state pension system which would have erased the state's budget deficit. It's that easy.
1) Ignore the unions, and pay a fair wage to those workers instead of the high amounts that have nothing to do with the value of work. In other words, put public service, not enriching employees, first.
2) Make a cutoff of $99,000 for any government worker salary.
3) Dissolve all government-worker pension programs. Let the workers manage the money themselves: there are major investment opportunities everywhere. There's no reason for the government to be in this business. Do this with consideration to pay existing pensioniers something fair.
Austerity will go a long way to solve these budget problems, as long as it is on the backs of those who have made out like bandits performing public "service" instead of on the backs of the needy, indigent, etc.
"All of this is politics and until both sides make a decision to get past that part of the discussion and work together on mutually beneficial compromises, something the Tea Party adamantly opposes"
Do you have specific examples of beneficial compromises, which
Very Good, Dmarks, I Agree with you.
I Admit that my Husband and I do Attend Tea Party Meetings. I Find them Quite Informative and have Never been that Good at Finding Out the Information that I Need on my Own. This is Mostly because I am a Slow Reader and am not Really all that Good at Web Searching.
My Blogging Buddies have been Quite Informative, yet the Tea Party helps me to Find the Correct Questions to Ask in Order to Learn the Opinions of Moderates and Democrats in Order to Form a more Balanced Perspective.
dmarks,
One money saver we could look at is gov't pensions.
I am ok with someone retiring at even 100% of their annual salary, but not a percentage of their wages which have typically been inflated with gobs of overtime.
I know in Cal that alone would save a ton of $$$...