Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
Song Parodies -> "Bye Bye Dems (US 2010 Mid-Term Elections)"
Original Song Title:
"Bye Bye Love"
Original Performer:
The Everly Brothers
Parody Song Title:
"Bye Bye Dems (US 2010 Mid-Term Elections)"
Parody Written by:
Fiddlegirl and Tommy Turtle
The Lyrics
OS video here. Pacing note: Depending on which OS performance, the extra syllables may vary, as in "I think I'm-a gonna cry-y" or "With-a someone new". Hence, what might appear to be an occasional extra syl in the parody was matched to such a version.
(TT here: It's been a tough school year for poor Fiddleteach (and barely started!), leaving not much time for parody. Her loss, AIR's loss, but mostly, my loss. :-(
So let it be noted for the record that the concept, title switch, and most of the lines were FG's. [Naturally, econoturtle did the econonotes.] Since school starts so dang early in the day, and nightowlturtle does the links and the submission, FG did not know that this paragraph would be in the submitted version.)
(TT here: It's been a tough school year for poor Fiddleteach (and barely started!), leaving not much time for parody. Her loss, AIR's loss, but mostly, my loss. :-(
So let it be noted for the record that the concept, title switch, and most of the lines were FG's. [Naturally, econoturtle did the econonotes.] Since school starts so dang early in the day, and nightowlturtle does the links and the submission, FG did not know that this paragraph would be in the submitted version.)
Bye, Bye, Dems
Bye, bye, Pe-lo-si
Hello, GOP
"In pink" and a-riding high-gh
Why cry, Bud?
Debt high, (whoulda' guessed?) [1]
Jobs, schools in a mess
Security a lie-ie
'Twas time to say goodby-ye
We don't mean "maybe"
Wantin' some folks, new
All "red states" happy
So sad, the "blue"
We're not all "hayseeds" --
-- My Harvard friend [2]
You had your own chance
Things "Right" again!
Brand new Gov
Bye, bye, Dem Con-gress
Boehner, Speaker, is
(Can't blink: Botox Queen, nor cry-y)
Bad use of --
-- Sup' ma-jority
Now, mi-nority
Cut deals, while debt: to sky-y
Inflation will be nigh-gh [3]
Shoulda' taken slow glance
At the polls: no love
When the votes were counted
Gave you the shove
And here's the reason:
E-con-o-my!
Two worthless bailouts
Lib'ral spending spree
New State Govs [4]
Also, legislates [5]
Voters throw out mess
New broom sweepin' clean; that's why-y
"Bull--", lot of:
MS-NBC
Calls it "victory"
"We still have Harry Re-eid" [6]
I guess that's all you ne-ed
Support: continue: ble-eed
Give up; go 'way; conce-ede ...
[1] Actually, *we* did, as we recall...
[2]
Still remember the famous (and costly) remarks in April 2008 by the "common people's friend", the Harvard grad (Obama), about how those who didn't support him were blue-collar workers who "cling to guns and religion"? ... We have a couple of surprises for you, Mr. Pres. One of us has a Master's degree in Economics, something you obviously don't have and desperately need, and the other has not one, but two -- count 'em, *two* Master's degrees. *Stereotyping* your opponents as uneducated -- shame!
To further burst your stereotyping bubble. the two authors do in fact have differences between themselves in the area of religion. One thing we *do* have in common: We don't worship *you*, as so many did. We understand why that bothers you. ;)
Neither of us is particularly afraid of guns, and if we "cling" to them -- i. e., oppose the repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution -- it's for precisely the reason that the Founding Fathers put that Amendment in there: Because *every* dictatorship's first priority is to disarm the populace. Gee, we wonder why... .
It's comforting to think that anyone who opposes you is an undereducated hick It's also one reason why your party lost so badly recently: You have no clue.
[3]
Just this past week, the Fed announced that it would "buy" $600 billion of US Treasury Bonds. This is called "monetizing the debt", something that the Fed Chairman swore under oath to Congress that he would not do with the latest round of Treasury borrowing. (When do the perjury charges get filed?)
To understand the complete process, see the magnum opus parody on economics posted by us almost a year ago. Short version: The Treasury borrows money by issuing bonds (IOUs). The Federal Reserve Board buys them. thus adding money to the economy. How, without raising taxes? By printing the money. The polite term for this is "inflation". The correct term is "counterfeiting". Every dollar we have is worth less than it was yesterday.
Proof: By *not* sheer coincidence, on the day this was written, the price of gold (*real* money) rose by more than three percent ($45) in *one day*, to about $1381.00 per ounce, its highest price in 5,000 years of recorded human history. We hope you all took that previous advice to heart and bought gold back then (16 Dec 2009), at $1137.00/oz. You'd have a 21.5% gain in about ten and a half months. Anyone getting that kind of return anywhere else? (APR - annualized return -- of 24.5%). .. No, we don't have a crystal ball. Just the facts. And reality.
Expect prices in general to start rising sharply in the not-too-distant future, unless the nation goes bankrupt or the GOP can reverse this trend. Hey, we were right a year ago....
(GEEKS ONLY) New abbreviation being tossed around the financial world lately: "QE". The ancient Turtle always thought that that meant "Queen Elizabeth", either Her Majesty or a cruise ship. Seems it's the new abbreviation for the euphemism, "quantitative easing": The Fed prints a quantity of money, and "easing" as opposed to "tightening". When the pols have to start using acronyms of euphemisms, you know that something rotten is going on. It is.
[4] Some races still "too close to call", or recounts planned, but as this is being written, it looks like the GOP will have a net gain of about ten State Governorships.
[5] (Same disclaimer) The Republican Party gained 680 seats in state legislative races, breaking the previous record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.
[6] The funniest, but most pathetic, part was watching The Obama Channel (known before 2008 as MSNBC) and The Daily Show try to pretend that this was something other than a debacle for Dems (dembacle?), in that they didn't lose every single race that they might have. If that's your consolation, OK, but trying to pretend that it wasn't a repudiation of the last two years...?
Of course, *someone* will say it's Bush's fault. There was recently a plane crash in Cuba, another in Pakistan, and a volcanic eruption in Java. They're *all* Bush's fault, though we haven't yet heard exactly how they'll pin it on him...
Seriously: (A) Obama knew the economy was bad. He promised to wave a magic wand of bailouts and cash-for-clunkers, etc. and fix it. He didn't. He and his super-majority in Congress made it worse.
(B) As pointed out in this parody from October 2009, the housing bust that triggered the current crisis was most directly Bill Clinton's fault, following up on Jimmy Carter's legislation, enabled by Woodrow Wilson, all Democratic Presidents. Bush wasn't perfect. But Obama claimed to be, or at least, his supporters thought so. Wrong.
Actually, unemployment is *much* worse than current statistics indicate. Over the past couple of years, many who wanted jobs just gave up and quit looking for work. Unemployment statistics count only those *actively seeking work* (especially, seeking unemployment insurance compensation). If these dropouts are added, the true rate is more like 15-20%, *far* higher than under Bush. Nobody knows this but TT, and now, FG. And now, you. Pass the word around.
Bye, bye, Pe-lo-si
Hello, GOP
"In pink" and a-riding high-gh
Why cry, Bud?
Debt high, (whoulda' guessed?) [1]
Jobs, schools in a mess
Security a lie-ie
'Twas time to say goodby-ye
We don't mean "maybe"
Wantin' some folks, new
All "red states" happy
So sad, the "blue"
We're not all "hayseeds" --
-- My Harvard friend [2]
You had your own chance
Things "Right" again!
Brand new Gov
Bye, bye, Dem Con-gress
Boehner, Speaker, is
(Can't blink: Botox Queen, nor cry-y)
Bad use of --
-- Sup' ma-jority
Now, mi-nority
Cut deals, while debt: to sky-y
Inflation will be nigh-gh [3]
Shoulda' taken slow glance
At the polls: no love
When the votes were counted
Gave you the shove
And here's the reason:
E-con-o-my!
Two worthless bailouts
Lib'ral spending spree
New State Govs [4]
Also, legislates [5]
Voters throw out mess
New broom sweepin' clean; that's why-y
"Bull--", lot of:
MS-NBC
Calls it "victory"
"We still have Harry Re-eid" [6]
I guess that's all you ne-ed
Support: continue: ble-eed
Give up; go 'way; conce-ede ...
[1] Actually, *we* did, as we recall...
[2]
Still remember the famous (and costly) remarks in April 2008 by the "common people's friend", the Harvard grad (Obama), about how those who didn't support him were blue-collar workers who "cling to guns and religion"? ... We have a couple of surprises for you, Mr. Pres. One of us has a Master's degree in Economics, something you obviously don't have and desperately need, and the other has not one, but two -- count 'em, *two* Master's degrees. *Stereotyping* your opponents as uneducated -- shame!
To further burst your stereotyping bubble. the two authors do in fact have differences between themselves in the area of religion. One thing we *do* have in common: We don't worship *you*, as so many did. We understand why that bothers you. ;)
Neither of us is particularly afraid of guns, and if we "cling" to them -- i. e., oppose the repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution -- it's for precisely the reason that the Founding Fathers put that Amendment in there: Because *every* dictatorship's first priority is to disarm the populace. Gee, we wonder why... .
It's comforting to think that anyone who opposes you is an undereducated hick It's also one reason why your party lost so badly recently: You have no clue.
[3]
Just this past week, the Fed announced that it would "buy" $600 billion of US Treasury Bonds. This is called "monetizing the debt", something that the Fed Chairman swore under oath to Congress that he would not do with the latest round of Treasury borrowing. (When do the perjury charges get filed?)
To understand the complete process, see the magnum opus parody on economics posted by us almost a year ago. Short version: The Treasury borrows money by issuing bonds (IOUs). The Federal Reserve Board buys them. thus adding money to the economy. How, without raising taxes? By printing the money. The polite term for this is "inflation". The correct term is "counterfeiting". Every dollar we have is worth less than it was yesterday.
Proof: By *not* sheer coincidence, on the day this was written, the price of gold (*real* money) rose by more than three percent ($45) in *one day*, to about $1381.00 per ounce, its highest price in 5,000 years of recorded human history. We hope you all took that previous advice to heart and bought gold back then (16 Dec 2009), at $1137.00/oz. You'd have a 21.5% gain in about ten and a half months. Anyone getting that kind of return anywhere else? (APR - annualized return -- of 24.5%). .. No, we don't have a crystal ball. Just the facts. And reality.
Expect prices in general to start rising sharply in the not-too-distant future, unless the nation goes bankrupt or the GOP can reverse this trend. Hey, we were right a year ago....
(GEEKS ONLY) New abbreviation being tossed around the financial world lately: "QE". The ancient Turtle always thought that that meant "Queen Elizabeth", either Her Majesty or a cruise ship. Seems it's the new abbreviation for the euphemism, "quantitative easing": The Fed prints a quantity of money, and "easing" as opposed to "tightening". When the pols have to start using acronyms of euphemisms, you know that something rotten is going on. It is.
[4] Some races still "too close to call", or recounts planned, but as this is being written, it looks like the GOP will have a net gain of about ten State Governorships.
[5] (Same disclaimer) The Republican Party gained 680 seats in state legislative races, breaking the previous record of 628 set by Democrats in the post-Watergate elections of 1974.
[6] The funniest, but most pathetic, part was watching The Obama Channel (known before 2008 as MSNBC) and The Daily Show try to pretend that this was something other than a debacle for Dems (dembacle?), in that they didn't lose every single race that they might have. If that's your consolation, OK, but trying to pretend that it wasn't a repudiation of the last two years...?
Of course, *someone* will say it's Bush's fault. There was recently a plane crash in Cuba, another in Pakistan, and a volcanic eruption in Java. They're *all* Bush's fault, though we haven't yet heard exactly how they'll pin it on him...
Seriously: (A) Obama knew the economy was bad. He promised to wave a magic wand of bailouts and cash-for-clunkers, etc. and fix it. He didn't. He and his super-majority in Congress made it worse.
(B) As pointed out in this parody from October 2009, the housing bust that triggered the current crisis was most directly Bill Clinton's fault, following up on Jimmy Carter's legislation, enabled by Woodrow Wilson, all Democratic Presidents. Bush wasn't perfect. But Obama claimed to be, or at least, his supporters thought so. Wrong.
Actually, unemployment is *much* worse than current statistics indicate. Over the past couple of years, many who wanted jobs just gave up and quit looking for work. Unemployment statistics count only those *actively seeking work* (especially, seeking unemployment insurance compensation). If these dropouts are added, the true rate is more like 15-20%, *far* higher than under Bush. Nobody knows this but TT, and now, FG. And now, you. Pass the word around.
Your Vote & Comment Counts
The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.
Place Your Vote |
Voting Results
| ||||||||||||||||||
Voting Breakdown
The following represent how many people voted for each category.
| Pacing | How Funny | Overall Rating | |||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 5 | 10 | 9 | 9 |
User Comments
Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.
A tsunami of hilarity...a net gain of 555 seats! ;D
Lexcellence abounds (and gambols and capers) to the ^5th!
[also, given ample evidence of youz tewez synergistic primacy in parody n' fondness for footnotes, I now firmly believe when you describe yourselves as 'liberterian', you're slyly neologizing 'librettist' & 'documentarian'!]
[also, given ample evidence of youz tewez synergistic primacy in parody n' fondness for footnotes, I now firmly believe when you describe yourselves as 'liberterian', you're slyly neologizing 'librettist' & 'documentarian'!]
You're 'bye,bye,bye" is 'HIGH,HIGH,HIGH....on laughs!!!(Oh, and it gets five,five,five...)
This song sure gets my vote! A 555 vote that is... ;-)
Now if only the Republicans will push for what the people elected them to do, which wasn't the usual GOP platform of compromise with the Socialists. It will take severe measures to prevent the country sinking into the state where the gun-clingers will feel compelled to use them. Already the Chinese, and I think, the Brasilians are warning us about not trying to pay back our debts with monopoly money. The Feds are planning to try a fellow named Not Haus for issuing his own money (silver coin). Anyone who had put $10 into LIberty Dollars 3 years ago would have $26 now. Somehow we have managed to set up a situation where we can have deflation (assets such as homes) combined with hyperinflation. Contrary to a lot of political theory, I believe we're at the stage where we will have tyranny and anarchy simultaneously as well.
OMR: Glad you "caught the wave"! Thanks for v/c :D
TJC: We just have "gamboler's luck" this time around... ;) Thanks for v/c!
Mark Scotti: My, My, My! Such nice compliments- and appreciated, as always :D
Wild Child JIN: As TT always says, "You don't *have* to agree with us, but it saves time in the long run." (Actually, he doesn't always say that. In fact, he's never said that. But I think he'd agree!) :) Thanks for v/c..
Patrick: There is certainly a palpable level of frustration where *I* live, and I hope that there will be true representation this time around as well. Thanks, as always, for v/c. :)
TJC: We just have "gamboler's luck" this time around... ;) Thanks for v/c!
Mark Scotti: My, My, My! Such nice compliments- and appreciated, as always :D
Wild Child JIN: As TT always says, "You don't *have* to agree with us, but it saves time in the long run." (Actually, he doesn't always say that. In fact, he's never said that. But I think he'd agree!) :) Thanks for v/c..
Patrick: There is certainly a palpable level of frustration where *I* live, and I hope that there will be true representation this time around as well. Thanks, as always, for v/c. :)
Update [3]: Gold up again today, currently trading at $1397.30/oz.
It was a repudiation, all right... of the Blue Dogs, because of whom the Democrats never really had a majority in the House. 26 of them went down and visited the Ty-D-Bol Man on Tuesday night. I shed no tears over guys who call themselves Democrats but vote Republican getting beat by real Republicans. Now, when President Obama is re-elected in 2012, we'll have a real majority in both houses, and we'll pass some REAL radical stuff (which is only radical in the warped minds of the right-wingers), and the 2010s will make the 1990s look like the 1970s! "Bye Bye Dems"? More like "Bye, Bayh, Not-Dems!"
Old Man Ribber: Can't top FG's pun, so just "thanks". :D
TJC: Love the apropos portmanteau!
Mark Scotti: Let's hope we all can laugh soon; the last two years haven't been very funny. Thanks for v/c.
Wild Child Jin: The electorate has spoken, and who are we to argue? Thanks!
Patrick: Astute analysis all around (alliterative, ahh!). ... Let's hope it doesn't get to that stage, but the polls showed there is a lot of anger out there. As you said, those elected need to deliver as promised, or else ... scary. Thanks for v/c.
This Just In: Good thing that I've been buying gold-mining stocks since it was $260/oz.
Michael Pacholek: Whew! For a while there, we were afraid you weren't going to show! ... Care to place a small wager on O being a one-termer? (Some pundits have already speculated that he may not even win his own party's nomination again.)
As for Blue Dogs, O got his wishes anyway: massive bailouts, cash for clunkers, health care that a majority of Americans would like to see repealed or scaled back massively (per the polls), etc. etc. (Perhaps soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Pelosi's famous remark, "We have to pass the bill so that we can see what's in it" had something to do with that. That sentence is going into the history books, *trust me*.) And here we are, worse than when he took office.
It's always hard to have one's illusions shattered, but history (i. e., "Reality") hasn't been kind to the agenda that passed. And the voters responded accordingly. Your faith is touching, but faith hasn't fixed anything. Try facts some time -- they work much better.
Curious: Care to list that REAL radical stuff that you'd like to see passed? It would be interesting to know exactly what "specific" legislation and policies you support and think would solve our problems. Thanks for stopping by, and looking forward to the Pacholek Platform.
TJC: Love the apropos portmanteau!
Mark Scotti: Let's hope we all can laugh soon; the last two years haven't been very funny. Thanks for v/c.
Wild Child Jin: The electorate has spoken, and who are we to argue? Thanks!
Patrick: Astute analysis all around (alliterative, ahh!). ... Let's hope it doesn't get to that stage, but the polls showed there is a lot of anger out there. As you said, those elected need to deliver as promised, or else ... scary. Thanks for v/c.
This Just In: Good thing that I've been buying gold-mining stocks since it was $260/oz.
Michael Pacholek: Whew! For a while there, we were afraid you weren't going to show! ... Care to place a small wager on O being a one-termer? (Some pundits have already speculated that he may not even win his own party's nomination again.)
As for Blue Dogs, O got his wishes anyway: massive bailouts, cash for clunkers, health care that a majority of Americans would like to see repealed or scaled back massively (per the polls), etc. etc. (Perhaps soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Pelosi's famous remark, "We have to pass the bill so that we can see what's in it" had something to do with that. That sentence is going into the history books, *trust me*.) And here we are, worse than when he took office.
It's always hard to have one's illusions shattered, but history (i. e., "Reality") hasn't been kind to the agenda that passed. And the voters responded accordingly. Your faith is touching, but faith hasn't fixed anything. Try facts some time -- they work much better.
Curious: Care to list that REAL radical stuff that you'd like to see passed? It would be interesting to know exactly what "specific" legislation and policies you support and think would solve our problems. Thanks for stopping by, and looking forward to the Pacholek Platform.
For once, I agree with you.. Now, more than ever, the remaining Dems absolutely must stay the course they have followed for the past 2 years, beginning with embracing Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader. They *must* continue fighting fiercely to defend Obamacare, calling for tax hikes, seeking new burdens to place on the economy, and undermining our military at every turn. Let them not be swayed by election returns! For the good of the republic, they must stand firmly in support of President Obama's policies- no matter how unpopular with the electorate or potentially damaging to the country. If they've upheld their duties in this true spirit of exemplary public service, then the 2012 election can't *help* but turn out favorably!
ROFLMAO!!!!! .... (See why I miss her, people? The Iron Queen of Irony, First Lady of Facetiousness, Sovereign of Sarcasm....) xoxoxo Muah!
Excellent parody and excellent conclusion with the Reid/need/bleed/concede wordplay. And, yes, this blue state resident is sad that voters in my state were not as smart as those in most of the rest of the nation.
I like the footnote 6 revelation that you watch MSNBC. So you’re the one!
I also like Michael Pacholek’s spin on the election, but I didn’t know that outgoing Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold was a blue dog Democrat.
I like the footnote 6 revelation that you watch MSNBC. So you’re the one!
I also like Michael Pacholek’s spin on the election, but I didn’t know that outgoing Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold was a blue dog Democrat.
John Jenkins: Thank you. And as for watching MSNBC, there are certain ugly tasks that need to be done in the name of research -- e. g., listening to speeches by the POTUS, VP, and all other targets of our parodies -- or else, we wouldn't have the material for a good parody.
And unlike some parodists, we like to support ours with *facts*. Like MSNBC reporters wearing Obama buttons on the job during the 2008 elections. Watching and listening to these pols and pundits -- It's a dirty, rotten job, but hey, *somebody* has to do it.... (wink)
Thank you for taking the time to read, vote, and comment. And for noting that Mr. Pacholek committed the Procrustean error of logic, by twisting the facts if they don't support his hypothesis. In fact, that's the very definition of "spin", no? :) Cheers.
And unlike some parodists, we like to support ours with *facts*. Like MSNBC reporters wearing Obama buttons on the job during the 2008 elections. Watching and listening to these pols and pundits -- It's a dirty, rotten job, but hey, *somebody* has to do it.... (wink)
Thank you for taking the time to read, vote, and comment. And for noting that Mr. Pacholek committed the Procrustean error of logic, by twisting the facts if they don't support his hypothesis. In fact, that's the very definition of "spin", no? :) Cheers.
@ TT: I learned from the best... ;)
@ John Jenkins: Thank you for v/c... LOL @ your "parting shot". Ditto for Alan Grayson, James Oberstar, John Spratt, Paul Kanjorski, Ron Klein, Tom Perriello... :D
@ John Jenkins: Thank you for v/c... LOL @ your "parting shot". Ditto for Alan Grayson, James Oberstar, John Spratt, Paul Kanjorski, Ron Klein, Tom Perriello... :D
The facts DO support my hypothesis, Shellhead. A majority of Americans wanted the public option in health care reform. Saying "Most Americans didn't want this bill" is a half-truth, because we wanted MORE. The people who wanted more mostly stayed home, as did young voters: Two-thirds of those who voted were age 44 and up. The young voters will return in 2012 and Obama will win over 400 Electoral Votes. Mainly because the GOP will overreach, as they always do, and take those damned guns they cling to and shoot themselves in the foot. Then stick said feet in their mouths. Then they'll nominate for President A) an empty suit B) an idiot C) a lunatic or D) a cominbation thereof... I'm guessing it'll be D. And these "pundits" saying President Obama won't run for a second term? They're all conservative, and, newsflash, conservatives lie.
Michael Pacholek: I can have the comment deleted for the derogatory term, "Shellhead", but I think it's better that everyone see the character of the commenter. Insults aren't an argument.
You haven't answered either John Jenkins' or Fiddlegirl's comments about Dems who lost and were *not* Blue Dogs. Which is typical: don't respond to the argument, just rant and insult.
You also didn't answer my question of exactly what legislation you want passed. Quote from you:
"and we'll pass some REAL radical stuff... "
"Moi: Curious: Care to list that REAL radical stuff that you'd like to see passed? It would be interesting to know exactly what "specific" legislation and policies you support and think would solve our problems. Thanks for stopping by, and looking forward to the Pacholek Platform."
Why no answer? Afraid to stand up for what you believe in? I don't mean generalities, I mean specifics.
If all of those stay-home voters were so enthusiastic, why did they stay home? Perhaps because they were disillusioned?
And you still haven't countered the FACTS in the footnotes -- try READING them - about how unemployment has gotten worse, Fed printing phony money, (see Patrick's comment: Some countries who lent money to the US - by buying Treasury bonds -- are warning against being repaid in devalued dollars.), etc.
Conservative pundits lie? Obama lied about repealing "Don't ask, don't tell', about doing the health care bill on camera, for C-SPAN, instead of in a closed room; ... oh, what's the use?
The fact is, your guys lost. Period. Get over it.
You haven't answered either John Jenkins' or Fiddlegirl's comments about Dems who lost and were *not* Blue Dogs. Which is typical: don't respond to the argument, just rant and insult.
You also didn't answer my question of exactly what legislation you want passed. Quote from you:
"and we'll pass some REAL radical stuff... "
"Moi: Curious: Care to list that REAL radical stuff that you'd like to see passed? It would be interesting to know exactly what "specific" legislation and policies you support and think would solve our problems. Thanks for stopping by, and looking forward to the Pacholek Platform."
Why no answer? Afraid to stand up for what you believe in? I don't mean generalities, I mean specifics.
If all of those stay-home voters were so enthusiastic, why did they stay home? Perhaps because they were disillusioned?
And you still haven't countered the FACTS in the footnotes -- try READING them - about how unemployment has gotten worse, Fed printing phony money, (see Patrick's comment: Some countries who lent money to the US - by buying Treasury bonds -- are warning against being repaid in devalued dollars.), etc.
Conservative pundits lie? Obama lied about repealing "Don't ask, don't tell', about doing the health care bill on camera, for C-SPAN, instead of in a closed room; ... oh, what's the use?
The fact is, your guys lost. Period. Get over it.
Michael:
"And these "pundits" saying President Obama won't run for a second term?>
Please READ before replying, That's not what I said AT ALL. What I said was (hint:: It's in the first reply to you, right after welcoming you to the discussion):
"Care to place a small wager on O being a one-termer? (Some pundits have already speculated that he may not even win his own party's nomination again.)"
That was not at all saying that he won't run. Of COURSE he'll run. My quote above was that he'll run, but lose in the general election. The part in parentheses was "speculation" that his party might not choose him, even though he runs to be re-nominated. Speculating is not the same as lying. (Most of your comment was speculation; we won't know who's right until 2012, right?) It wasn't reported as *fact.*, by any pundit or by this writer. But I realize that the difference between fact, wish, or guess wouldn't affect your argument. You saw what you wanted to see, and replied to what I didn't say. Or you just didn't read very carefully.
No liberal has *ever( said something that is a lie. Of course, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. (Sound familiar? Or is memory too short and/or too selective?) . Read more carefully next time. Your comments are always welcome. They would be more interesting if they were accurate and on target. Cheers.
"And these "pundits" saying President Obama won't run for a second term?>
Please READ before replying, That's not what I said AT ALL. What I said was (hint:: It's in the first reply to you, right after welcoming you to the discussion):
"Care to place a small wager on O being a one-termer? (Some pundits have already speculated that he may not even win his own party's nomination again.)"
That was not at all saying that he won't run. Of COURSE he'll run. My quote above was that he'll run, but lose in the general election. The part in parentheses was "speculation" that his party might not choose him, even though he runs to be re-nominated. Speculating is not the same as lying. (Most of your comment was speculation; we won't know who's right until 2012, right?) It wasn't reported as *fact.*, by any pundit or by this writer. But I realize that the difference between fact, wish, or guess wouldn't affect your argument. You saw what you wanted to see, and replied to what I didn't say. Or you just didn't read very carefully.
No liberal has *ever( said something that is a lie. Of course, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. (Sound familiar? Or is memory too short and/or too selective?) . Read more carefully next time. Your comments are always welcome. They would be more interesting if they were accurate and on target. Cheers.
The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.
Link To This Page
The address of this page is: http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/theeverlybrothers20.shtml For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.
This is view # 1316
