obama insults by showing some sole while slutty flight attendant look makes David

[markabilly]

http://news.aol.com/main/politics/article/obama-feet-up-photo/522634?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fmain %2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2Fobama-feet-up-photo%2F522634

meanwhile sarh palin is insulted byleterman's No. 2, "Bought makeup at Bloomingdale's to update her slutty flight attendant look," give yourself a prize. Here's the Alaska Governor's response (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23536.html):

"What a commentary there," Palin said of the comment during an interview on conservative host John Ziegler's Los Angeles-based radio show. "That's pretty pathetic, good ole David Letterman."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/10/david-letterman-and-sarah-palin-feud-grows/

Meanwhile the world is festering with unhappy souls....

[Jag_Warrior]

I can certainly understand why the Israelis would consider it an insult for Obama to have his feet up on his desk while speaking to Netanyahu (on the telephone!!!). I mean, the modern custom is for American Presidents to get down on their knees in the presence of Israeli Prime Ministers. We must do something to appease them. I suggest we immediately send them $10-15 billion in additional interest free, non repayable aid (guilt funds) and at least $5 billion in free weapons technology. Hopefully that will be enough. :rolleyes:

On the Letterman vs. Palin thing... well, I :rotflmao: . But then of course, I would. :p : She'll probably get over it. And if she doesn't... who cares? :dozey:

[Hondo]

He wasn't trying to be insulting. He was trying to give Nancy and Hillary a little peek up the pants leg. "Come to Daddy you bad little harpies..."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag...you really floor me. First off, Israeli's are out of line with this insult business, so on that score I agree....but your attack on Sarah just is showing a double standard. People went after Hillary and the Dem's just about had heart failure when she was first lady and as a Senator.

The hatred of Sarah Palin by the chattering classes is just evident she must be saying something that they are scared of. Considering my respect for the chattering classes, it cant be all bad. AS for Letterman, he is funny, and I don't take insult to it, because he lampooned the Clintons enough, but it sounds like he means it with Sarah and THAT is too bad....

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag...you really floor me. First off, Israeli's are out of line with this insult business, so on that score I agree....but your attack on Sarah just is showing a double standard. People went after Hillary and the Dem's just about had heart failure when she was first lady and as a Senator.

The hatred of Sarah Palin by the chattering classes is just evident she must be saying something that they are scared of. Considering my respect for the chattering classes, it cant be all bad. AS for Letterman, he is funny, and I don't take insult to it, because he lampooned the Clintons enough, but it sounds like he means it with Sarah and THAT is too bad....

What double standard? I've probably made more jokes about Hillary than everybody else on this board combined. I've never cared for either of the Clintons, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just because I wouldn't pee on Sarah Palin if her head was on fire, don't mistake that for me being a fan of Slick Willy & the Mrs.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What double standard? I've probably made more jokes about Hillary than everybody else on this board combined. I've never cared for either of the Clintons, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Just because I wouldn't pee on Sarah Palin if her head was on fire, don't mistake that for me being a fan of Slick Willy & the Mrs.

Good point....I forgot this new found interest in voting for Obama was not related to any love of Obama, but rather a hatred for anything you considered Neo-con.

[Jag_Warrior]

Good point....I forgot this new found interest in voting for Obama was not related to any love of Obama, but rather a hatred for anything you considered Neo-con.

You said my "attack on Sarah just is showing a double standard." Then you mentioned Hillary. :confused:

I've never cared for either one of them. Probably never will. I see one being as crooked as a dog's hind leg and the other is the Danica Patrick of the political world. So like I said, what double standard?

[BDunnell]

The hatred of Sarah Palin by the chattering classes is just evident she must be saying something that they are scared of.

Or maybe some people are genuinely worried that such an individual should ever rise to such prominence?

[Tazio]

Or maybe some people are genuinely worried that such an individual should ever rise to such prominence?
Bless you my son!
She is living proof that there is no depth the Republicans will not drop to, to get
their proven loser policies advanced. Another grab for oil,
and a retardation of energy technologies that are already viable, though most not economically so!

[Jag_Warrior]

Bless you my son!
She is living proof that there is no depth the Republicans will not drop to, to get
their proven loser policies advanced. Another grab for oil,
and a retardation of energy technologies that are already viable, though most not economically so!

Quoted For Truth! :up:

[chuck34]

Bless you my son!
She is living proof that there is no depth the Republicans will not drop to, to get
their proven loser policies advanced. Another grab for oil,
and a retardation of energy technologies that are already viable, though most not economically so!

Um, who is it that is "retarding" the nuclear technology? And what "loser policies are you refering to exactly?

[Tazio]

Um, who is it that is "retarding" the nuclear technology? And what "loser policies are you refering to exactly?

Chuck I have to run for a graduation. Short of cold fusion that tecnology is old. I was referring to the use of oil in autos as opposed to other viable options. Nuclear autos are not in the offing. I feel you, but I have to run. I'm not ducking you I'll catch up a little later! :)

[chuck34]

Chuck I have to run for a graduation. Short of cold fusion that tecnology is old. I was referring to the use of oil in autos as opposed to other viable options. Nuclear autos are not in the offing. I feel you, but I have to run. I'm not ducking you I'll catch up a little later! :)

Old technology does not make it any less viable. I'm missing your point completely I suppose. I would never think to put a nuke reactor in a car. Now electric cars charged off of a nuke reactor have some promise. What other "viable" options, besides oil are there for cars?

[race aficionado]

What other "viable" options, besides oil are there for cars?

I understand that Brazil is doing pretty well with ethanol from sugar cane as another viable option.

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

And I'm sure many more technological breakthroughs are in the making as I type.

:s mokin:

[chuck34]

I understand that Brazil is doing pretty well with ethanol from sugar cane as another viable option.

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

And I'm sure many more technological breakthroughs are in the making as I type.

:s mokin:

Great for Brazil, but the US doesn't really grow sugar cane. Right now we are producing ethanol from corn, which makes food cost more (not viable). Ethanol could be viable if they can figure out how to make it from saw grass or another "waste" product. Plus ethanol is about 30% less efficent than gasoline. So to be economically viable it needs to cost at least 30% less. Currently in the US that is not the case.

[Eki]

I understand that Brazil is doing pretty well with ethanol from sugar cane as another viable option.

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

And I'm sure many more technological breakthroughs are in the making as I type.

:s mokin:
I just heard yesterday that they are starting to manufacture biodiesel from logging waste in Finland and by 2020 it will be required that 10% to 15% of fuel is biofuel.

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

[Ranger]

I understand that Brazil is doing pretty well with ethanol from sugar cane as another viable option.


It's an option, not really viable at the moment. Only 15% of the crop can be used to extract ethanol due to the heat in the fermentation process killing the other 85%. Therefore there is huge amounts of sugar cane crops that are wasted when they could be feeding people. That's the main negative issue...likewise entire engine divisions would have to be restructured to make engines that run on E25-E100 mixtures, which is quite expensive.

[Tazio]

Chuck I have to run for a graduation. Short of cold fusion that tecnology is old. I was referring to the use of oil in autos as opposed to other viable options. Nuclear autos are not in the offing. I feel you, but I have to run. I'm not ducking you I'll catch up a little later! :) Chuck I'm not up for a fight. I already tried my damndest to get permanently banned it's absurd that I even have permission to post.
Extracting more oil will extend the viability of internal combustion engines. Thus lessoning the development, of solar hydrogen and especially electric.
You hit on something that I think you will be surprised to see how much in agreement we really are. I want to preface what I say with this. There are many people (and I can really only claim to have somewhat of an understanding of the mindset of my compatriots, so let me start there). Many Americans define themselves as us, or them. People that are never mistaken for the shapest knife in the drawer. They will follow a party line because they may not have the cognitive ability to make unbiased Judgments on their own. This sometimes leads to some of the most vocal arguing because stating a conviction loudly can be a good defense mechanism for not having to say you’re not informed, and listen to someone that you are supposed to oppose! Aren't you glad you asked ;) I am alluding to partisan politics. I think that there is a block of people that will support Sarah Palin because she is sitting on a gang of crude in the State she governed. I do not believe you are ignorant so I wouldn't put you in that group. It's late and I'm shooting from the hip here because I'm too tired to open more than one window.
My first year in college 1972 I had a brilliant professor of Physics. Let me rephrase that. A physicist with an uncanny ability to teach. We spent a great deal of time on nuclear fission, and a little less on nuclear fusion. She impressed me at that time that Fission was a wonderful and clean way to produce Electricity, and that energy from fusion would ultimately solve all energy necessities. Although I was a democrat and most of my friends were lefties I was usually in the minority when it came to the promotion of Nuclear power. There were legitimate concerns about disposal of spent u238, and plutonium. At that time.
My instructor said she believed the safest method would be to launch it (in rockets) into the Sun. Barring a launch or guidance malfunction it would be a drop in the ocean. There was a lot of trepidation at the time. Then events like Three Mile Island, and much worse Chernobyl really hurt the cause. I always maintained that the future was nuclear and still do.
But now we have all this other crap going on TERRORIST’S getting their hands on enough radioactive material to make dirty bombs. Which if done right would make some very nasty weapons that wouldn't even require bomb grade uranium or other radioactive isotopes. The last time I checked (and it's been a while) the only facility that reconstitutes spent fissionable material was in France. This is fine with me as long as it is secure and accounted for.
They take the risk they resell for profit. So now we have one group of Americans saying Nice, because that Idea of shooting it into the Sun is exspensive, and there are so many functioning reactors that sooner or later a failed launch could be catastrophic considering the volume we'd be disposing.
Which brings us back to France and the option of reconstituting. My view is that if people would stop pointing fingers at the other guy we could peacefully coexist. However that's too easy. You will have
Partisan politics gumming up the works. Right wingers are too busy mocking the left for wrongfully thinking that tree hugging has sabotaged their own concerns by accepting Coal and oil instead of pushing safe Nuclear. And will say you can't be having so much of this stuff, that terrorists will be able to purchase It at the corner drugstore thus it will continue to drag on until we have no option but to harness Cold Fusion and live happily ever after……..Until someone hits the anti-matter release valve, and will all wake up on Halbot wearing new Nike’s :love:

[Hondo]

Tazio, if you're trying to get banned, you'll have to start kicking off on the sort of forum members that run whining to a mod when they get their feelings hurt. I'm not sure how many gringos do that sort of thing. Good luck though.

[chuck34]

Chuck I'm not up for a fight. *snip*

I don't want to fight you, and on this point I don't think there's a fight to be had, as we seem to be on the same page. The only thing I would say is that shooting waste into the sun may not be the best way to go. I gather that there are ways of recycling most of the waste, but Carter banned the US from doing that. I don't know the details, and haven't taken the time to educate myself.

But now we're way off topic, my fault, sorry.

[Tazio]

Tazio, if you're trying to get banned, you'll have to start kicking off on the sort of forum members that run whining to a mod when they get their feelings hurt. I'm not sure how many gringos do that sort of thing. Good luck though.
Aparantly so! The vulgarity, personal insults and threats,
I made to one perfectly rational forum member only got the post removed
and a warning to myself! :mark: :arrows:

[Jag_Warrior]

Back to the OP. I guess there were a couple of Letterman jokes that got Sarah and First Dude in a huff. From what I heard this morning (boy, ol' Dave sure knows how to kick up the publicity machine!), the first joke caused the Palins to start squealling that Dave was making fun of their 14 year old daughter in some sex jokes... or something like that. I haven't heard or seen those jokes on YouTube yet. So apparently Letterman took some time and explained it to the Palins by way of his show: like Dave said, he doesn't "go there" and make those kinds of jokes about kids. I'll watch the video, but I'm willing to bet the farm that this is just like when Obama made that lipstick on a pig comment and Sarah Palin and the Karl Rove types made like Obama was really talking about Palin. :rolleyes: So anyway, Letterman cleared up the "claim" that he was making sex jokes about Willow or Leaf or Twig or Tree Branch... whatever the kid's name is. So that's one Sarah Palin "Jerry Springer" moment (for this week).

Then there's what Markabilly was referring to. I heard last night that Letterman issued a statement on this "slutty flight attendant" thing. He said something like, "Now that one... I kinda liked that joke myself." :D

Letterman doesn't GAF; he'll take anybody on. He's picked fights with the Clintons (there goes any talk of double standards), McCain, Oprah, Madonna, Cher, et al. As long as the Palins keep issuing dopey statements ("we have to keep Willow away from Letterman." :rolleyes: ), Dave will keep this going.

[race aficionado]

I for one have been enjoying David Letterman since he guested on Johnny Carson's show and when he started his show way back on NBC.

Like Jag said, he will take on anyone - friend of foe.
and he will almost always make me laugh.
:s mokin:

[Tazio]

Tazio, if you're trying to get banned, you'll have to start kicking off on the sort of forum members that run whining to a mod when they get their feelings hurt. I'm not sure how many gringos do that sort of thing. Good luck though.
( something I HIGHLY disapprove of....hear that MODDY...HIGHLY). at least spell CANADIAN properly. You gave us the French spelling which would be fine :dozey:

[markabilly]

Chuck I'm not up for a fight. I already tried my damndest to get permanently banned it's absurd that I even have permission to post.
:love:


Tazio, if you're trying to get banned, you'll have to start kicking off on the sort of forum members that run whining to a mod when they get their feelings hurt. I'm not sure how many gringos do that sort of thing. Good luck though.
naw, just post something about danica racing naked in the irl forum(which is what most people who watch irl on tv want to see anyway), as danica show is the kind of silly s**t upon which the IRl now survives :rolleyes:

[markabilly]

Bless you my son!
She is living proof that there is no depth the Republicans will not drop to, to get
their proven loser policies advanced. Another grab for oil,
and a retardation of energy technologies that are already viable, though most not economically so!


Quoted For Truth! :up:




Just because I wouldn't pee on Sarah Palin if her head was on fire, don't mistake that for me being a fan of Slick Willy & the Mrs.

"That's pretty pathetic, good ole jagie, taxie, and the rest of you losers. Go ahead make my day, bitches"
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/graphics/palingun1.jpg

[markabilly]

Aparantly so! The vulgarity, personal insults and threats,
I made to one perfectly rational forum member only got the post removed
and a warning to myself! :mark: :arrows:
For a second, I thought you were talking about me-which would be wrong cause I never report anybody (except a certain moderator), but then I realized you said "perfectly rational"

[Mark in Oshawa]

Letterman is Letterman. I enjoy the man's comedy and god knows the Palins will look the worse if they keep fighting with him...

As for you guys poking fun at me...maybe mea culpa...

[Tazio]

I don't want to fight you, and on this point I don't think there's a fight to be had, as we seem to be on the same page. The only thing I would say is that shooting waste into the sun may not be the best way to go. I gather that there are ways of recycling most of the waste, but Carter banned the US from doing that. I don't know the details, and haven't taken the time to educate myself.

But now we're way off topic, my fault, sorry.Carter also was a Cerified Nuclear Reator Operator, and was the engineer on the US's second Nuclear Sub.
I'd be willing to bet that at that time he had reasonable doubts as to why he didn't cotton to the program.

But don't let that stop you from tossing the Conservatives favorite whipping boy into the equation. :dozey:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Carter also was a Cerified Nuclear Reator Operator, and was the engineer on the US's second Nuclear Sub.
I'd be willing to bet that at that time he had reasonable doubts as to why he didn't cotton to the program.

But don't let that stop you from tossing the Conservatives favorite whipping boy into the equation. :dozey:


Taz....I think Carter, as smart as he was as a Naval Sub Nuke man, didn't use science to ban launching waste into the Sun, he just applied his political spectrum to it and didn't want to fund NASA to do the research when he didn't want civilian nuclear power to flourish as much in the aftermath of the beating he took at 3 mile Island.

Poltics should never trump science, yet it happens all the time with many libreal political people who only use science when it suits their purposes. The right? Well they play THAT game too, but usually over ethical concerns with stem cells and the like.

[Tazio]

Taz....I think Carter, as smart as he was as a Naval Sub Nuke man, didn't use science to ban launching waste into the Sun, he just applied his political spectrum to it and didn't want to fund NASA to do the research when he didn't want civilian nuclear power to flourish as much in the aftermath of the beating he took at 3 mile Island.

Poltics should never trump science, yet it happens all the time with many libreal political people who only use science when it suits their purposes. The right? Well they play THAT game too, but usually over ethical concerns with stem cells and the like.Mark what you projected here I agree with. I think you are refusing to give Carter some credit for being a responsible leader when it came to the whole nuclear dilemma. I think you may find this document from 1977 interesting reading, especially considering the "Nuclear Dilemma" as it relates to today’s issues.


There is no dilemma today more difficult to resolve than that connected with the use of nuclear power. Many countries see nuclear power as the only real opportunity, at least in this century, to reduce the dependence of their economic well-being on foreign oil--an energy source of uncertain availability, growing price, and ultimate exhaustion. The U.S., by contrast, has a major domestic energy source--coal--but its use is not without penalties, and our plans also call for the use of nuclear power as a share in our energy production.

The benefits of nuclear power are thus very real and practical. But a serious risk accompanies worldwide use of nuclear power--the risk that components of the nuclear power process will be turned to providing atomic weapons.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7316

[Jag_Warrior]

Now that Letterman has apologized for the 20th time, I wonder if the Palinistas will carry on their protests? And if it rains during their next protest, I wonder how many of them will stare up at the sky and drown? :p :

[chuck34]

Carter also was a Cerified Nuclear Reator Operator, and was the engineer on the US's second Nuclear Sub.
I'd be willing to bet that at that time he had reasonable doubts as to why he didn't cotton to the program.

But don't let that stop you from tossing the Conservatives favorite whipping boy into the equation. :dozey:

I know very well that Carter was a Nuke sub man. However that doesn't change the fact that he set up the ban (started by Ford) on reprocessing nuclear fuel. Scientifically there is no reason not to reprocess the fuel.

[Tazio]

I know very well that Carter was a Nuke sub man. However that doesn't change the fact that he set up the ban (started by Ford) on reprocessing nuclear fuel. Scientifically there is no reason not to reprocess the fuel.That's a reasonable assumption in 2009.
I apologies if you felt insulted by me pointing out that that Carter had an extensive background in Nuclear Physics.
Read the article associated with Post # 31 which explains his posture at that point in history.
Reasonable people would understand why he had trepidations.
As the article states he wanted to explore the viability of Breeder Reactors in a commercial capacity.
Thus breeding plutonium for conventional fission reactors.

[chuck34]

That's a reasonable assumption in 2009.
I apologies if you felt insulted by me pointing out that that Carter had an extensive background in Nuclear Physics.
Read the article associated with Post # 31 which explains his posture at that point in history.
Reasonable people would understand why he had trepidations.
As the article states he wanted to explore the viability of Breeder Reactors in a commercial capacity.
Thus breeding plutonium for conventional fission reactors.

No offence taken, didn't mean to come accross that way either. I'll read the article when I get a bit more time.