mox

And no one has commented on the content of the links in my thread just above, no man.

Sssssssssi man.

(and howdy back at you!)

What's the deal with that squirrel that just broke a branch on my tree? Acting like he owns the gorram place. Sheesh.

Just had an affair with my biographer, lost my job because of it, and now the whole country knows about it. FML.

Getting coffee...does this cream smell ok to you?

That would be too exciting also.

[quote name=' timestamp='1352821245' post='5819300]

I am eating a wrap with egg whites, spinach and low fat cheese. It's good.

This is way too exciting, and I consider it OT.

I don't mean to brag, but I filled up my tank with gas this morning. Paid outside with a credit card. Did not have to even interact with a live person. Also availed myself of their free mud-water to clean my windows.

Worst justification for a tax increase EVAR.

Oh well guess I need to elevate my position with the GOP, Lord knows they need talking points.

No, you just need to learn to stay on topic.

It has evolved into a discussion of "parties defending or not giving the boot to members"

So I made the case quite nicely... and I can give more examples if you want?

No it hasn't. Or at least it hadn't at the time I made my comment. In any case, I wasn't asking you to defend the GOP, I was just stating my opinion.

Shall we pull up the time line on how long it took for the Dems.... ANY dems to say to Rep. Weiner "You should step down"?

This thread isn't about Rep. Wiener.

Dude everyone including Rush and Ann Coulter dissed the guy.

Give the names of his defenders.

I'm not saying anyone defended him, other than a few extremists like Rep Steve King. I'm saying there should have been a hue and cry from the party, complete and unqualified condemnation. There was not. Yes, there were some key players who condemned it, notably and to his credit, Mitt Romney. But most of the party have been silent. Very notably, John Boehner who could instantly remove Akin from the (I kid you not) Science and Technology Committee, but has not.

I don't know I just read it somewhere--- http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/number_1/2005/04/jeff_foxworthy.html

Huh. No accounting for taste I suppose.

Why do so many posters in here don't have Google on their PC.

Because I really can't bring myself to care enough about Jeff Foxworthy to Google him. In fact, I've already surpassed my allotment of caring about Jeff Foxworthy for the next couple decades in just a single thread.

I don't thing the largest selling comedian of all times, could be described as mediocre or that he had only fifteen minutes of fame.

"Mediocre" is my opinion, not factual. I found his routine fresh and funny years ago. It hasn't changed one bit, he's now stale and boring. I'm interested in knowing what defines "largest selling comedian of all time" though.

Akin's position may not be the "official" position, but neither was there all-out condemnation of his remarks. Some Republicans did come forward, and good on them. Most did not.

And it's entirely possible that by the end of next week, a complete ban on abortions, even in cases of rape, will be the official GOP platform. It's just a short hop from there to Akin's stand on the issue.

I'm sure there's a "...you might be a redneck" joke in here somewhere. Maybe it starts out like, "If you're a medeocre stand-up whose fifteen minutes of fame peaked at least ten years ago..."

American Bible Challenge. Heh. Whaddya wanna bet the best players are gonna be atheists?

I was glad to see a few of the more prominent members of the GOP come forward and condemn the remarks. I was disheartened to see that the VAST majority of the GOP kept silent. I think that speaks volumes about today's GOP. Sure wish Republicans would take back their party.

Repulsive as this may be, the answer to the post's title is no. Nothing can make Akins look good. Because somebody else is a creep doesn't make Akins any less reprehensible.

Right The laziness of the American Consul is one of those nasty rumours that just will not die.

They're all lazy no-good desk-warmers until you're approved. Then they're the best friend you've ever had.

Ford stock:

Current price: 9.62

52 week high 13.05

52 week low 8.82

Over the last year, Ford has lost about 27% of their value. Not exactly 39%, but pretty significant.

I wouldn't put too much stock into this article. GM, like the rest of the economy, is struggling. Headed towards bankruptcy? Every company whose stock is down is "headed towards bankruptcy." Woodhill's been a huge critic of the bailout for a long time, so of course he's going to see what he wants to see. He picks one example with the Malibu, says the 2013 model isn't as good as the 2012 model, but can only support this because it doesn't beat a couple other cars in gas mileage, and its drivetrain isn't the latest and greatest. Consumer Reports (which gave the 2013 Malibu a favorable rating, although rightly dinged them on fuel economy) says this about the drive train:

While this powertrain isn't as efficient as the full hybrid system in the Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion, the Malibu Eco doesn't cost as much as those cars either.

Would have been nice if Woodhill mentioned that. Woodhill is basically saying the Malibu sucks because it's not some other car he likes. And even if he's right about the Malibu, one car does not determine an entire company's fortunes, especially not one the size of GM.

GM does have an image problem, but then the whole US automobile segment has been struggling with an image problem for years. And they very well could wind up in bankruptcy again, but it won't because Woodhill wishes it. This is nothing more than a shot in the dark, so that if he happens to be right, he can point back to this article and call himself prescient.

Bidins gaffs are not what concerns me it is some of the very odd positions he has taken in the past..... and how utterly wrong he was.

Biden's gaffes don't concern me either. The press likes to make gaffes into big stories because they don't know how to do, you know, actual journalism anymore.

I don't know why he'd concern you, other than his actual political persuasion. As far as Democrats go, he's pretty centrist. If you're right-leaning, it could be a lot worse than Biden.

Not gonna happen. Biden may be prone to the occasional (okay...more than occasional) gaffe, but people like him. He is much more of an asset to the ticket than Hillary would be, and even if there was some reason Obama wanted him gone, or Biden wanted out, it's way too late in the campaign to pull a stunt that has tons of risk and almost no benefits. Even in the remote chance there's a plan in the works to oust Biden, it won't happen until after the election.

Interesting. I'm not so sure I believe it's as simple as that. Certainly it might be reassuring that they've already passed EU background checks, but I'd be surprised if there was an attitude of "well ok, put this one through a less rigid background check, they're probably good to go."

I'm guessing that having a Schengen in your passport is the equivalent of having a little extra evidence with you at the K1 interview. It's just one more thing in your favor, but you still have to meet the requirements.

I'm completely confounded as to why Ryan gets credit for being some kind of budget guru. Radical slashing in discretionary spending, a Medicare overhaul that doesn't really in until 2050, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Meanwhile, Romney has said he will actually increase the military's budget by $2.1 trillion.

I'm not a big fan of how Obama's managed the economy, but every economist worth their salt has agreed that the only way to fix the deficit is, in addition to cutting spending, increasing revenue. Ryan's plan doesn't do that, and Romney's going to more than offset any savings anyway by adding $2.1T to the military.