Saturday Night House Party
Well, for no reason whatsoever *cough, ahem* tonight’s House Party theme will revolve around bananas. Enjoy. 🙂
First up, and how couldn’t it be, a little Harry Belafonte.
Next up, a catchy punked up version of the theme song to the late 1960’s kids television show “The Banana Splits Show”. This version is by the Dickies.
And finally, well, while not explicitly *about* bananas…any excuse for some Monkees. 🙂 Here’s Last Train to Clarksville.
how could you forget the inexplicable “bannnas in pajamas”???
Wow, I totally forgot about bananas in pajamas…probably because the theme freaks me out! So many very wrong directions to go in….
Speaking of Fruits…after watching the Huckabee debates…I am shocked to find I really really liked Mitt the best…
Oh my gosh no! Thou shalt not invoke the name of Mitt in a positive light on this website. At least until after the primaries, and only then as a stop gap measure. 🙂
I KNOW. I am so bummed! But he was clearly the only one ready to govern day one. Newt is insufferable and so corrupt i could smell him through the TV; Ron Paul you know I LOVE but he came off as a stammering old man…capable of condemning the nonsense but not capable of providing an alternative to the nonsense. Newt as President would be the full-on final triumph of the RCE; Paul as President would be like having a substitute teacher – even the good kids would be throwing spitballs and skipping class. I think we may have to swallow our disdain and get behind Mitt…
Name a substantive difference between Romney and Obama on:
– Undeclared wars
– Bailouts
– Inflationary monetary policy
– Deficit spending
– Patriot Act
– Rendition and torture
– Government-controlled healthcare
Tim Pawlenty should have just stopped at “Obamney” and left off the “care”.
I think there is in fact substantive differences between Romney and Obama on many things, most notably Obama’s desire to dismantle capitalism for the masses, preferring, as does Newt, crony captilism where government insiders peddle influence, and profits are privatized and losses are socialized. Do you really think Mitt will engage in “pay to play”? Or encourage “green” energy at the expense of of oil and gas with the added bonus of enriching donors? Or knowing sell guns that he knows will kill innocent Americans and law enforcement officers? Would Mitt kiss labor’s behind and steal car dealerships from private citizens to give to friends and families? Shutter non-union plants costing 1000s of jobs? And take 3-week vacations at Christmas when many families will not even have a Christmas? Get real.
I think we don’t KNOW what the differences between Obama and Romney would be because Mittens changes his positions depending on which audience he’s talking to. It doesn’t matter how slick his presentation is if you can’t believe a single word coming out of his mouth. Here’s just one example:
http://youtu.be/YCE75NKp4S8
BCG,
Here’s Romney’s “pay to play” – in a FOREIGN COUNTRY:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mitt-romney-arrives-in-uk-for-fundraising-tour-2308194.html
Vacations? VACATIONS? Yeah, that’s as serious as an undeclared war or $7.7 trillion in backdoor bailouts to banks.
I don’t find you qualified to vote on American Idol, much less for America’s president.
That’s the beauty of America Joe – you don’t have to be qualified to vote, you just have to be a citizen. OH…wait a minute…
BTW Joe the link you posted is an article about Mitch (for whom I am no apologist) is about him attending (gasp!) a fundraiser, not about “pay to play” – you have to hold office before you can award spoils to those who got you elected – i.e. “pay to play.” Like Obama – who vowed to banish “special interests” from his administration, then handed out the spoils to nearly 200 of his biggest donors, awarding plum government jobs and advisory posts, federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests and invites to numerous elite White House meetings and social events: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2735091/posts
Simply holding a fundraiser does not indict you on pay to play – and, acccording to liberal bastions the the NYT and Mother Jones News, Obama has outpaced Clinton and Bush COMBINED in the number of fundraisers he has held, averaging ONE EVERY FIVE DAYS since taking office.
Why does “Mitch” feel the need to take money from FOREIGNERS? What altruistic non “pay-for-play” reasons would FOREIGNERS have to give “Mitch” their money?
I agree that Obama is doing the same thing…. you make my point for me that “Mitch” is no different from Obama.
Pretty sure there is nothing “altrusistic” about fundrasing in any country. And you are missing teh larger point – in legal terms…if you are going to demand equity, you need to come to the court with clean hands. Obama is the POSTER CHILD for selling out our country to foriegners, and in fact the FEC has compiled a database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains 1000s of overseas contributions totaling MILLIONS. Most were from Iran and Saudi Arabia. (no wonder he bowed and kissed the Saudi Princes ring – he is luck that’s all he had to kiss given they helped get him elected.) There are plenty of things to bust Mitt on, but corruption wise he is pretty clean, unlike Newt or Obama. Paul, of course is the cleanest, most honorable one in the bunch – for all the good it is doing him.