Comments Posted By DoorHold
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 66 Comments
SAVE THE AMERICAN FUR COMPANY!
I bet the Democrats will ensure the union-heavy American auto manufacturers will get a piece of the bail-out pie, even if, ironically, it's mainly BECAUSE they're so heavily unionized that they are not competitive. "Thousands" out of work? Quite an understatement considering how many businesses rely on the auto industry. Mistakes? Like producing the best-selling vehicles in the nation -- for decades? What morons, huh?
They did try too hard to squeeze every last penny out of their mainstream cars. Every time I saw an ad claiming how much less their cars sold for than, say, a Japanese brand, I practically screamed, "WHY is your main selling point that your cars are crappier than the competition?" How much de-contenting do you have to do to save $1000? In that respect, they're idiots.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 19.11.2008 @ 13:40
Thanks a lot Rick, I just had my first SARGASM!
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 19.11.2008 @ 13:49
SUCKLING THE GOVERNMENT SUGAR TIT
Seems to me someone in government has a guilty conscience.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 12.11.2008 @ 13:01
A SHORT, BUT PIQUANT NOTE, ON KNUCKLEDRAGGERS
Why you arrogant son of a ... Kidding!
I've only recently been able to accept that, as far as the level of intelligence of the average person goes, this is as good as it will ever be, and it's going to get worse. And I read "The Marching Morons" like, thirty years ago!
Does admitting you're slow get you off the hook?
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 13:03
BLACK NIGHT RIDERS TERRORIZING OUR POLITICS
“John Lewis was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself personally rebuked just last night.”
God, he's such a ... lawyer!
I swear, nearly everything he says (or approves) can be compared to that infamous "that depends on what the definition of is, is" statement by some other lawyer.
Regarding racism, I harbor some racist resentments myself, I know people who are openly racist, yet I know of no one who is bothered in the slightest by Obama's genetics. It's what he has done, says now, and promises to do if elected that has us royally pissed off. Since his supporters cannot fathom ANY disagreement with Obama's politics, they MUST look for ANOTHER reason people are rejecting him, and the occasional racist comment gives them the brush they must have to paint everyone else with.
It's your politics, Obama.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 13:27
IF ELECTED, OBAMA WILL BE MY PRESIDENT
Holy cow, what a response! Mine'll get lost in the avalanche, but here goes:
"The fact that the Democrats and the left have acted like 2 year olds the last 8 years doesn’t mean that if Obama is elected we should throw the same infantile tantrums and look for ghosts in the machine ..."
At that point in your article I was inclined to disagree; Screw them! Screw civility! They didn't act civil! They didn't act fair or polite! And it wasn't just the last "eight" years, they did it for eight years (and counting) under Reagan!
But your article convinced me otherwise. Thanks, I guess, for that slap upside the head.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 13:51
Ah, and the whole country gets a taste of Chicago-style politics. Can't wait for some of their other tactics to emerge; someone will "drop out" of politics stating "family concerns" (the reality: threats to his family), documents will go missing (the reality: hidden, if not shredded), someone will be found um, expired by his own hand (the reality: you know), etc.
I miss the CITY of Chicago, but not the politics.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 13:42
MORE ON THOSE "ANGRY, RACIST GOP MOBS"
How the hell do we stop the insanity?
Politicians are just people, and as is obvious from the endless supply of gaffes from every single one of them, not particularly brighter than the rest of us.
Stop the personal attacks and let's concentrate on the politics (I said, knowing it will have no effect whatsoever).
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 14:07
REZKO SINGING: OBAMA SWEATING?
"29Brown Line Said: ... I live in Chicago ..."
And I think your succinct description of the reality of Chicago politics shows you've been paying attention (be careful there).
The delightful thing about Chicago politics is, someone is ALWAYS being investigated, but not for the reasons non-initiates might think. There must always be the pretense that everyone is liable to be prosecuted. The reason for this is two-fold: To keep the masses quelled with the false belief that "something" is always being done about corruption, and to instill fear into, well, everyone involved, since they know the hammer can be brought down at any time if anyone gets out of line. Another reason, of course, is to actually bring that hammer down on their "enemies," who are no more corrupt than themselves, but this satisfies the two aforementioned purposes of "investigations" in Chicago-style politics.
So unless the powers-that-be intend to throw Obama under the bus, he will remain untouched by ANY investigations. The investigations will continue, so as to instill the "possibility" that Obama is at risk, but as long as Obama owes so much to so many people, and as long as he does not intend to throw THEM under the bus, they NEED him up there. No point in getting your claws into someone then allowing that person to fall.
Man, that sounds so paranoid, but I lived in Chicago long enough to know that it is not.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 15:02
"... [Obama] may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants “capitalism with a human face.” He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism."
Though I object to being called ignorant (I have used "socialist" to describe Obama), I will take it under advisement and change that to something more along the lines of "radical leftist liberal."
I insist on a stronger phrasing than just "liberal" because of his past, what he's saying now, and what he promises for the future. e.g., A liberal believes in an unfettered right to an abortion, Obama believes in allowing a baby to die after being accidentally born alive during an abortion.
I know some have parsed his vote on that subject to avoid coming to that conclusion, but politicians often compromise on a vote for various reasons. Obama did not do so on this one. It was clearly intended to prevent allowing babies to die, and he could not find it in himself to support it despite other objections.
That's not liberal to me, that's radical.
Comment Posted By DoorHold On 15.10.2008 @ 15:22
