Your Morning Dose of Dave Burris
January 10th, 2009 • Related • Filed Under
By jason330
Rotund windbag, Dave Burris, writing under the pen name “CharlieCopeland” informs us that a trillion is a big number.
He also mentions….wait for it….taxes are too high. (Wah!)
He somehow fails to mention that there was a budget surplus when George W Bush took office and that it was naked unrestrained Republicanism that put your great grand chilluns into debt.
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 8:26 am:
Your Morning Dose of Dave Burris
Ewww.
Comment by Andy on 10 January 2009 at 8:27 am:
Has he mentioned anything about Charlie’s Blog on FSP or what ever its called now
Comment by jason330 on 10 January 2009 at 8:35 am:
I don’t know I don’t read FSP or whatever it is called now. If I ever wonder what Dave is thinking I just think…“Taxes are too high. Wah!” and I pretty much remember 95% of it.
Comment by FSP on 10 January 2009 at 8:50 am:
I’m trying to pinpoint the exact day you turned into a stupid, bitter old man? I think it was somewhere around the middle of November.
Comment by jason330 on 10 January 2009 at 8:52 am:
Everybody needs a hobby.
Comment by anonone on 10 January 2009 at 8:58 am:
stupid, bitter old man
That pretty much describes most of the repubs I meet today. Looked in the mirror lately, FSP?
Comment by jason330 on 10 January 2009 at 9:16 am:
A1
Dave is more stupid than biter. I think he really thinks that his taxes are too high and that George W Bush is no way culpable.
Otherwise I don’t think he could still go around saying it with such strident conviction.
Comment by Hube on 10 January 2009 at 9:19 am:
At least Burris worked for his money …
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 10 January 2009 at 9:20 am:
Do Republicans have anything different to say? Is he next going to write about how George Bush is a great president because he kept us “safe?”
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 9:32 am:
Hube, go back to reading your comic books.
Comment by Hube on 10 January 2009 at 9:35 am:
OK. But first, why is it someone like me (who read comicbooks) can actually spell and use proper grammar? Weird, no?
And maybe that I actually had to work for a living …
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 9:43 am:
Piss off Hube.
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 9:53 am:
Comcbooks? I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you meant comic books, then that’s kind of funny.
Comment by Hube on 10 January 2009 at 9:54 am:
Awww, what’s wrong numbski? Run out of cute little “progressive” quips, you sorry little wanker?
Comment by Hube on 10 January 2009 at 9:55 am:
BTW, “comicbooks” (not “comcbooks”) is often spelled as one word.
Prove. Point. Thanks.
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 10:03 am:
Just because “comic books” is often spelled comicbooks, doesn’t make it so. Ain’t that right?
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 10:05 am:
Awww, what’s wrong numbski? Run out of cute little “progressive” quips, you sorry little wanker?
Your work for a living comments were trite and childish.
Comment by Mike Matthews on 10 January 2009 at 10:09 am:
Hmmm…
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 10:14 am:
Jesus, Mike. Do you make any money being an apologists for idiots?
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 10:19 am:
comic book not comicbook.
Comment by Mike Matthews on 10 January 2009 at 10:26 am:
“apologists.”
Geez, I know I’m a pretty hefty guy, but I hardly think I qualify to be referenced in the plural!
Comment by nemski on 10 January 2009 at 10:29 am:
LOL, Mike found a typo.
Comment by Mike Protack on 10 January 2009 at 10:32 am:
You make the same mistake over and over by attacking conservatism and republicanism of the last 8 years.
Expanding government at record pace and spending exponentially is not republicanism or conservatism.
By the way, social security and medicare are insolvent according to established accounting practices. What say you on the fix or better yet what does Mr Obama and the dems have in mind?
Comment by anonone on 10 January 2009 at 10:37 am:
Expanding government at record pace and spending exponentially is not republicanism or conservatism.
Based on what evidence?
Comment by Mike Matthews on 10 January 2009 at 10:44 am:
Anonone is right.
According to the evidence of the last eight years, Mike, that theory, when tested, is pure bunk. To say that George W. Bush “wasn’t a conservative” is to simply ignore the problem your party dealt the country over the last eight years.
Comment by anonone on 10 January 2009 at 10:52 am:
Hey Mike M, we agree!
Actually, we don’t even need to stop at Bush – just look at Ray-gun, Bush the First, and Nixon, too – same deal.
Comment by Mike Matthews on 10 January 2009 at 11:01 am:
You know what they say about broken clocks…
Me being the broken clock, anyway.
Comment by Disbelief on 10 January 2009 at 11:19 am:
But if the clock isn’t broken, but also isn’t set correctly, it will never be right.
(if you were really stoned, that would sound profound)
Comment by Rebecca on 10 January 2009 at 11:22 am:
Glad I wasn’t around this morning when they issued the flame throwers. Or, is it flamethrowers, or maybe flame-throwers? It’s silly Saturday and you are very entertaining.
Comment by Suzanne on 10 January 2009 at 12:02 pm:
It’s high school all over again. . .
Comment by whynot on 10 January 2009 at 12:42 pm:
well a broken clock is right twice a day,,,,,,
Comment by anon on 10 January 2009 at 6:12 pm:
Seriously, Dave… isn’t Copeland’s design scheme the same one you used to use at the old FSP? Are Republicans only allowed to use a couple Wordpress designs, or what?