Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 If You Do This, You Need A Toyota! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 25, 2013 Author Share Posted June 25, 2013 A lot of the videos on the Wreck and Salvage YouTube channel are so odd, they fizzle.But sometimes, they can get quite funny.See the following:Nancy Pelosi Techno Chicken Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 ... never mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 The hockey stick got me,I'm voting Palin in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2013 Author Share Posted June 26, 2013 LOL...I know where it is Sarah-wise with you fine folks.I'm the Sarah fan and that's cool. I'm a good sport.So here. Enjoy.A memorable creation from those other fine folks who brought you the other two videos on this thread: Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 The Toyota ad was cute. The Pelosi parody was pontless. Anyone can make someone else look silly with looping. It proves nothing, except that you do not like Nancy Pelosi, so anything that mocks her is funny. You need to examine how Nancy Pelosi is essentially different from Sarah Palin. Both of them have "Objectivist" (I think we say "Objectivish") virtues. You discounr Pelosi's positives as you downplay Palin's negatives. But when it comes to Toyotas, none of that applies. See, that is why the Toyota parody is funny, but the political jokes are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 26, 2013 Author Share Posted June 26, 2013 Michael,Not funny?Hmmmmm...Does that mean that the people who laughed at the political videos were making a mistake? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 ... You need to examine how Nancy Pelosi is essentially different from Sarah Palin. Both of them have "Objectivist" (I think we say "Objectivish") virtues. Really? I didn't know that Pelosi had virtues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Does that mean that the people who laughed at the political videos were making a mistake?LOL. That was funnier than the videos, though the Toyota one was mildly amusing.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 ... You need to examine how Nancy Pelosi is essentially different from Sarah Palin. Both of them have "Objectivist" (I think we say "Objectivish") virtues. Really? I didn't know that Pelosi had virtues. Pelosi's drastic growth, from an initial $21.7 million in 2009, is attributed to recent stock gains and smart investments. Her husband reported raking in $1 million to $5 million last year from a sale of Apple stocks. The couple also has a commercial property in San Francisco and a home in St. Helena, Calif., each valued between $5 million and $25 million. She also has a stake in some valuable residential real estate in Sacramento.Boehner, too, has a portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms, communication companies and pharmaceuticals.None of the newly acquired cash violates congressional ethics rules, though members can't use their official positions for personal gain and are limited to earn a maximum of $26,100 outside Congress, personal investments are allowed.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/house-minority-leader-nancy-pelosi-wealth-grows-62-35-2m-boehner-reid-worth-increases-article-1.130959#ixzz2XNi560EB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 ... You need to examine how Nancy Pelosi is essentially different from Sarah Palin. Both of them have "Objectivist" (I think we say "Objectivish") virtues. Really? I didn't know that Pelosi had virtues. Pelosi's drastic growth, from an initial $21.7 million in 2009, is attributed to recent stock gains and smart investments. Her husband reported raking in $1 million to $5 million last year from a sale of Apple stocks. The couple also has a commercial property in San Francisco and a home in St. Helena, Calif., each valued between $5 million and $25 million. She also has a stake in some valuable residential real estate in Sacramento.Boehner, too, has a portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms, communication companies and pharmaceuticals.None of the newly acquired cash violates congressional ethics rules, though members can't use their official positions for personal gain and are limited to earn a maximum of $26,100 outside Congress, personal investments are allowed.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/house-minority-leader-nancy-pelosi-wealth-grows-62-35-2m-boehner-reid-worth-increases-article-1.130959#ixzz2XNi560EBHave these people put their assets into a Blind Trust while they are in office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Have these people put their assets into a Blind Trust while they are in office? Excellent question. I have a bad feeling the answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 ... You need to examine how Nancy Pelosi is essentially different from Sarah Palin. Both of them have "Objectivist" (I think we say "Objectivish") virtues. Really? I didn't know that Pelosi had virtues. Pelosi's drastic growth, from an initial $21.7 million in 2009, is attributed to recent stock gains and smart investments. Her husband reported raking in $1 million to $5 million last year from a sale of Apple stocks. The couple also has a commercial property in San Francisco and a home in St. Helena, Calif., each valued between $5 million and $25 million. She also has a stake in some valuable residential real estate in Sacramento.Boehner, too, has a portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms, communication companies and pharmaceuticals.None of the newly acquired cash violates congressional ethics rules, though members can't use their official positions for personal gain and are limited to earn a maximum of $26,100 outside Congress, personal investments are allowed.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/house-minority-leader-nancy-pelosi-wealth-grows-62-35-2m-boehner-reid-worth-increases-article-1.130959#ixzz2XNi560EBAnd?The fact that Pelosi managed to make a lot of money on stock investments is somehow a virtue? At the time that she made the money, and, in fact, up until recently, it was legal for members of Congress to trade on insider information. That's right. At the time Pelosi made all that money, she was allowed to use insider information to trade stocks. So, she could buy stock, for example, right before her committee voted to kill regulation of some industry. You really have to be a brainiac or a virtuous individual to accomplish that.Recently, Congress voted to gut some of the sunshine provisions in the law they just passed a year ago to prohibit insider trading by its members.Talk about virtue. Sheesh.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Why should they? Is making money such a dirty practice? Just which public offices should be removed from the taint of money? School teacher? School crossing guard? School janitor? Congressional representative? State senator? Village council? Precinct committee? How do you decide?What is there about money that it stains employment by one agency and not another? How about so-called "publicly held" corporations? What about a business like the Green Bay Packers which is owned by the people of Green Bay? Should the stadium announcer put his wealth in a blind trust?These nonsense questions all underscore the inherent contradictions in assuming that money is evil. Money must be justified as a "public trust" or being above "self-interest." Self-interest, apparently, is also evil in your view.I think you need to check your premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Darrell:Good to see you back.Orren Boyle, Taggart and his cronies are perfect mirrors. Francisco used their "greed" based on no skills other than the politics of pull.Frisco's money speech spends a lot of premise building before he talks about the meaning of "making" money.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Why should they? Is making money such a dirty practice? Just which public offices should be removed from the taint of money? School teacher? School crossing guard? School janitor? Congressional representative? State senator? Village council? Precinct committee? How do you decide?What is there about money that it stains employment by one agency and not another? How about so-called "publicly held" corporations? What about a business like the Green Bay Packers which is owned by the people of Green Bay? Should the stadium announcer put his wealth in a blind trust?These nonsense questions all underscore the inherent contradictions in assuming that money is evil. Money must be justified as a "public trust" or being above "self-interest." Self-interest, apparently, is also evil in your view.I think you need to check your premises.Michael,Was that supposed to be a reply to what I wrote? Because, it appears that you're completely ignoring the possibility of corruption.Is it your contention that corruption by public officials can simply be ignored because making money is ok no matter how it is done? The ends justify the means? Some people should be allowed to live by one set of rules while other people --- ordinary people --- are bound by another?Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrakusos Posted June 29, 2013 Share Posted June 29, 2013 Nancy Pelosi is a cronyist looter, but Dr. Ron Paul - who profits from the medical monopoly which prevents actual cures and who is opposed to a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy - is a great advocate of liberty. I think that the only difference between Tide and Fab is the box. Both work fine. Ron Paul's personal philosophy is not mine. Neither is Nancy Pelosi's. Over in the Politics discussion, I have a pointer to a movie about venture capitalists. Only one actually supports the Ayn Rand Institute. I accept that most of the world's richest people, the real movers and shakers, read Atlas Shrugged... and moved on... Maybe it "influenced" them; maybe it did not. You have to accept people as they are and make the best of the relationship. Ron Paul is an advocate of liberty. Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire. I would go to lunch with either of them -- and listen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 29, 2013 Author Share Posted June 29, 2013 Michael,You need to learn to laugh again.You suck as a preacher.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Nancy Pelosi is a cronyist looter, but Dr. Ron Paul - who profits from the medical monopoly which prevents actual cures and who is opposed to a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy - is a great advocate of liberty. I think that the only difference between Tide and Fab is the box. Both work fine. Ron Paul's personal philosophy is not mine. Neither is Nancy Pelosi's. Over in the Politics discussion, I have a pointer to a movie about venture capitalists. Only one actually supports the Ayn Rand Institute. I accept that most of the world's richest people, the real movers and shakers, read Atlas Shrugged... and moved on... Maybe it "influenced" them; maybe it did not. You have to accept people as they are and make the best of the relationship. Ron Paul is an advocate of liberty. Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire. I would go to lunch with either of them -- and listen...Nancy Pelosi is a horrible human being and I can't imagine having lunch with her. If you want to suck up to her just because she is rich, that is your business, but, I would feel very uncomfortable talking with her. I doubt that she would listen to me and I have nothing but scorn and disdain for her dirty politics, so there would be nothing to gain from such a meeting. I'm not in 100% agreement with Ron Paul, but he is nothing like Nancy Pelosi.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Nancy Pelosi is a cronyist looter, but Dr. Ron Paul - who profits from the medical monopoly which prevents actual cures and who is opposed to a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy - is a great advocate of liberty. I think that the only difference between Tide and Fab is the box. Both work fine. Ron Paul's personal philosophy is not mine. Neither is Nancy Pelosi's. Over in the Politics discussion, I have a pointer to a movie about venture capitalists. Only one actually supports the Ayn Rand Institute. I accept that most of the world's richest people, the real movers and shakers, read Atlas Shrugged... and moved on... Maybe it "influenced" them; maybe it did not. You have to accept people as they are and make the best of the relationship. Ron Paul is an advocate of liberty. Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire. I would go to lunch with either of them -- and listen...Nancy Pelosi is a horrible human being and I can't imagine having lunch with her. If you want to suck up to her just because she is rich, that is your business, but, I would feel very uncomfortable talking with her. I doubt that she would listen to me and I have nothing but scorn and disdain for her dirty politics, so there would be nothing to gain from such a meeting. I'm not in 100% agreement with Ron Paul, but he is nothing like Nancy Pelosi.DarrellAccording to the comedian Tracy Ulman Pelosi takes botox injections to her face so she can have a perpetually astonished look at anything proposed by the Republicans.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Hougen Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 According to the comedian Tracy Ulman Pelosi takes botox injections to her face so she can have a perpetually astonished look at anything proposed by the Republicans.Ba'al Chatzaf Good one! Thanks for the humor.Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now