Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is sponsoring Hillary for the democratic presidential candidate. If you buy their special Hillary bucket of chicken, KFC donates $1.00 to her campaign.
The KFC bucket contains: 2 small breasts, 2 large thighs, and a left wing.
KFC uses MSG, a toxic poison in their secret recipe. MSG appears to make food taste better but it secretly is hurting us. The last time I ate their food it made me sick. Selling Hillary buckets makes sense to me. Not all people are so easily and immediately affected by MSG. I imagine the election may be the same way. I hope whoever is elected knows how to talk and doesn't believe the government raising taxes is the answer to all our problems. We need less government not more.
I'm consistently amazed at Hillary's tin ear. She's just a pampered suburbanite from a wealthy enclave outside Chicago, and her assumptions and attitudes betray it quite often. She has good handlers, and she's doing a better and better job of "hiding" the fact that she's from the affluent white controlling class of middle America. I don't know if her "populism" -- claiming by her policy and platform choices that she wants to help the "little guy" -- is a genuine commitment (as I perceive it to be with Jimmy Carter and his wife Roslyn, both of whom were socio-economically higher up as children than the majority of their constituents) or is just a political choice geared toward getting as many votes as possible. (I also don't know about Johnathan Edwards in the same vein.)
I'm a committed "left wing" (har, funny joke). But I just can't find very much appealing, either politically or personally, about that strident, braying, greedy Hecuba the former Ms. Rodham.
Personally I don't thnk it makes much difference whether she's elected (I think she will be) or not. As long as congress remains divided, no president has much power over domestic affairs. Which is why there hasn't been anything new happen with domestic programs in many years - the last two presidents have been totally inefectual in that area (and I persnoally am glad for that.) The only area where the president has any real power is in the international arena. And who knows how she's likely to respond to the next big threat. I hope she has more balls than her husband did, she's going to need them.
I'm pretty fed up with the whole bunch, but if Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected, hold on to your wallets. All of them are completely out of touch with the real America. I'm sure the founding fathers are spinning in their graves! Personally, I'd rather have a dancer spinning in my lap!
Clubber, I was talking "split" in a practical sense. As long as neither party has 60 senators, nothing can get through without some bi-partisan support. And the House is so close that the same is true there as well because there are still some conservative D's who won't go along with the liberal agenda. Which means that the moderates are in control, and that's the way I like it.
Seems to me they have yet to pass any of the things that they said they were going to pass immediatly, even in the House. Truth is there are factions in both parties that don't agree with each other on much of anything. Which is why there hasn't been any significant legislation passed on any controversial issues in at least 20 years regardless of which party thought they were in control. Which is exactly how our legislature was designed to function - lots of noise, little action.
Hate to disagree, FONDL, but there have been "significant" pieces of legislation passed on "controversial" issues. Wasn't anything much more controversial in Clinton's first term than NAFTA, and it passed. More recently, the Medicare prescription drug benefit was extremely controversial. Now, there are arguments that these were not necessarily GOOD pieces of legislation, but they were both significant and controversial.
One issue that even Washington insiders don't often discuss is the need in the Senate for 60 votes to pass many/most bills. You now have a system where the minority rules...it takes just 40 votes to halt many/most bills dead in their tracks.
About the only thing the Democrats could do to screw up their chances of victory in the next presidential election is nominate Hillary, which leads me to believe they will.
Hopefully the democrats won't screw up the economy if elected. We've had 7 years of economic expansion but I don't think it will last forever.
Hey I just thought of a new immigration bill. Let all the new immigrants work and pay taxes but exclude them from collecting or counting any money paid into social security, medicare, etc. for 10 years as their penalty for not legally immigrating. As long as that costs more or they contribute more to the economy than some other plan and it's more expensive than legally immigrating (deterence to being an illegal) or else they serve at least 5 years in the military (automatic if they get killed or seriously injured). I always thought the big problem with the immigration bill was that it seemed like politicians were trying to shove something down our throats without explaining costs and benefits. We are paying taxes and most of us are concerned about our government programs like social security, medicare etc. and the government running out of money to pay for it all. Then we start talking about adding over 10 million people into that program the nation would have to pay out to. That's a serious concern. Our current president certainly didn't explain anything that made sense as far as I recall. Hopefully the next president will be smarter.
ROFL @ AN. Indeed, exactly and precisely my sentiments. But the interesting question is, who are the Republicans going to nominate for President? It's been a LONG time since we've had a wuddayacallit open season on the incumbent party. Usually the President runs for re-election, or, if he's already gotten his two terms, then the Vice President runs for his first term as President. This time, both are precluded: Cheney says he won't run, Bush Jr. is done with his time. How long has it been since the reigning party hasn't had an heir apparent?
Imnum, I guess I would argue that NAFTA and medicare drug benefits were only controversial among a fairly narrow group of people and that they both had pretty broad suppor across the political spectrum. In any event, the list of significant accomplishments by congress in the last 20 years is a very short list, which is a very significant departure from the 60s through the 80s when liberals were able to pass virtually thier entire agenda, including a whole range of major environmental initiatives.
Who the R's will nominate is indeed an interesting question. Which is why I think they have little chance of winning, there's no one who is well known and has broad support. And I also think Hilary will win the nomination easily, although have you all noticed how active Al Gore has been recently?
Well, the Dems had no "obvious front runner" at this point in the campaign for the 1992 election, but Clinton emerged from the pack not only as the leader of the Dem contenders, but also as the inevitable popular choice for President. There's still plenty of time for Hillary, Barack, or even Johnathan to become "the obvious choice" yet.
BG, as the resident voice of conservatives I'd have to say that at this point I'm leaning toward Rudy, but will be interested in hearing what Fred Thompson has to say. If Hillary is the nominee that suddenly makes the pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage Guilianni a lot more palatable to the religious right (who hate Hillary with a passion nearly equal to the left's hatred of Bush). My guess, if I must, is that it'll be Fred Thompson or Rudy. McCain has alienated too many on the right and Romney is too obviously a politician.
Hey, how about Shadowcat for President? He could propose adding the right to a lap dance should be a right for every red blooded male or female. Maybe even propose a bill banning the covering of nipples in any strip club or bikini club across the nation unless the dancer just wants to. Then we could see shadowcat on the evening news flanked by dancers in the White House. Shadowcat, would you call one dancer Monica II? Just kidding. :)
AN: I wouldn't be too quick to count out Romney- 17 US Presidents have been governors vs 1 ex-mayor(Grover Cleveland- Buffalo NY Mayor), and 1 ex-actor(Ronald Reagan, but he was an ex-gov.). Back on topic- I don't think next pres. will have an immediate effect either way(Archibalds is only a few blocks from White House), but appointment of judges & Surpreme Court justices can have a profound effect that extends well beyond presidential term.
You are so correct. Supreme Court appointments will be W's greatest accomplishment. We can already see the court returning, somewhat, to the Constitution for law, and not foreign law or opinion. Court appointment are most always the one major area (and perhaps foreign policy) a president can really have an effect on this country, since HE can not "make" law.
Slight Correction: "I don't think next pres. will have an immediate effect either way -- on stripclubs". To that I could add..or numerous other micro-issues.
Speaking of Supreme Court: what do you guys think of the Seattle / St. Louis decision about school segregation/integration?
The doom-sayers on the extreme Left (ACLU, etc.) claim it's a turning back of Brown versus Board of Ed of Kansas, allowing racially segregated schools to start up all over again.
The reactionaries on the extreme Right (neo-Nazis?) probably are lauding it as an opportunity to get their kids out of schools with "damn niggers and spics."
What about in the middle? I personally always disliked the notion of racial quotas -- I'm white and have seen many an underqualified black or woman get the job I wanted because of his skin or gender, and I HATED that, of course -- but then, I'm worried about schooling segregation, and "separate but equal" getting started again in America (it practically already is the case!) and therefore government-sanctioned racism against blacks all over again. Your thoughts?
AN: thanks for your points. I can see what you're thinking, and that's an interesting point about Hilary possibly being a nominee who galvanizes middle-to-right voters into accepting Giuliani (as you point out, a rather non-traditional Republican). Viewing it strictly as a horse race (without my own preferences involved?) I'd say that might be good for the country -- a Republican who isn't a Bible-thumper or "family values" reactionary would be someone who could "heal" some of the rifts, maybe?
Speaking of "family values," this from Vitter's web page:
"Corruption Hotline"
"Women's Leadership Forum"
"Coalition for the American Family"
It's not the stance I object to. It's the HYPOCRISY about the stance ...
Personally I think the court decisions about schools was a step backwards - which is the direction our schools need to go. Between federalization and school unions running the show, our public schools are losing public support. In many ares of the country the only kids who go to public schools are the poor kids whose parents can't afford anything better. We're rapidly approaching the point where, if school control isn't returned to the local community, the amount of money allocated to public schools will begin to decline. Personally I think that's sad.
And I agree that the area where the president has the most influence is in selecting federal judges. FDR set that precedent many years ago.
BG, regarding the segregation cases remember that Brown was to mitigate the damage of forced segregation. In the case of Seattle they never had segregated schools, where is the rationale for enforcing "integration" where no segregation exists or had existed? The new excuse, diversity, the bait and switch that makes race a permanent issue rather than discrimination or segregation, which are legitimate concerns but have largely ended.
Lets see, as far as strip clubs go, let's see. Rudy cleaned out Times Square, basically killing NYC strip clubs not on a moral crusade, but on a "quality of life" basis. Romney, Mormon. 'Nuff said. Hillary, she'd probably clear out DC just to keep bill out of the headlines. Probably Maryland and Virginia, and West Virginia too. Obama? I haven't a clue. McCain and Thompson are both married to hot blondes, their second wives in both cases, so there's hope.
By the way I ran into an interesting article the other day. You see men prefer blondes with big tits because of evolution. It's all science you see, not that we're shallow. This makes Hugh Hefner the most evolved man on the planet I guess...
I don't think Hillary would be too concerned. With the possible exception of Vegas, there are more hookers per capita advertising in DC than anywhere else in the US. That should keep Bill occupied. And it seems to me that Times Square was "improving" before Rudy came along, largely because of economics. Which is usually the main reason why strip clubs disappear.
Actually I think Hillary might be good for strip clubs, as men everywhere sought escape from reality.
LOL, I think FONDL has a point. Strip clubs will be a booming buisness if Hillary is on TV every night lecturing us on how to behave. Think Bill's dalliances were a fluke?
On the Times Square thing FONDL, although I don't have the info at hand, I remember that Rudy pushed through a lot of zoning and liscense regulations that made clubs devote 55% of their space to non-strip club entertainment (as I recall a lot of clubs called them the Guilianni room) which given Manhatten taxes and realestate cut into their profits, and also re-zoned so that no more than one adult buisness could occupy a block. It is odd that everyone points to the Feds as the prime abusers of freedom. Local governments can be just as bad.
34 comments
The KFC bucket contains: 2 small breasts, 2 large thighs, and a left wing.
I'm a committed "left wing" (har, funny joke). But I just can't find very much appealing, either politically or personally, about that strident, braying, greedy Hecuba the former Ms. Rodham.
I also agree with skyraider in that controlling politicians are out of touch with reality in America.
But, if Hillary is elected, Bill will be addressed as Mr. Hillary Clinton, no doubt! Fed up also!
Secondly, were she elected (won't happen), little will change unless Congress is NOT split. It is not split at present, FONDL.
And last, were the three branches do as the swore to do, we would have little, if any major problem in this country!
ps - There is still a MAJOR threat to our way of life!!!!
Agreed, but I was speaking strictly on a majority vote. Seems the demoncrats are much better at holding their ranks!
One issue that even Washington insiders don't often discuss is the need in the Senate for 60 votes to pass many/most bills. You now have a system where the minority rules...it takes just 40 votes to halt many/most bills dead in their tracks.
The best Congress can do is nothing, unless they wish to get rid of many years of BS they HAVE forced on us, in the past!
Hey I just thought of a new immigration bill. Let all the new immigrants work and pay taxes but exclude them from collecting or counting any money paid into social security, medicare, etc. for 10 years as their penalty for not legally immigrating. As long as that costs more or they contribute more to the economy than some other plan and it's more expensive than legally immigrating (deterence to being an illegal) or else they serve at least 5 years in the military (automatic if they get killed or seriously injured). I always thought the big problem with the immigration bill was that it seemed like politicians were trying to shove something down our throats without explaining costs and benefits. We are paying taxes and most of us are concerned about our government programs like social security, medicare etc. and the government running out of money to pay for it all. Then we start talking about adding over 10 million people into that program the nation would have to pay out to. That's a serious concern. Our current president certainly didn't explain anything that made sense as far as I recall. Hopefully the next president will be smarter.
Who the R's will nominate is indeed an interesting question. Which is why I think they have little chance of winning, there's no one who is well known and has broad support. And I also think Hilary will win the nomination easily, although have you all noticed how active Al Gore has been recently?
A quick point to your post...
You state, "...the government running out of money to pay for it all."
The goverment has no money, they only take OUR money. If one reads the Constitution, most ALL of what congress does should NOT be done.
Next topic, let's get back to STRIP CLUBS!!!
You are so correct. Supreme Court appointments will be W's greatest accomplishment. We can already see the court returning, somewhat, to the Constitution for law, and not foreign law or opinion. Court appointment are most always the one major area (and perhaps foreign policy) a president can really have an effect on this country, since HE can not "make" law.
My vote would be for FONDL!
The doom-sayers on the extreme Left (ACLU, etc.) claim it's a turning back of Brown versus Board of Ed of Kansas, allowing racially segregated schools to start up all over again.
The reactionaries on the extreme Right (neo-Nazis?) probably are lauding it as an opportunity to get their kids out of schools with "damn niggers and spics."
What about in the middle? I personally always disliked the notion of racial quotas -- I'm white and have seen many an underqualified black or woman get the job I wanted because of his skin or gender, and I HATED that, of course -- but then, I'm worried about schooling segregation, and "separate but equal" getting started again in America (it practically already is the case!) and therefore government-sanctioned racism against blacks all over again. Your thoughts?
Speaking of "family values," this from Vitter's web page:
"Corruption Hotline"
"Women's Leadership Forum"
"Coalition for the American Family"
It's not the stance I object to. It's the HYPOCRISY about the stance ...
And I agree that the area where the president has the most influence is in selecting federal judges. FDR set that precedent many years ago.
By the way I ran into an interesting article the other day. You see men prefer blondes with big tits because of evolution. It's all science you see, not that we're shallow. This makes Hugh Hefner the most evolved man on the planet I guess...
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/…
Actually I think Hillary might be good for strip clubs, as men everywhere sought escape from reality.
On the Times Square thing FONDL, although I don't have the info at hand, I remember that Rudy pushed through a lot of zoning and liscense regulations that made clubs devote 55% of their space to non-strip club entertainment (as I recall a lot of clubs called them the Guilianni room) which given Manhatten taxes and realestate cut into their profits, and also re-zoned so that no more than one adult buisness could occupy a block. It is odd that everyone points to the Feds as the prime abusers of freedom. Local governments can be just as bad.