As long as he isn't like the usual lot of uber partisan ideologues we've dealt with recently, people who come from the industries that they're hired to regulate, then I'ma suspend judgment on this one for now.

He's from Illinois and they probably need a scapegoat:

Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin

Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Illinois Governor: Rod Blogojevich (arrested)

Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan

Illinois Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)

Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)

The leadership in Illinois? All Democrats.
Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago.
Body count in the last six months: 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago 221 killed in Iraq.

State pension fund - $44 Billion in debt, worst in the country.

Cook County (Chicago) sales tax - 10.25% highest in country. (Look it up).

Chicago school system - rated one of the worst in the country.

Now they can blame everything on this guy, LaHood, while they elect another democrat to the House from Illinois...pretty slick.

Who are the "other" Republicans?

Gates

LaHood is a good guy. He's a Republican who represented the Peoria area.

Are there any liberal democrats here that ever realized in 2 years of campaigning how long Obama's middle finger is ?

...the gays will be up allll night long astonished at the size of it after today's announcements (ABSOLUTELY NO PUN INTENDED).

"Obama Adds Another Repub to Cabinet"

Yup, pretty soon Obama will have totally neutered all the standard WingDingDong talking points and trumped up contentions. This guy is playing them like the cheap instruments they are --- and he still hasn't even been sworn in yet!

...the beauty is that you TRULY believe that.

Now they can blame everything on this guy, LaHood, while they elect another democrat to the House from Illinois...pretty slick.

#2 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2008-12-18 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

He's going to be the Transportaion Sec.

Blame what on him? Traffic jams?

How about building a 16-lane freeway over Robert Redford's catcher's mit of a face...

the beauty is that you TRULY believe that.
#8 | Posted by bnjohanson at 2008-12-18 03:00 PM

YEAH!
And conversely ------- that you CAN'T comprehend what's actually happening!

It is very slick-

As Robert Redford is trying to scream at Obama about laying those train tracks through his pink elephant sanctuary, a republican will be there to clothesline his ass...very impressive.

Hey redneckville- you should consider renaming yourself to....

...well, redneckville actually works just fine.

From his wiki entry:

LaHood's resume on transport matters was seen as thin by some critics. He does not currently serve on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, although he has in the past. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee he did not work on transportation funding

Wow...not a shill. I didn't know it was possible. Something must be up here.

"How about building a 16-lane freeway over Robert Redford's catcher's mit of a face...

#10 | Posted by bnjohanson "

I'm sure you've got a face made for radio.

WRONG AGAIN !

...man, you guys just can't get a break on being right on anything in life.

So that I may give you a shot at sounding intelligent on something, please write a synopsis to all of us here in how liberals survive day to day knowing nothing of what it is like to accomplish something ?

Extra credit: Do you prefer booze or drugs to maintain the pain; and explain:

please write a synopsis to all of us here in how liberals survive day to day knowing nothing of what it is like to accomplish something ?

Are you talking of accomplishing such things as making our country the laughingstock of the civilized world? Or would it be an accomplishment of spending billions of dollars on an illegal war? Or would it be an accomplishment of having a miserable record of jobs creation while spending the country into oblivion?

Or maybe, maybe the accomplishment of snatching the reins of government away from the party whose main objective is to destroy said government!

If it is the latter, then, in the words of the Conservative-in-chief, "Mission Accomplished!".

...and I am very well aware of how you live your life REALPATRIOT- what a wuss.

Laughingstock of the World- To who the French, Canadians ? Who are you worried about being a laughingstock to ?

Is is not hard enough for you being a laughingstock to other Americans ?

Look bud, you have no worries- No Vacancy for wussies in this World let alone here. Get your blankey and go lay down....and go to sleeeeeeep.........

What is the big deal?

Bush had two Dems in his cabinet as well.

This guy looks a little thin on the "transportation" side of his resume.

has nothing to do with transportation anything. Obama needs a republican layer to barrel down the liberal freaks that stand in the way of his New- New Deal.

Face it Fed GOVT sucks, all the politicos suck, all the appointments suck. You just have 2 sides of people that care about this. The people that think O is the one and is such a GOD for picking a republican, when they would have spent hours upon hours ranting if Bush would have appointed him. Then you have those that would think Bush was a GOD for appointing him, but rant the Obama is just using this as a ploy. Both of you are wrong. He will suck, and it will just suck more tomorrow as long as the Fed Govt is in charge of it.

Is is not hard enough for you being a laughingstock to other Americans ?

Being the laughingstock to an "American" like you is like a badge of honor I will wear with pride!

You will learn, maybe next year in third grade, not to ask questions that you don't really want answered truthfully!

Body count in the last six months: 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago 221 killed in Iraq

#2 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Way to twist the facts as they come out of your ass. Here is a whole group of bodies you neglected to count.

So, wait BNJ, I'm confused. You seem to dislike Obama, and then you're laughing at those who voted for him because he's apparently taking a stance which is closer to your side than he previously suggested?

See, he's actually what you'd call a "moderate". That's unfortunately a word we don't hear often enough, so it's understandable if the only words you have in your political vocabulary are "Saviors of America" and "filthy, dirty liberal democrats". But don't worry, just pop a few valium and all those annoying headaches that pop up from the shades of gray will just drift away.

My prescription:
Put down the Anne Coulter, and pick up something a bit smarter, like Harry Potter.

...man, you guys just can't get a break on being right on anything in life.

#16 | Posted by bnjohanson

Except Liberals were right on slavery, workers rights, women's voting and the American Revolution and pretty much everything else, so they're not doing too bad, I would say.

We probably also should differentiate between liberals and progressives, because some very important issues on the "liberal" agenda (ie. gay rights, aboriton rights) actually involve cutting back on government control, making them technically conservative. Similarly I would call the reps "traditionalist" as they are more or less trying for the status quo. I should ALSO point out that liberal does not mean dem and conservative does not mean rep. In fact, I have some conservative friends who hate the reps, and actually side with the dems on a lot of issues.

So that I may give you a shot at sounding intelligent on something, please write a synopsis to all of us here in how liberals survive day to day knowing nothing of what it is like to accomplish something ?

Extra credit: Do you prefer booze or drugs to maintain the pain; and explain:

#16 | Posted by bnjohanson at 2008-12-18 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Instead of asking everyone to tell you why they're not what you think they are, why don't you tell us what it is exactly that makes you so superior? What accomplishments can you point to that you can honestly say is something 'libs' could never have done?

C'mom, impress us all with your tales of what it is that makes you so self-righteous over everyone else here.

This should be fun.

As for your 'Booze or Drugs' question, George Bush would have to answer 'both'.

*c'mon

Still waiting banjojock......

As long as he isn't like the usual lot of uber partisan ideologues we've dealt with recently, people who come from the industries that they're hired to regulate, then I'ma suspend judgment on this one for now.

#1 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

probably a good idea for just about all of them, but the problem of course is if you wait too long and they get entrenched, its harder to get them out and even worse if they get things going the wrong way.....it always takes longer to straighten things out than it does to fuck them up.

Except Liberals were right on slavery, workers rights, women's voting and the American Revolution and pretty much everything else, so they're not doing too bad, I would say.

#25 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2008-12

liberals are compassionate and progressive and always aware and worried about diversity
diversity of thought and diveristy of all things political and individual

well........as long as you agree with them the above applies...if you disagree with them

well hell...just ask joe the plumber from ohio, he will let you in on the answer.

Except he isn't really a plumber; he's a liar like most Republicans.

and how do YOU know that???

of course because his entire life was investigated while we are supposed to just take the future presidents word that the terrorist was just someone in the neighborhood and that he never HEARD JWRIGHT say that even though he sat there for20 years

and even the zogby poll showed that obama supporters knew NOTHING OF THE FACT that the only reason he won his first election is because his oppenents were gotten rid of...CHICAGO STYLE....
but they knew all about sarah getting clothes from the party........

but go right on with your delusion about republicans.....its actually growing on us....lol

he won his first election is because his oppenents were gotten rid of...CHICAGO STYLE

#33 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-12-19 11:42 AM

they were made into deep dish pizza???? the horror!

ah good one.............in fact it made me kind of hungry...............

wonder if there is a pizza in close

Gee, look at all the righties trying to make a very bitter lemonade out of appointments made by the guy they were sure would turn the nation into an Islamic people's republic.

We said you'd get a centrist, and a centrist you got. Actually, I'd like some small crumb to the progressives who worked hardest to get President O in. But I think I'm a little late. herm

TFDNihilist,

Liberals were right on slavery? Are you stoned? Did you miss class?

Abe Lincoln was a Republican, so I don't know where you get off saying that liberals were right on slavery exclusively.

Dixiecrats didn't care much for black people.

Actually, I'd like some small crumb to the progressives who worked hardest to get President O in. But I think I'm a little late.

#36 | Posted by herm

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That said, hopefully the repubs won't resist every move O makes. He might be even more inclusive if they're willing to work with him. I think O has reached out to a reasonable extent.

"Liberals were right on slavery? Are you stoned? Did you miss class?

Abe Lincoln was a Republican, so I don't know where you get off saying that liberals were right on slavery exclusively.

Dixiecrats didn't care much for black people."

#37 | Posted by JesusIsGod

Stupid flag.

You're confusing Liberal vs. Conservative with Republican vs. Democrat. By the very definition, freeing slaves was "liberal."

So Old Abe was a liberal for freeing the slaves. I guess Bush is a liberal for spending more than any other President on AIDs relief for Africa. Bush must really be a liberal for appointing more minorities than any other President to his cabinet

so live or die,

by your definition, human rights is strictly within the realm of liberalism.

slavery can't be considered a liberal or conservative issue, it is basic human rights.

I believe you are confusing liberal politics with the word "liberation".

The liberation of slaves by Lincoln didn't convince many "liberals" of the time that they should give former slaves the time of day.

And TIMBci makes a point about Bushes 'liberal' spending. It fits your definition. Does that mean you and TMBci are in congruence? Bush is also a liberal?

"so live or die,

by your definition, human rights is strictly within the realm of liberalism."

#41 | Posted by JesusIsGod

No, but when violating humans is part of a tradition (like slavery at the time), it requires some liberal thought to change it.

I'm a conservative myself, but not so beholden to ideology that I can't see when the other side is right.

And contrary to what many think of as a "liberal" proposition, the Emancipation Proclamation was a weapon of war. At the time the constitution permitted slavery so Lincoln had no constitutional or legal authority to abolish slavery.

However, since southern confederates considered slaves chattel, or persons of property, they could be confiscated. Lincoln used this to his advantage when he was lacking manpower to fight the south and many former slaves joined the union ranks.

It was convenient for Lincoln to justify freeing slaves on moral grounds as well, since he abhorred slavery since his childhood in the south. It's just the lack of constitutional authority that prevented Lincoln from freeing slaves except through means of war.

So if an anti-war position is liberal, and abolishing slavery is liberal, how do you justify going to war to end slavery as liberal?

Lincoln also told Horace Greely that if he could save the union without freeing slaves, he would have.

throws a wrench in your cog doesn't it?

At the time the violation of human rights was a long standing tradition in the American Constitution.

Lincoln strongly believed that a man should work for himself without reliance on outside capital or slavery. Those are strong southern conservative values held today (obviously in Lincoln's day many liberals and conservatives couldn't live without slavery).

It can be argued that Lincoln was a conservative and a radical.

live or die,

down to brass tacks,

human rights is not defined strictly within the realm of liberalism, but it takes liberal thinking or MOs to properly address human rights?

So all those evangelicals like Rick Warren who espouse the eradication of poverty and HIV/Aids in Africa are liberal in their thinking because they take up human rights issues?

I think there are a few gays in the Castro who might disagree.

human rights is not defined strictly within the realm of liberalism, but it takes liberal thinking or MOs to properly address human rights?
--JESUSISGOD

I said when the violation of human rights part of a tradition or long held stance (conservative, not necessarily right leaning), it requires liberal thought to change it.

Learn reading comprehension.

I love how Obama is flipping the middle finger to the left wingers out there. The 2nd GOP guy on the cabinet but no big far-lefties that supported him with cash and crying during his corny b.s. speeches. I just love this.

"...I love how Obama...I just love this."

That's President-elect Barack Hussein Obama.

And we love it, too!

Hans

"I just love this."

No, you don't.
Not really.
He scares you.

He scares you.

He scares a lot of people.

and the long held tradition that violated human rights which I pointed out was our very own constitution. It wasn't a right or left leaning ideology, it was our common document that made us a country.

You're obviously in no position to lecture people on reading comprehension since you believe liberal thought is prerequisite to addressing human rights issues and completely ignored the other parts of my posts that contradict you (ie Rick Warren and his championing of poverty and HIV/AIDs).

and to say a conservative stance doesn't necessarily mean right leaning is way off base.

To be on the political right is to be conservative as being to the left is liberal.

Your quickness to insult and lack of subtlety on issues reveals more than anything.

Oh, wait I capitulate... only liberals can be for human rights and only conservatives can violate them.