Political funny pictures thread, part V *** If I don't laugh, I'll cry***

[DoggyDaddy]

Kinda hard to sell "somber" and "sad" when you hand out commemorative pens to celebrate signing of the articles of impeachment, all while grinning like a Cheshire cat. Probably she needed someone to shush her to get back into character for the cameras.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6124355248001#sp=show-clips

 

[nonobaddog]

Probably something like this...

[video=youtube;tUmZMyB1hnc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUmZMyB1hnc[/video]

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Oh man, this would be priceless...

I swear, I would pay-per-view this.

It would fund the wall...

 

[Bennettjh]

Oh man, this would be priceless...

I swear, I would pay-per-view this.

It would fund the wall...

Ha that would be sweet.

 

[sharkey]

Oh man, this would be priceless...

I swear, I would pay-per-view this.

It would fund the wall...

Add James Woods, Don Jr and Ted Cruz to fill the roles of Tom Servo, Crow T. Robot, and Gypsy and... damn.

 

[Nazgul]

Add James Woods, Don Jr and Ted Cruz to fill the roles of Tom Servo, Crow T. Robot, and Gypsy and... damn.

Don

 

[Slapstick]

 

[Tims87gn]

I would love to watch this! Send the idea to the White House...

Oh man, this would be priceless...

I swear, I would pay-per-view this.

It would fund the wall...

 

[2A_Tom]

The debates are over. Bloomberg did not participate, but will take all the delegates he can buy and wind up with the nomination.

 

[Ingomike]

The debates are over. Bloomberg did not participate, but will take all the delegates he can buy and wind up with the nomination.

Your suggestion is certainly plausible, but not likely in my view. If they really want to burn down the dem party they should do it. They already stole one campaign from Bernie, they are in process of doing it again but if they do it overtly the way you suggest it would truly blow up the party...

 

[2A_Tom]

That would be too bad.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That would be too bad.

I agree, it would be. Not because I like the Dems, but because I like the counterpoint. The GOP does not have all the answers and is not always correct. More importantly, they don't represent the whole country well. Now.... if we could remove both parties and either start anew without them, or if other parties could evolve, that would change the nature of our elections. They would still be free elections, but even with Bloomberg's and Soros' multi billions, they could not buy all the parties. We might get away from the image we saw here before, that I'm too lazy to look for, of one party with two boots, alternately stepping on the People, showing that no matter who you vote to put in office, you still support the same overarching "party".

A pipe dream, I suppose.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

I agree, it would be. Not because I like the Dems, but because I like the counterpoint. The GOP does not have all the answers and is not always correct. More importantly, they don't represent the whole country well. Now.... if we could remove both parties and either start anew without them, or if other parties could evolve, that would change the nature of our elections. They would still be free elections, but even with Bloomberg's and Soros' multi billions, they could not buy all the parties. We might get away from the image we saw here before, that I'm too lazy to look for, of one party with two boots, alternately stepping on the People, showing that no matter who you vote to put in office, you still support the same overarching "party".

A pipe dream, I suppose.

Blessings,
Bill

Even better, no more political parties.
At least not as we know them.
No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
Only what the person is for, or against.

But that would be an infringement of speech.
Or would it?
If you can say what you are for/against, but can't say the name of a party, is it an infringement?

 

[Ingomike]

Even better, no more political parties.
At least not as we know them.
No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
Only what the person is for, or against.

But that would be an infringement of speech.
Or would it?
If you can say what you are for/against, but can't say the name of a party, is it an infringement?

Yes, of association...

 

[Ingomike]

 

[Ingomike]

 

[Bill of Rights]

Even better, no more political parties.
At least not as we know them.
No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.
Only what the person is for, or against.

But that would be an infringement of speech.
Or would it?
If you can say what you are for/against, but can't say the name of a party, is it an infringement?

I did say "...remove both parties and ... start anew without them...."

And "you can say this but not that" is automatically an infringement of free speech, IMHO.

Exactly why is it OK to call someone a "cracker" or any other slur, but only one group has their pejorative referenced as "the N word"? Not that any of them are OK, but why does that one get special treatment?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[nonobaddog]

I did say "...remove both parties and ... start anew without them...."

And "you can say this but not that" is automatically an infringement of free speech, IMHO.

Exactly why is it OK to call someone a "cracker" or any other slur, but only one group has their pejorative referenced as "the N word"? Not that any of them are OK, but why does that one get special treatment?

Blessings,
Bill

Maybe because "the C word" was already taken.

 

[KittySlayer]

.
No more R or D associated with a name, or advertisement.

Rarely do Democrats advertising up in our northeast corner of the state emphasize the “D” they are associated with.

 

[Sigblitz]

.