Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DUmmie FUnnies 01-24-09 (DUmmies Enraged Over Gillibrand Pick For U.S. Senate)
DUmmie FUnnies ^ | January 24, 2009 | DUmmies and PJ-Comix

Posted on 01/24/2009 6:08:03 AM PST by PJ-Comix

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: PJ-Comix
Kirsten Gillibrand Chosen to Fill Clinton's Senate Seat

That's a mighty big seat to fill.

21 posted on 01/24/2009 6:57:50 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Wide bottom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
And what does this do for Paterson? NOTHING. He's never run for governor in his own right. . . . Is he back on coke or smoking something????

RACIST!

22 posted on 01/24/2009 7:04:58 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Flayed Paterson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Idiotic choice, goodbye Paterson. . . .

Flayed Paterson.

23 posted on 01/24/2009 7:06:10 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Flayed Paterson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Patterson strikes me as a dumbbell.

RACIST!

24 posted on 01/24/2009 7:07:41 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Flayed Paterson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Piss poor choice... I did not like her much.

SEXIST!

25 posted on 01/24/2009 7:08:46 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Flayed Paterson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
WTF was Paterson thinking????

Even a blind squirrel finds a blue dog once in a while.

26 posted on 01/24/2009 7:10:10 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Flayed Paterson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
**sigh** the second amendment...blah blah blah.. That just needs to be rewritten. That could make this whole "gun" thing go away.

(S)he's right, you know.

My version:

An armed populace being necessary to the security both of the individual and of the nation, the personal right of the citizen to own and carry weapons, along with everything necessary to facilitate their use, shall not be regulated or taxed. Any attempt to do so shall constitute treason, a hanging offense.

That last bit is the "teeth" I think should have been written into the BoR at the beginning. As it stands, if your "law" is declared unconstitutional (see "Heller") you get to go home and take another shot (pun intended) at it. With built-in teeth, if you write or vote for in congress or sign a bill, and the result s declared unconstitutional, you could be hanged. Might make "lawmakers" a little bit more careful about doing it.

Sorry for the threadjack, PJ. I got on a roll. Still going to hit the "post" button, tho.

27 posted on 01/24/2009 7:11:07 AM PST by ExGeeEye (COTUS 2A should be the USA's ONLY gun law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I am disappointed that Patterson did not name a bona fide progressive to this seat.

SIGHTIST!

28 posted on 01/24/2009 7:12:34 AM PST by Charles Henrickson (Flayed Paterson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Now that she represents state-wide, she can “peel off the wool” and vote in lock-step with Schmucky. I tend to agree with that assessment.

You're probably right. No let me correct that statement, your ARE right.

Many years ago as a child I lived in a small town in center/west NY state where hunting is, or was then, a very popular sport. It's a fairly conservative area of the state on most issues compared to eastern NY, or at least it was way back then, and a pro-2nd Amendment DemoRat should be quite popular there.

But now that Ms Gillibrand will hold a statewide office in which she will need the ultra-liberal NYC metro area votes in order to win the DemoRat Senate primary she will no doubt get in step with Shmucky's totally anti-2nd Amendment stance and the rest of his leftist/authoritarian domestic agenda.

29 posted on 01/24/2009 7:57:41 AM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
...who notes that Gillibrand will definitely be the hottest (blush!) member of the U.S. Senate...

Ayup. If I weren't already taken or a Dem (they don't care if they're taken), I'd hit it.

30 posted on 01/24/2009 8:37:37 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Pretending the Admin Moderator doesn't exist will result in suspension.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb
Usually they have souless eyes.

That's because DemoRats are a lower form of humanoid life similar to true humans except for their deficiency in typically human traits such as an advanced mental capacity and a strong love for liberty and moral absolutes. The proposition that they do possess souls is still no more than unproven theory, and not enough evidence supporting that highly questionable theory has yet been presented to decide the matter one way or the other.

Stay tuned, investigators are still uncovering human-like physical characteristics in some psuedo-Christian Chicago ministers that may possibly give credence to the theory that a formerly unknown class of humanoid lifeform is alive and thriving in certain areas of that city.

31 posted on 01/24/2009 8:48:21 AM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
while the commentary of your humble correspondent, who notes that Gillibrand will definitely be the hottest (blush!) member of the U.S. Senate, is in the [brackets]:

You can only say that because Hillary, the most perfect example of feminine pulchritude ever to be seated in the Senate, is no longer there.

Actually, Hillary was seated in the Senate lounge after it was discovered that the chairs in the Senate chamber are not wide enough to accommodate her posterior. The mean-spirited rumor that a small industrial fork lift was kept ready to transport her to the Senate floor in order for her to vote has not yet been put to rest, but I am confident that it soon will be.

32 posted on 01/24/2009 9:12:10 AM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: squidly

To keep a long-term majority any party needs it’s *INOs, but there isn’t any more reason to have a DINO in NY than there is to have a RINO in South Carolina. Unfortunately, things get screwed up and turn out that way.

I can deal with RINOs in blue states, but when you’re from a solidly red state, it is inexcusable and can often result in political death at the ballot box.


33 posted on 01/24/2009 9:27:43 AM PST by perfect_rovian_storm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Bingo.


34 posted on 01/24/2009 9:30:29 AM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson
Even a blind squirrel finds a blue dog once in a while.

[wiping off monitor]

35 posted on 01/24/2009 10:24:58 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (B.O. ? BOHICA!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I love the posts pointing out that Carolyn McCarthy is a DINO who didn’t bother changing her Republican registration when she took up the Democrat Flag Of Convenience to wage her hysterical war on Eeeevil Guns.


36 posted on 01/24/2009 11:09:54 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
During the period 1933-1995 from the 73rd Congress to the 103rd Congress, a total of 62 years, the Dems controlled the House for 58 years.

Turns out we were both a little off. The Republicans gained majorities in both houses for the 80th Congress (1947-49) and the 83rd Congress (1953-55). In each case they lost those majorities after two years. Except for those two brief periods, the Democrats did hold the House of Reps for the whole time period you cite, and the Senate for the same period, minus the first six years of the Reagan administration.

37 posted on 01/24/2009 6:00:16 PM PST by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All; PJ-Comix

While I enjoy the libDem meltdown, I’m afraid they won’t be disappointed for long.

Gillibrand is EXTREMELY pro-”choice,” and according to a political analyst, was pro guns only because she wanted to win an election in a conservative district.


38 posted on 01/24/2009 10:21:42 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: y6162
“..she is not a bad looker for a liberal” True. Need a full body shot to confirm. It is a curious choice for Patterson.


39 posted on 01/24/2009 11:19:54 PM PST by Purrcival (Obama and Biden: The Marx Brothers! (Thanks FReeper Enduring Freedom for the tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Purrcival
“..she is not a bad looker for a liberal” True. Need a full body shot to confirm. It is a curious choice for Patterson.

Don't you know, the sight-impaired see with their hands.... ; P

40 posted on 01/25/2009 5:08:08 AM PST by dirtbiker (Liberals don't know what it's like to "wake up", only how to "come to"....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson