Hehhehe....we could make a website of it! Lolbama.com!
Though yeah, I'm personally pretty jazzed that he was able to get the nomination over Hillary. Not that she would make a terrible president, but I seriously don't want anyone so pro-censorship and anti-video games in the highest office.
ah ok >.>
sorta only got the gist of that, so rnd. sex while married?
yeah...i was 3 back then >.> but around that time i did see that Dr. Who that involved the spaceship w/ the ooze that ate ppl, kinda like that "Monsterblood"
"They gave the song a broader appeal by making the lyrics accessible to both male and female listeners, which is done by including male and female genitalia in the abbreviation "OPP"."
so yunics(sp?) can't hear this b/c their genitalia are on a different frequency? o.O
Speaking of Obama, FUCK HILLARY CLINTON FUCKING FUCK FUCK.
I need mediation between me and her.
I am about thisfuckingangry about that bitch oh my god.
There are some great women in history. But I think the "great" part of that phrase is more important, not the woman part. In honor of this, I will throw an enormous fit if I ever see anyone mention how sexist Barack Obama is for running for president, or stupid, or dangerous, or uncool (he's cool), and they're gonna vote for McCain because of that.
tl;dr I didn't like the boos at Obama's name in Hillary's concession speech.
I apologize for the profanity, but it was either post this or burn my house down and murder my family.
I think the jury is still out on Margaret Thatcher, but your point is made anyway. :)
And yes, I think it's crazy that a Clinton supporter would go to McCain's side rather than vote for Obama. Clinton and Obama have a thousand more things in common than Clinton and McCain. It just shows that they didn't really care about the issues, they care about gender and race.
It just shows that they didn't really care about the issues, they care about gender and race.
Uh, gender has nothing to do with whether they vote for McCain or Obama, unless you're saying that Clinton supporters only supported her because she was a woman, and would otherwise have voted McCain. As for race, (without generalizing too much) those who support a woman for president are probably equally likely to be "open-minded" enough to support a black candidate.
Also, just because they started booing when she mentioned Obama doesn't mean that they intend to vote for McCain. If she had said "I endorse McCain" the booing would have been much, much more intense.
Clinton and Obama have a thousand more things in common than Clinton and McCain.
It started out this way, but I think by this point the way that Hillary leans is much less clear. She gave us painfully livid proof that the Republicans don't have any sort of monopoly on the politics of fear.
It just shows that they didn't really care about the issues, they care about gender and race.
Uh, gender has nothing to do with whether they vote for McCain or Obama, unless you're saying that Clinton supporters only supported her because she was a woman, and would otherwise have voted McCain. As for race, (without generalizing too much) those who support a woman for president are probably equally likely to be "open-minded" enough to support a black candidate.
Also, just because they started booing when she mentioned Obama doesn't mean that they intend to vote for McCain. If she had said "I endorse McCain" the booing would have been much, much more intense.
Calm down there Timmeh. Clinton supporters just went through a very difficult period in which they placed tons of hope upon their candidate and some of them truly believe she earned the nomination. There WAS a lot of sexist commentary from the pundits that was very off-putting, so it's very natural to want to blame that on the candidate who did win and "benefited" from it. I have lost some respect for Clinton herself, but a lot of the way she burned bridges and ran a scorched earth, Republican-lite campaign was due to her advisers. The people in the audience booing, were not her herself.
There are a lot of angry Clinton supporters who say they'll never vote for Obama though. The more reasonable ones say they'll just stay home or go Independent or write in McCain's name, though really this doesn't help. The ones who say they'll vote for McCain may cool off and change their minds, I hope it's just a knee-jerk reaction. If they DO vote for McCain, talk about voting against your own interests.
If you want to see some Clinton supporters, go to talkleft.com, there you'll see some of the worst. They'll give lots of reasons not to vote for Obama, some moderately reasonable to the absurd. Usually about his inexperience, they don't know how he's going to vote because he's got a short record in civil service. They say he's actually a very cynical politician and muscled everyone off the Illinois senate ballot who ran against him. Some say he'll be a Bush 2, because they don't believe he will turn around and do the opposite of what he says.
Some people are crazy tho. He IS a little less experienced, but goddamn he gives good speech. I'd rather him than Bush any day.
It just shows that they didn't really care about the issues, they care about gender and race.
Uh, gender has nothing to do with whether they vote for McCain or Obama, unless you're saying that Clinton supporters only supported her because she was a woman, and would otherwise have voted McCain. As for race, (without generalizing too much) those who support a woman for president are probably equally likely to be "open-minded" enough to support a black candidate.
Also, just because they started booing when she mentioned Obama doesn't mean that they intend to vote for McCain. If she had said "I endorse McCain" the booing would have been much, much more intense.
Gallup polls are completely unreliable. That poll in particular was taken at the height of the 'fracture' in the democratic party while Obama and Clinton were both taking shots at each other trying to win over the party's nomination. Candidates' supporters tend to follow said candidates almost blindly when it comes to endorsing other politicians and those polls pretty much just reflect that. Ask who clinton supporters will vote for three months from now (now that she has publicly endorsed Obama) and I guarantee you'll see a huge swing toward Obama.
Besides, look at the numbers. If Obama lost the nomination Clinton would lose out on 19% of his supporters while she would only lose out on 28% of his...a whopping 9% more. 9% is hardly a large enough number to justify the claim that her supporters are racist. In fact, given the level of animosity in the party over the last few months I'm surprised that number wasn't higher when the poll was taken.
Toasty.
Premises:
1) Plenty of Obama supporters hate Hillary, and vice versa.
2) The hate is not random, but caused by something.
3) People are offended when the person they're rallying around is insulted, or when the person they are rallying around insults someone else. They'll tend to side with their leader. Or, people are offended when people hold vastly immoral (in their opinion) stances on things.
4) Hillary and Obama have very similar stances on things (or had, when people were choosing sides).
5) Hillary insulted Obama plenty, as did her staff (including Bill). Obama, on the other hand, has NEVER thrown a direct insult at Hillary. Not once. Except probably at home. His staff has, but he responded swiftly and justly, and it was never made a big media issue of.
Logic:
If 1 and 2 and 3, then one of the leaders had to have thrown insults or held horrible stances that clashed with the other's, which isn't true b/c 4.
Conclusion:
5 was the reason!
Hillary caused the 28% and the 19%, or whatever the actual numbers are. The only other reason for either is something superficial, like racism or sexism, and I can't bring myself to believe that 19% of Barack's supporters are sexists, or that 28% of Clinton's are racist.
Actually, that's not quite true. They could also be immensely stupid and have no idea about the stances of the 3 sides. But I still think Hillary's attitude in the campaign helped divide the Democrats a bit.
Now, there's nothing wrong with Hillary as a candidate. She fought well, and her strategy would have been perfectly justifiable... if she had any chance of winning. If she was cruel to Obama, and then won, the result would have been much nicer. As it is now, she's a pretty awful person. Changing the fate of the world because you're sore about being bested? Uh, lame.
The poll was to illustrate. I just found it tonight. There have been numerous reports in recent days of Hillary supporters saying that they would vote for McCain over Obama. Nearly a footnote to every story. I'm not saying it's all of 'em and I'm not saying it's even the majority, but I am saying that these few people look like they care more about the superficial qualities than the core issues. Would someone who cared about Iraq, abortion, the economy, et cetera flip to vote for the person whose views are the opposite of the candidate they agree with out of sheer bloody-mindedness?
I'm pretty sure your post did, actually. The divisions in the party were contrived by the Clinton camp and have little to do with race and gender as Fazil mentioned earlier, which is the entire reason I started posting.
Now, there's nothing wrong with Hillary as a candidate. She fought well, and her strategy would have been perfectly justifiable... if she had any chance of winning.
I'd have to disagree with you on this. One of the fundamental problems with Hilary's campaign strategy was that much of it was adapted from the GOP playbook. But whatever works, right? Except that the Republicans are always going to be better at these tactics, not only because they originated the approach, but because it plays naturally to the inclinations of much of their base.
In contrast, if Hillary had won the nomination, then she would be faced with the choice of either playing the Republicans' game (against a Republican!) or doing a 180 on her campaign strategy and appearing two-faced/unsure/unreliable going into the general election. Either way, it would put her at a significant disadvantage against McCain.
I'm not saying it's all of 'em and I'm not saying it's even the majority, but I am saying that these few people look like they care more about the superficial qualities than the core issues. Would someone who cared about Iraq, abortion, the economy, et cetera flip to vote for the person whose views are the opposite of the candidate they agree with out of sheer bloody-mindedness?
One person's "core issue" is another person's secondary detail. I'm sure that for many die-hard Hillary supporters, a core issue in the primary was the idea of a woman being elected to the White House. That may seem foolish to you or I, but I think it's a lot easier to understand than people re-electing George W to the presidency because he's someone with whom they'd enjoy sharing a beer.
I think we should all take Stephen Colbert's approach and not be able to see color/sex
pending we can still notice the unique and special aspects of cultures (and genders?), but just not be biased towards them, pro or con
i would agree with skinny, its not that she cant win...its that she was the wrong candidate at the wrong time...going against someone who is even older than her, hilary just isnt a good fit, shes too much like him in presentation...if it were someone like romney or giuliani it definately wouldve been alot easier to debate...obama is much more of a stark difference between bush/mccain...i dont really think hilary was the wrong candidate, it was just the wrong time...
I definately agree with Janet in that Hillary just wasn't here at the right time. People are looking to elect someone as far from Bush as possible. I think a lot of people are just looking for something new in Washington, a change of pace. It's pretty funny to hear the Bush vs McCain comparisons because 8 years ago when they were against each other for the Republican nomination these two were very very different candidates. I think a lot of what we've seen around McCain in the last year is him pandering to the party to keep the base energized, its sad he has had to change his politics to do this though he was a much better candidate in my opinion when he was more of a middle of the road Republican.
That being said Obama scares me too, its not the change because I think he'll win and I am looking forward to that. It's also not the inexperience because to me experienced only means being further entrenched in the nonsense that everyone hates about Washington politics. The part about Obama that worries me is what he wants to do with taxes and the effect that its going to have on the middle class.
A tax hike from 36% to 52% for roughly the top 5% of earners in the country is nothing to sneeze at not to mention the extra 3% or so the cap removal on Social Security and Medicare taxes would bring. If you make just shy of $150,000 a year that would put you in this category. Sure in Scranton, PA or in parts of the mid west $150,000 a year is a lot of money. But if you live in or near a major metropolitan area and make $150,000 a year your not living it up by any means. If you have a couple kids your likely stretching just to make house payments.
I worry about his proposed changes to capital gain taxes too. I agree with changing the rules on carried interest of hedge fund and private equity managers. They aren't risking or investing their own money, so treating it as ordinary income seems logical, but treating ALL capital gains as ordinary income here worries me greatly. Given the current state of the $ and the US economy if we changed capital gain taxes here I think it would cut off a lot of foreign investors and encourage more US investors to invest abroad.
You have an opinion on the capital gains tax? When did you become welathy? ;)
McCain was definitely a better candidate in 2000, when he actually did tend to be a maverick and tell most of not all of the truth. The Bush campaign villainized him as being a crazy Vietnam veteran, among other things. Initially in the primary season, McCain looked much more likely to win than Bush. He was viciously attacked by the Rovian smear tactics, including an illegitimate black child whisper campaign. Mind you, Governor Bush was not the same as President Bush. He campaigned on the ideas of peace and "compassionate conservatism" in which education would be key, attempting to co-op Al Gore's major issues. McCain's criticism of Bush was pretty damaging, but Bush-Rove won out by being the establishment's choice. In the two months after that bitter primary, some sort of deal was reached, and I believe that deal was that McCain would be nominated in 2008 if he could be a team player until that time (I've had this theory since 2000, actually, because his later praise of Bush and toeing the party line was so sweet and uncharacteristic of him). McCain endorsed Bush and made several appearances with him. Which leads to the McCain we know now.
The part about Obama that worries me is what he wants to do with taxes and the effect that its going to have on the middle class.
A tax hike from 36% to 52% for roughly the top 5% of earners in the country is nothing to sneeze at not to mention the extra 3% or so the cap removal on Social Security and Medicare taxes would bring.
I am unsure as to how the top 5% = middle class, myself.
I am unsure as to how the top 5% = middle class, myself.
I heard a stat that 19% of Americans think they're in the top 1% of incomes. And another 20% believe they'll be there within some absurdly short time frame, like 5-10 years. So much of our self-identity as a country is built up into this impossible dream that people aren't very realistic. "Tax the rich? No, I think I'm rich, don't tax me!" I think a while ago there was a This American Life or something about how nearly everyone out there considers themselves middle class, ranging from a suburban family with a 4000 sq. ft. house on a ranch and putting their kids through private school to a single mom living in a trailer. Perception is so far from reality here.
You have an opinion on the capital gains tax? When did you become welathy? ;)
Don't have to be wealthy to invest, I paid for 1/3 of my wedding on stock market gains. I started with about $2500, my tax refund my first year out of college when I worked basically a full year but got to deduct my education expenses.
Tigue wrote:
I am unsure as to how the top 5% = middle class, myself.
The top 5% starts at about $145,000. In rural areas of the northeast or parts of the midwest and south this is entirely not middle class. But if you live in or around a major city (like NYC for example) $145,000 would probably put you around the median income for most areas due to huge spikes in the cost of living in these areas.
If you make $145,000 a year and pay in 52% of your income to federal tax, 7.65% to social security and medicare, and 8-10% to the state your talking about roughly 2/3 of your income going to tax. Even if deductions and good planning brought that down to the 40-50% range you'd be looking at a take home yearly after taxes of like $72,000 which comes out to roughly $6,000 a month. You can't buy a 3 or 4 bedroom home within an hour of NYC in a descent neighborhood for less than $2500-$3000 a month.
In rural areas of the northeast or parts of the midwest and south this is entirely not middle class.
Where are you getting your information from? I can't really think of any place in the country, outside of really major urban areas, where I can imagine 145k as being anywhere close to median income.
I am unsure as to how the top 5% = middle class, myself.
The top 5% starts at about $145,000. In rural areas of the northeast or parts of the midwest and south this is entirely not middle class. But if you live in or around a major city (like NYC for example) $145,000 would probably put you around the median income for most areas due to huge spikes in the cost of living in these areas.
If you make $145,000 a year and pay in 52% of your income to federal tax, 7.65% to social security and medicare, and 8-10% to the state your talking about roughly 2/3 of your income going to tax. Even if deductions and good planning brought that down to the 40-50% range you'd be looking at a take home yearly after taxes of like $72,000 which comes out to roughly $6,000 a month. You can't buy a 3 or 4 bedroom home within an hour of NYC in a descent neighborhood for less than $2500-$3000 a month.
Ok, but if the factor for being taxed is income, one is in the top 5%, regardless expenses for where one lives, if they make that amount of money or more. I'm not saying this means taxes couldn't be done differently, but that doesn't stop the top 5% of the population from being the top, thus inherently not the middle.
Where are you getting your information from? I can't really think of any place in the country, outside of really major urban areas, where I can imagine 145k as being anywhere close to median income.
Even really major urban areas would not qualify. According to the US Census Bureau, the median income for NYC in 2004 was $38,293, for LA in 1999 (most recent data available) it was $36,687, and for Chicago it was $38,625.
There are only a handful of relatively tiny "cities" in the entire country where the median income is above $145K, and almost all are only that high because they're really just the richest suburbs for a much larger city.
In rural areas of the northeast or parts of the midwest and south this is entirely not middle class.
Where are you getting your information from? I can't really think of any place in the country, outside of really major urban areas, where I can imagine 145k as being anywhere close to median income.
You've got that entirely backwards Vas, I said 145k isn't middle class in rural areas or the midwest.
You've got that entirely backwards Vas, I said 145k isn't middle class in rural areas or the midwest.
Making $145,000 a year isn't middle class anywhere in the United States (see figures posted above), which I think was Vasya's point. Just because $145K in NYC is equivalent to $69K in Scranton doesn't mean either figure represents middle class income.
Ok, but if the factor for being taxed is income, one is in the top 5%, regardless expenses for where one lives, if they make that amount of money or more. I'm not saying this means taxes couldn't be done differently, but that doesn't stop the top 5% of the population from being the top, thus inherently not the middle.
So then are all Americans upper class if we use the entire world as the scope of our comparison? You can't possibly argue that where you live has no effect on "how much" you actually earn.
Go use any cost of living comparison such as the one at http://www.bestplaces.net and you'll see what I am talking about. If you use my most recent locations, New York City and Scranton, PA, making $145,000 in New York is roughly like making $69,000 in Scranton. Housing overall is 81% cheaper in Scranton and overall Scranton is 52% cheaper to live in than New York.
Also keep in mind the 145k number isn't an individuals earnings, for taxes a family pays on joint earnings not individual. So all the census stats on average earnings for areas are average invidual earnings, you would have to double that up to compare it to what would be taxable earnings for a family.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely hating on Obama, hes likely getting my vote. I am just saying the proposed tax changes worry me is all.
You've got that entirely backwards Vas, I said 145k isn't middle class in rural areas or the midwest.
I didn't make my point entirely clear: the way you put it sounded to me like you were saying that rural areas or the midwest were the places where 145k wasn't the median, and thus in other places it was a much more likely scenario. That's what I was objecting to - I couldn't imagine any place, so matter how urban or non-midwestern/southern, that would have such a median income. Demonskin's research seems to confirm that.
You guys are looking at this from an individual perspective though. For taxes that $145,000 would be a combined income for two people. A couple that makes $145,000 in NYC makes roughly the same ammount as two first year high school teachers would in Pennsylvania near where I grew up when you adjust it for cost of living jumps. I don't see how that doesn't fall into a middle class.
You guys are looking at this from an individual perspective though. For taxes that $145,000 would be a combined income for two people.
WTF? Your posts above didn't seem to be about a $145K figure being combined income for two people. You're saying anyone making more than $72.5K is in the top 5% of the US population for income?
Thats how taxes work....families pay jointly. The article I read didn't specify individual or joint on that $145k number though. If its 145,000 for an individual and $290,000 for a family I have no problem with that tax raise I guess.
I'm just not a big fan of the tax more, spend more strategy. Our government is too large and inefficient already.
(Also, for that matter, how can someone in the top 5% be considered "middle class"??)
Like I said cost of living differences. A guy who makes $145,000 in NYC whose wife doesn't work has almost the exact same standard of living as a husband and wife who are both starting out as teachers in Scranton, PA. People under estimate the differences particularly if they have never lived in a rural area.
Actually, almost nobody pays jointly, because the taxes are deducted from your individual paycheck, not a paycheck to your family. Some couples file jointly, but some couples do not, and individuals obviously file only for themselves.
I think there are some things that are best handled by private industry, and some things that are best handled by the government. In the past eight years we've seen a lot of the later being handled by the former, with mostly disastrous results, and I, for one, will be very happy to see anybody in the White House with a better understanding of what should fall into each group.
Actually, almost nobody pays jointly, because the taxes are deducted from your individual paycheck, not a paycheck to your family. Some couples file jointly, but some couples do not, and individuals obviously file only for themselves.
Actually your taxes are with held based on your W-2 form you fill out, which you would mark as married if you were married and single if your not. Also how much you with held is irrelevant to how much you pay. How much you pay is based ENTIRELY on your return. Legally couples HAVE to file jointly. The only time "married filing seperately" is legal is if you are truly seperated. In this case you better have different addresses or expect an audit. Trust me I know this inside and out I was a tax accountant for a couple years with a CPA firm and still do tax work on the side.
I agree some is best private and some is best public. Health care for example needs to be government imo becasuse everyone needs it and right now not everyone is getting it.
Retirement though has been disastrous in terms of government handling it. Do you realize 12.4% of all money you make up to $90,000+ is paid into social security every year. If this was all paid into private accounts and was all invested into high yield savings accoutns like the ones ING offers (4-5% interest) every single one of us would retire millionaires at 65. Social security is broken.
Q is right, back on track would be good and I apologize for further digressing, however for Opet+Pythias or anyone else who is married and might be reading:
Micah wrote:
Legally couples HAVE to file jointly. The only time "married filing seperately" is legal is if you are truly seperated.
We saw R.E.M. last night (it's like 1985 all over again!) and at the end of the show Michael Stipe pinned an Obama pin to his jacket. He started out by saying he had something in his pocket he had been excited to share all night, and then had a HUGE grin on his face when he showed it to the cameras.
Not that this has ANYTHING To do with this thread...but..
Starting Teacher Salary in my area of Texas is under 40K...and I Feel like I'm in a middle class suburban area with good schools. It's not even worth teaching for the money...I would probably spend that much on gas/clothing/supplies for my classroom in my first year.
I know everyone has pretty much ignored this but when I was referencing income it was for middle class "families", as in two potential incomes. My point was that when you figure in cost of living a guy making $145,000 a year in NYC with a stay at home mom for a wife is making pretty much the same amount of money as TWO, yes TWO starting high school teachers in rural areas of Pennsylvania.
I was just trying to point out that a lot more factors into your definition of "middle class" than raw income alone.
"Middle class" does come with other connotations, but when we're talking about a tax issue based on income, there will always be a top section of income, a middle section and a bottom section. As far as social and other aspects of being middle class go, you're probably right in some ways, I have no idea what social ideas are had about various incomes in New York. As far as raw income and how that means you are taxed the top income will be the top income. Maybe it would be helpful to change that in a way that accounts for income and expenses within a reasonable amount based on the cost-of-living for where you live or something. In the mean time, though, the top 5% are stuck as such no matter where they live.
In the mean time, though, the top 5% are stuck as such no matter where they live.
This pretty much the exact problem I have with broad based large tax increases, because parts of the middle class always get slammed by it. Trust me as a tax professional I got to watch it happen with the AMT tax that was originally designed to prevent wealthy people from taking a ridiculous number of deductions. The government never adjusted it for inflation though and now it effects thousands of families and costs them thousands of dollars when the government never intended for it to.
This is basically what I was referring to when I said Obama's tax plans scare me.
I met Obama last summer on Martha's Vineyard at Nancy's Fried Clam Shack in Oak Bluffs. He was wearing flip flops, shorts, and a Chicago White Sox hat. He was very tall and skinny and seemed cool. Nancys has one of the best lobster rolls on the island so at least he knows his shit.
I still think Samuel L. Jackson should have been Beowolf
(erm, kinda random, mom just watched that movie 2 last nights ago)
"I've had it with this mother F*in Grendel in the mother F-in Herot!!" *riiiiiippp*
ok back on track: Daily show noted two funny insults to Obama
1. He wouldn't fit in at an Applebees salad bar (didn't know this, but that place doesn't have a salad bar)
2. he gave some1 a fist bump and they listed what it could mean, ending up w/ terrorist hand sign(Dailyshow thinks Obama and other lady were squashing a 60yr old mini grandma, who had baked an apple pie, and had a kitten on it)
ok back on track: Daily show noted two funny insults to Obama
1. He wouldn't fit in at an Applebees salad bar (didn't know this, but that place doesn't have a salad bar)
2. he gave some1 a fist bump and they listed what it could mean, ending up w/ terrorist hand sign(Dailyshow thinks Obama and other lady were squashing a 60yr old mini grandma, who had baked an apple pie, and had a kitten on it)
Yeah this stuff was pretty absurd. The other lady was his wife. Fox News was like, "What is it? A terrorist fist jab?" As if no one else had ever done that before. It's going to be a long 5 months.
Also, Matthew read to me some racist shit about the fist pound, and I was like, what the fuck, when I think of "People Who Do Fist Pounds" top of my list is "White Frat Boys"
I was all, dude, you old farts are completely out of touch with young pop culture.
Not too surprising, given that he managed to get his son elected president only to sit by and watch him run the country into the ground for eight years.
Oh also, in reference to Obama not fitting in at an Applebees it was based on how he is an "elitist"
so....
ne1 able to make a photo of his face w/ a golden dragon around the pic? :p
Demonskin
Tue, 06/03/2008 - 8:56pmObama Practices Looking-Off-Into-Future Pose
Vasya
Tue, 06/03/2008 - 9:44pmThe OP photo is just begging for a caption contest.
Sumul
Tue, 06/03/2008 - 11:28pmOmnomnomnom
15
Tue, 06/03/2008 - 11:32pmI could come up with something pretty inappropriate, but this is on the general boards.
Fazil
Tue, 06/03/2008 - 11:53pmHehhehe....we could make a website of it! Lolbama.com!
Though yeah, I'm personally pretty jazzed that he was able to get the nomination over Hillary. Not that she would make a terrible president, but I seriously don't want anyone so pro-censorship and anti-video games in the highest office.
if you want to further read what I think of that:
http://rowrz.blogspot.com/2008/02/clintonvania.html
which reminds me to do some updatin' on that blog.
Qyn
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 7:27amOlobama!
Will
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 7:37amObama looks firey.
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 10:41am"I do NOT support ninjas!"
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 10:42ambetter attempt coming later, i hope
Fap
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 12:03pmi'm an obama mama
Fap
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 12:04pmalso,
XD
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 5:37pmok so:
"I am the politician that tells the truth!"
(another mini attempt...not too good w caption contests)
Vasya
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 5:43pmI laughed at your first one, Brambles :).
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 6:03pmah ok...the other was kinda a cynical attempt, but my dislike for being cynical probably ruined it's creation x.X
Demonskin
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 6:10pmBarack Obama just seconds before clinching the 2008 Microphone Eating World Championship title
Crazy Rambles
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 6:11pm9.8/10!!!! :D
Killface
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 8:10pmOM NOM NOM
Alternate entry: "Oh Canada, we stand on guard... for thee!"
Beth
Wed, 06/04/2008 - 10:31pmI saw that picture and i imagined Obama saying "YOU DOWN WITH OPP" and the crowd responding "YEAH YOU KNOW ME"
Vasya
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 6:07amHahaha.
Crazy Rambles
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 11:29am/out of the loop
...
again >.>
Vasya
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 12:05pmhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=4FWI_fLkw3k
Fazil
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 12:14pmThat was 1991. Possibly a little bit beyond Bram's remembrance. :)
Crazy Rambles
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 12:34pmah ok >.>
sorta only got the gist of that, so rnd. sex while married?
yeah...i was 3 back then >.> but around that time i did see that Dr. Who that involved the spaceship w/ the ooze that ate ppl, kinda like that "Monsterblood"
Vasya
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 12:56pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.P.P._%28song%29
Crazy Rambles
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 1:45pm"They gave the song a broader appeal by making the lyrics accessible to both male and female listeners, which is done by including male and female genitalia in the abbreviation "OPP"."
so yunics(sp?) can't hear this b/c their genitalia are on a different frequency? o.O
Vasya
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 1:48pmHahahaha. Yeah, I'm afraid eunuchs are SoL when it comes to OPP.
Fazil
Fri, 06/06/2008 - 6:19amWell, it is generally the purpose of someone who has been made a eunuch to not be interested in OPP. :D
Qyn
Fri, 06/06/2008 - 1:10pmUh, so, thread about Obama derailed into this.......this is impressive even by Amaranthian standards!
Timmeh
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 1:21pmSpeaking of Obama, FUCK HILLARY CLINTON FUCKING FUCK FUCK.
I need mediation between me and her.
I am about this fucking angry about that bitch oh my god.
There are some great women in history. But I think the "great" part of that phrase is more important, not the woman part. In honor of this, I will throw an enormous fit if I ever see anyone mention how sexist Barack Obama is for running for president, or stupid, or dangerous, or uncool (he's cool), and they're gonna vote for McCain because of that.
tl;dr I didn't like the boos at Obama's name in Hillary's concession speech.
I apologize for the profanity, but it was either post this or burn my house down and murder my family.
Fazil
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 2:05pmI think the jury is still out on Margaret Thatcher, but your point is made anyway. :)
And yes, I think it's crazy that a Clinton supporter would go to McCain's side rather than vote for Obama. Clinton and Obama have a thousand more things in common than Clinton and McCain. It just shows that they didn't really care about the issues, they care about gender and race.
15
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 2:35pmUh, gender has nothing to do with whether they vote for McCain or Obama, unless you're saying that Clinton supporters only supported her because she was a woman, and would otherwise have voted McCain. As for race, (without generalizing too much) those who support a woman for president are probably equally likely to be "open-minded" enough to support a black candidate.
Also, just because they started booing when she mentioned Obama doesn't mean that they intend to vote for McCain. If she had said "I endorse McCain" the booing would have been much, much more intense.
Demonskin
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 4:19pmCrazy Rambles
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 4:31pmpolitical machines spend too much time on politics and the people(in general) spend not enough on it
Fazil
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:29pmthis and this are what I was talking about.
Furiouso
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 6:39pmCalm down there Timmeh. Clinton supporters just went through a very difficult period in which they placed tons of hope upon their candidate and some of them truly believe she earned the nomination. There WAS a lot of sexist commentary from the pundits that was very off-putting, so it's very natural to want to blame that on the candidate who did win and "benefited" from it. I have lost some respect for Clinton herself, but a lot of the way she burned bridges and ran a scorched earth, Republican-lite campaign was due to her advisers. The people in the audience booing, were not her herself.
There are a lot of angry Clinton supporters who say they'll never vote for Obama though. The more reasonable ones say they'll just stay home or go Independent or write in McCain's name, though really this doesn't help. The ones who say they'll vote for McCain may cool off and change their minds, I hope it's just a knee-jerk reaction. If they DO vote for McCain, talk about voting against your own interests.
If you want to see some Clinton supporters, go to talkleft.com, there you'll see some of the worst. They'll give lots of reasons not to vote for Obama, some moderately reasonable to the absurd. Usually about his inexperience, they don't know how he's going to vote because he's got a short record in civil service. They say he's actually a very cynical politician and muscled everyone off the Illinois senate ballot who ran against him. Some say he'll be a Bush 2, because they don't believe he will turn around and do the opposite of what he says.
Some people are crazy tho. He IS a little less experienced, but goddamn he gives good speech. I'd rather him than Bush any day.
15
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 10:37pmGallup polls are completely unreliable. That poll in particular was taken at the height of the 'fracture' in the democratic party while Obama and Clinton were both taking shots at each other trying to win over the party's nomination. Candidates' supporters tend to follow said candidates almost blindly when it comes to endorsing other politicians and those polls pretty much just reflect that. Ask who clinton supporters will vote for three months from now (now that she has publicly endorsed Obama) and I guarantee you'll see a huge swing toward Obama.
Besides, look at the numbers. If Obama lost the nomination Clinton would lose out on 19% of his supporters while she would only lose out on 28% of his...a whopping 9% more. 9% is hardly a large enough number to justify the claim that her supporters are racist. In fact, given the level of animosity in the party over the last few months I'm surprised that number wasn't higher when the poll was taken.
Timmeh
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 11:26pmToasty.
Premises:
1) Plenty of Obama supporters hate Hillary, and vice versa.
2) The hate is not random, but caused by something.
3) People are offended when the person they're rallying around is insulted, or when the person they are rallying around insults someone else. They'll tend to side with their leader. Or, people are offended when people hold vastly immoral (in their opinion) stances on things.
4) Hillary and Obama have very similar stances on things (or had, when people were choosing sides).
5) Hillary insulted Obama plenty, as did her staff (including Bill). Obama, on the other hand, has NEVER thrown a direct insult at Hillary. Not once. Except probably at home. His staff has, but he responded swiftly and justly, and it was never made a big media issue of.
Logic:
If 1 and 2 and 3, then one of the leaders had to have thrown insults or held horrible stances that clashed with the other's, which isn't true b/c 4.
Conclusion:
5 was the reason!
Hillary caused the 28% and the 19%, or whatever the actual numbers are. The only other reason for either is something superficial, like racism or sexism, and I can't bring myself to believe that 19% of Barack's supporters are sexists, or that 28% of Clinton's are racist.
Actually, that's not quite true. They could also be immensely stupid and have no idea about the stances of the 3 sides. But I still think Hillary's attitude in the campaign helped divide the Democrats a bit.
Now, there's nothing wrong with Hillary as a candidate. She fought well, and her strategy would have been perfectly justifiable... if she had any chance of winning. If she was cruel to Obama, and then won, the result would have been much nicer. As it is now, she's a pretty awful person. Changing the fate of the world because you're sore about being bested? Uh, lame.
Fazil
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 11:37pmThe poll was to illustrate. I just found it tonight. There have been numerous reports in recent days of Hillary supporters saying that they would vote for McCain over Obama. Nearly a footnote to every story. I'm not saying it's all of 'em and I'm not saying it's even the majority, but I am saying that these few people look like they care more about the superficial qualities than the core issues. Would someone who cared about Iraq, abortion, the economy, et cetera flip to vote for the person whose views are the opposite of the candidate they agree with out of sheer bloody-mindedness?
Timmeh
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 11:39pmAlright ignore my post, Fazil put it better.
15
Sun, 06/08/2008 - 2:00amI'm pretty sure your post did, actually. The divisions in the party were contrived by the Clinton camp and have little to do with race and gender as Fazil mentioned earlier, which is the entire reason I started posting.
Demonskin
Sun, 06/08/2008 - 2:12pmIn contrast, if Hillary had won the nomination, then she would be faced with the choice of either playing the Republicans' game (against a Republican!) or doing a 180 on her campaign strategy and appearing two-faced/unsure/unreliable going into the general election. Either way, it would put her at a significant disadvantage against McCain.
Demonskin
Sun, 06/08/2008 - 2:18pmCrazy Rambles
Sun, 06/08/2008 - 3:41pmI think we should all take Stephen Colbert's approach and not be able to see color/sex
pending we can still notice the unique and special aspects of cultures (and genders?), but just not be biased towards them, pro or con
yori
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 5:31ami would agree with skinny, its not that she cant win...its that she was the wrong candidate at the wrong time...going against someone who is even older than her, hilary just isnt a good fit, shes too much like him in presentation...if it were someone like romney or giuliani it definately wouldve been alot easier to debate...obama is much more of a stark difference between bush/mccain...i dont really think hilary was the wrong candidate, it was just the wrong time...
Micah
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 8:25amI definately agree with Janet in that Hillary just wasn't here at the right time. People are looking to elect someone as far from Bush as possible. I think a lot of people are just looking for something new in Washington, a change of pace. It's pretty funny to hear the Bush vs McCain comparisons because 8 years ago when they were against each other for the Republican nomination these two were very very different candidates. I think a lot of what we've seen around McCain in the last year is him pandering to the party to keep the base energized, its sad he has had to change his politics to do this though he was a much better candidate in my opinion when he was more of a middle of the road Republican.
That being said Obama scares me too, its not the change because I think he'll win and I am looking forward to that. It's also not the inexperience because to me experienced only means being further entrenched in the nonsense that everyone hates about Washington politics. The part about Obama that worries me is what he wants to do with taxes and the effect that its going to have on the middle class.
A tax hike from 36% to 52% for roughly the top 5% of earners in the country is nothing to sneeze at not to mention the extra 3% or so the cap removal on Social Security and Medicare taxes would bring. If you make just shy of $150,000 a year that would put you in this category. Sure in Scranton, PA or in parts of the mid west $150,000 a year is a lot of money. But if you live in or near a major metropolitan area and make $150,000 a year your not living it up by any means. If you have a couple kids your likely stretching just to make house payments.
I worry about his proposed changes to capital gain taxes too. I agree with changing the rules on carried interest of hedge fund and private equity managers. They aren't risking or investing their own money, so treating it as ordinary income seems logical, but treating ALL capital gains as ordinary income here worries me greatly. Given the current state of the $ and the US economy if we changed capital gain taxes here I think it would cut off a lot of foreign investors and encourage more US investors to invest abroad.
Fazil
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 9:28amYou have an opinion on the capital gains tax? When did you become welathy? ;)
McCain was definitely a better candidate in 2000, when he actually did tend to be a maverick and tell most of not all of the truth. The Bush campaign villainized him as being a crazy Vietnam veteran, among other things. Initially in the primary season, McCain looked much more likely to win than Bush. He was viciously attacked by the Rovian smear tactics, including an illegitimate black child whisper campaign. Mind you, Governor Bush was not the same as President Bush. He campaigned on the ideas of peace and "compassionate conservatism" in which education would be key, attempting to co-op Al Gore's major issues. McCain's criticism of Bush was pretty damaging, but Bush-Rove won out by being the establishment's choice. In the two months after that bitter primary, some sort of deal was reached, and I believe that deal was that McCain would be nominated in 2008 if he could be a team player until that time (I've had this theory since 2000, actually, because his later praise of Bush and toeing the party line was so sweet and uncharacteristic of him). McCain endorsed Bush and made several appearances with him. Which leads to the McCain we know now.
Or so I think. :)
Tigue (not verified)
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 9:54amI am unsure as to how the top 5% = middle class, myself.
Furiouso
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 10:27amI heard a stat that 19% of Americans think they're in the top 1% of incomes. And another 20% believe they'll be there within some absurdly short time frame, like 5-10 years. So much of our self-identity as a country is built up into this impossible dream that people aren't very realistic. "Tax the rich? No, I think I'm rich, don't tax me!" I think a while ago there was a This American Life or something about how nearly everyone out there considers themselves middle class, ranging from a suburban family with a 4000 sq. ft. house on a ranch and putting their kids through private school to a single mom living in a trailer. Perception is so far from reality here.
Micah
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 1:27pmDon't have to be wealthy to invest, I paid for 1/3 of my wedding on stock market gains. I started with about $2500, my tax refund my first year out of college when I worked basically a full year but got to deduct my education expenses.
The top 5% starts at about $145,000. In rural areas of the northeast or parts of the midwest and south this is entirely not middle class. But if you live in or around a major city (like NYC for example) $145,000 would probably put you around the median income for most areas due to huge spikes in the cost of living in these areas.
If you make $145,000 a year and pay in 52% of your income to federal tax, 7.65% to social security and medicare, and 8-10% to the state your talking about roughly 2/3 of your income going to tax. Even if deductions and good planning brought that down to the 40-50% range you'd be looking at a take home yearly after taxes of like $72,000 which comes out to roughly $6,000 a month. You can't buy a 3 or 4 bedroom home within an hour of NYC in a descent neighborhood for less than $2500-$3000 a month.
Vasya
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 2:58pmWhere are you getting your information from? I can't really think of any place in the country, outside of really major urban areas, where I can imagine 145k as being anywhere close to median income.
Tigue (not verified)
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 3:16pmOk, but if the factor for being taxed is income, one is in the top 5%, regardless expenses for where one lives, if they make that amount of money or more. I'm not saying this means taxes couldn't be done differently, but that doesn't stop the top 5% of the population from being the top, thus inherently not the middle.
Demonskin
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 11:21pmThere are only a handful of relatively tiny "cities" in the entire country where the median income is above $145K, and almost all are only that high because they're really just the richest suburbs for a much larger city.
Micah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 10:13amYou've got that entirely backwards Vas, I said 145k isn't middle class in rural areas or the midwest.
Demonskin
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 10:40amMicah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 10:59amSo then are all Americans upper class if we use the entire world as the scope of our comparison? You can't possibly argue that where you live has no effect on "how much" you actually earn.
Go use any cost of living comparison such as the one at http://www.bestplaces.net and you'll see what I am talking about. If you use my most recent locations, New York City and Scranton, PA, making $145,000 in New York is roughly like making $69,000 in Scranton. Housing overall is 81% cheaper in Scranton and overall Scranton is 52% cheaper to live in than New York.
Also keep in mind the 145k number isn't an individuals earnings, for taxes a family pays on joint earnings not individual. So all the census stats on average earnings for areas are average invidual earnings, you would have to double that up to compare it to what would be taxable earnings for a family.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely hating on Obama, hes likely getting my vote. I am just saying the proposed tax changes worry me is all.
Vasya
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 11:01amI didn't make my point entirely clear: the way you put it sounded to me like you were saying that rural areas or the midwest were the places where 145k wasn't the median, and thus in other places it was a much more likely scenario. That's what I was objecting to - I couldn't imagine any place, so matter how urban or non-midwestern/southern, that would have such a median income. Demonskin's research seems to confirm that.
Micah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:28pmYou guys are looking at this from an individual perspective though. For taxes that $145,000 would be a combined income for two people. A couple that makes $145,000 in NYC makes roughly the same ammount as two first year high school teachers would in Pennsylvania near where I grew up when you adjust it for cost of living jumps. I don't see how that doesn't fall into a middle class.
Crazy Rambles
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:30pmI inquired about the top 5% info and she showed me this link:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new05_000.htm
as well as sketching up the following distribution
Crazy Rambles
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:31pm"Bg" and "OW"
being Bill Gates and Opra Winfrey (approx)
Demonskin
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:44pmDemonskin
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:45pm(Also, for that matter, how can someone in the top 5% be considered "middle class"??)
Micah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:47pmThats how taxes work....families pay jointly. The article I read didn't specify individual or joint on that $145k number though. If its 145,000 for an individual and $290,000 for a family I have no problem with that tax raise I guess.
I'm just not a big fan of the tax more, spend more strategy. Our government is too large and inefficient already.
Micah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:51pmLike I said cost of living differences. A guy who makes $145,000 in NYC whose wife doesn't work has almost the exact same standard of living as a husband and wife who are both starting out as teachers in Scranton, PA. People under estimate the differences particularly if they have never lived in a rural area.
Demonskin
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 12:54pmActually, almost nobody pays jointly, because the taxes are deducted from your individual paycheck, not a paycheck to your family. Some couples file jointly, but some couples do not, and individuals obviously file only for themselves.
I think there are some things that are best handled by private industry, and some things that are best handled by the government. In the past eight years we've seen a lot of the later being handled by the former, with mostly disastrous results, and I, for one, will be very happy to see anybody in the White House with a better understanding of what should fall into each group.
Micah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:04pmActually your taxes are with held based on your W-2 form you fill out, which you would mark as married if you were married and single if your not. Also how much you with held is irrelevant to how much you pay. How much you pay is based ENTIRELY on your return. Legally couples HAVE to file jointly. The only time "married filing seperately" is legal is if you are truly seperated. In this case you better have different addresses or expect an audit. Trust me I know this inside and out I was a tax accountant for a couple years with a CPA firm and still do tax work on the side.
I agree some is best private and some is best public. Health care for example needs to be government imo becasuse everyone needs it and right now not everyone is getting it.
Retirement though has been disastrous in terms of government handling it. Do you realize 12.4% of all money you make up to $90,000+ is paid into social security every year. If this was all paid into private accounts and was all invested into high yield savings accoutns like the ones ING offers (4-5% interest) every single one of us would retire millionaires at 65. Social security is broken.
Qyn
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:18pmI think it's time to get this thread back on track.
Micah
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:28pmDude Obama's ripped.
N8
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:33pmLast I checked starting salaries for teachers are nowhere near 60-70k anywhere in America let alone Scranton, PA.
And also if you make over $140k you're doing pretty well for yourself even in NYC where I live.
Demonskin
Tue, 06/10/2008 - 1:38pmQ is right, back on track would be good and I apologize for further digressing, however for Opet+Pythias or anyone else who is married and might be reading:
Fazil
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 7:59amObama's definitely a little beefier than I thought he was.
Furiouso
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 8:11amHe still looks a little scrawny to me. But not too scrawny he can't back Lieberman into a corner and give him a good lashing: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/10/obama-confronted-lieberman-over-muslim-smears/
Tigue (not verified)
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:37amWe saw R.E.M. last night (it's like 1985 all over again!) and at the end of the show Michael Stipe pinned an Obama pin to his jacket. He started out by saying he had something in his pocket he had been excited to share all night, and then had a HUGE grin on his face when he showed it to the cameras.
Timmeh
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:46am:D~!
Ariwyn
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:53amNot that this has ANYTHING To do with this thread...but..
Starting Teacher Salary in my area of Texas is under 40K...and I Feel like I'm in a middle class suburban area with good schools. It's not even worth teaching for the money...I would probably spend that much on gas/clothing/supplies for my classroom in my first year.
Micah
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:12amI know everyone has pretty much ignored this but when I was referencing income it was for middle class "families", as in two potential incomes. My point was that when you figure in cost of living a guy making $145,000 a year in NYC with a stay at home mom for a wife is making pretty much the same amount of money as TWO, yes TWO starting high school teachers in rural areas of Pennsylvania.
I was just trying to point out that a lot more factors into your definition of "middle class" than raw income alone.
Tigue (not verified)
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:19am"Middle class" does come with other connotations, but when we're talking about a tax issue based on income, there will always be a top section of income, a middle section and a bottom section. As far as social and other aspects of being middle class go, you're probably right in some ways, I have no idea what social ideas are had about various incomes in New York. As far as raw income and how that means you are taxed the top income will be the top income. Maybe it would be helpful to change that in a way that accounts for income and expenses within a reasonable amount based on the cost-of-living for where you live or something. In the mean time, though, the top 5% are stuck as such no matter where they live.
Micah
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:25amThis pretty much the exact problem I have with broad based large tax increases, because parts of the middle class always get slammed by it. Trust me as a tax professional I got to watch it happen with the AMT tax that was originally designed to prevent wealthy people from taking a ridiculous number of deductions. The government never adjusted it for inflation though and now it effects thousands of families and costs them thousands of dollars when the government never intended for it to.
This is basically what I was referring to when I said Obama's tax plans scare me.
N8
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 11:37amI met Obama last summer on Martha's Vineyard at Nancy's Fried Clam Shack in Oak Bluffs. He was wearing flip flops, shorts, and a Chicago White Sox hat. He was very tall and skinny and seemed cool. Nancys has one of the best lobster rolls on the island so at least he knows his shit.
Vasya
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 11:42amOh shit! He must be a flip-flopper, amirite?
Tigue (not verified)
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 11:45amAt lest he wasn't wearing flip-flops at a Waffle House.
Vasya
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 1:25pmHaha.
Crazy Rambles
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 2:00pmI still think Samuel L. Jackson should have been Beowolf
(erm, kinda random, mom just watched that movie 2 last nights ago)
"I've had it with this mother F*in Grendel in the mother F-in Herot!!" *riiiiiippp*
Vasya
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 2:04pmI don't think that was kinda random, Brambles. I think it was random in its entirety.
Crazy Rambles
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 2:20pmOh yeah that reminds me of this too:
Will
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 2:41pmWas Obama wearing shirt? You didn't mention a shirt.
Crazy Rambles
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 5:12pmok back on track: Daily show noted two funny insults to Obama
1. He wouldn't fit in at an Applebees salad bar (didn't know this, but that place doesn't have a salad bar)
2. he gave some1 a fist bump and they listed what it could mean, ending up w/ terrorist hand sign(Dailyshow thinks Obama and other lady were squashing a 60yr old mini grandma, who had baked an apple pie, and had a kitten on it)
Furiouso
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 5:26pmYeah this stuff was pretty absurd. The other lady was his wife. Fox News was like, "What is it? A terrorist fist jab?" As if no one else had ever done that before. It's going to be a long 5 months.
Timmeh
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 6:14pmI really can't imagine an aged Islamic extremist doing the fist pound.
Beth
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 8:42pmYou know what's even funnier about that statement, trying to imagine a Waffle House in Martha's Vineyard.
Beth
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 8:46pmAlso, Matthew read to me some racist shit about the fist pound, and I was like, what the fuck, when I think of "People Who Do Fist Pounds" top of my list is "White Frat Boys"
I was all, dude, you old farts are completely out of touch with young pop culture.
Furiouso
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:12pmNot all old people, Bush Sr. is totally hip!
OK my image link isn't working. Or is it?!
Beth
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:21pmMan he's looking old these days.
Demonskin
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 9:35pm15
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 11:34pmwhat is THAT supposed to mean?
Timmeh
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 12:08amI assume it means she associates fist pounding with white frat boys?
Furiouso
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 12:33amIt means yer a terrist!
Vasya
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 5:37amOnce again, Penny Arcade to the rescue:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/03/07/
Qyn
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 6:16amThe one guy looks pretty much *exactly* like toast.
Beth
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 7:31amDon't tell me you all never fist pound in your frat.
Vasya
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 8:05amNo, they fist-slam. Preferably into a door.
15
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 11:48amHahaha. This thread is now about win.
Ariwyn
Fri, 06/13/2008 - 4:19pmHe can't tell you if he fist pounds..b/c it's A SECRET!!!!!
Fazil
Sat, 06/14/2008 - 8:20amI have no comment about mutual fisting in frat houses.
John
Sat, 06/14/2008 - 10:40amWINS!!!
15
Sat, 06/14/2008 - 11:46amI dunno, I do have a pink polo.
Sumul
Sat, 06/14/2008 - 11:42pmPopped collar?
15
Sun, 06/15/2008 - 1:15amOnly when drunk, and even then, very rarely. Maybe on beerpong winning streaks.
Vasya
Sun, 06/15/2008 - 10:28amGotta pop that collar. Lemme see if I can find a picture of me looking all Euro.
EDIT: I may have erased it :(.
15
Sun, 06/15/2008 - 11:29amI guess this isn't really a rare occasion. OH SHIT!
Crazy Rambles
Sun, 06/15/2008 - 7:32pmOh also, in reference to Obama not fitting in at an Applebees it was based on how he is an "elitist"
so....
ne1 able to make a photo of his face w/ a golden dragon around the pic? :p
Fazil
Sun, 06/15/2008 - 9:32pmlol...heehee...I'd do it, but not right now. too tired. perhaps tomorrow, or Chris can beat me to the graphic design punch. :)
Crazy Rambles
Sun, 06/15/2008 - 9:55pmwoot! :D
Sumul
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 12:34pmHaha
That's a great idea, Brambles.
Timmeh
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 2:05pmFazil
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 2:09pmdoes that mean we're all old codgers, and McCain is level 71?l
Crazy Rambles
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 2:35pm/yay!
EDIT: Way to "beat everyone to the punch" as well :P
Vasya
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 3:08pmGenius, Timmy XD.
Fap
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 4:48pmhahah XD
Killface
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 5:41pmWINNAR
Trumby
Mon, 06/16/2008 - 7:18pmLawls. That is awesome.