Epitome of Statemanship

[noharleyyet]

Move along folks...no hypocrisy here.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...blicans-is-Like-Wrestling-a-Greasy-Little-Pig

 

[Zach]

I believe that Maxwell will take exception with Mr. Reid's statement..

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe that Maxwell will take exception with Mr. Reid's statement..

So should the pig.

 

[noharleyyet]

So should the pig.

...as if on cue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

...as if on cue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGoWtY_h4xo&feature=kp

 

[Zach]

So should the pig.

You see, Maxwell is... um....looking to start his political career after being inspired by Harry.

http://youtu.be/yjBVeSDn2hc

 

[noharleyyet]

..man these thread die quickly when a left party agenda is not being subliminally steered.

 

[Ben Lamb]

..man these thread die quickly when a left party agenda is not being subliminally steered.

That's it. We're putting you in a:

 

[noharleyyet]

The ol 1A quarantine huh?......OK, back on the group W bench

 

[Ben Lamb]

You can say anything you want, so long as no one hears you. Democracy in action!

 

[noharleyyet]

You can say anything you want, so long as no one hears you. Democrats in action!

...fixed

 

[Ben Lamb]

Er,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.
The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3]

Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[4]

The problem with history is that it often times defeats your quips.

It was wrong under Bush and it's equally wrong under Obama.

 

[noharleyyet]

...now we're back on track. Now if we can only get that pesky Fox, er, I mean Faux, banned.

 

[Ben Lamb]

...now we're back on track. Now if we can only get that pesky Fox, er, I mean Faux, banned.

Why? They're fantastic entertainment and they really get the goofballs lit up.

 

[noharleyyet]

Why?

...better question is ...how?

 

[Zach]

Why? They're fantastic entertainment and they really get the goofballs lit up.

Most of the goofballs do seem to get bent about fox...

 

[noharleyyet]

Most of the goofballs do seem to get bent about fox...

Now there's a quip based on fact.

 

[Ben Lamb]

...better question is ...how?

How now, brown cow.

 

[jabber]

Damn, Bush's fault again.

 

[MattK]

jabber-It's not that it's Bush's fault. It isn't his fault at all. However, everyone wants to bring up historical trends until it goes against their case. People complain about free speech zones until you say GW expanded their use. Then it's "you always want to blame Bush"...you complain about the number of executive orders until you bring up Reagan having a bunch more. You complain about illegal immigration policy of Obama until you bring up the record number of deportations... Basically it comes down to this...If Obama walked on water, you people would be complaining that he couldn't swim.