Here's an equalizer thread. We have stupidity on both sides.
Who wants to start? Neugebauer wants to start.
http://i.imgur.com/VMgWFn4.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGhQUt2YRwE
Printable View
Here's an equalizer thread. We have stupidity on both sides.
Who wants to start? Neugebauer wants to start.
http://i.imgur.com/VMgWFn4.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGhQUt2YRwE
And this is where the narrative gets messed up:
They voted to FUND the Government, and DEFUND the ACA. (98% of Gov. paid for, 2% not)
The Democrats chose to DEFUND the Government, because they want to FUND the ACA. (100% of Gov. not paid for)
Did that guy say he's a 30 year federal veteran? Either he chose his words very carefully or very poorly.
He's either trying to say he's been working for the federal government for 30 years but wants to make it sound like he's a veteran, or he's saying he's a federal employee who is also a veteran yet that's not what it sounds like he's saying.
I don't know whether to slap the shit out of him or thank him for his service. Someone halp!
This sums up the republican strategy pretty well. Bet this guy had a shitty work week after this gem came out.Quote:
"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Don't know about that but I'm wondering why it had to be closed. It's just sidewalks. It's probably just partisan bs that caused the barricade.
This Neugebauer is a real treat though:
Quote:
Neugebauer was last mentioned in The Two-Way back in March 2010, when he apologized for shouting "baby killer!" as Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was speaking on the floor of the House.
Okay here's another. And sorry in advance everyone. I realize picking on Michelle Bachmann is not fair or sporting in the least, as she's just so easy.
http://i.imgur.com/k18gmrk.jpg
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ar-ii-memorial
I highly doubt the Whitehouse calls up the park service and says, "we want barricades here, here, here and here, stat! I would guess that there's a protocol for this. It isn't any different than what happened last time things were shut down. It sucks all around. No doubt about that, but blaming park service employees is totally off base.
One of my all time fav's. A bit dated, but still worth a chuckle:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_on_dope.html
This is just a stupid argument. Not surprisingly as far as I can tell this "story" originated from Huffington Post.
The House "wastes" money every week by being in session whether they are discussing repealing Obamacare or sitting on their asses doing nothing or discussing something else. It's not as if the House specifically pulled money from another area of government just to vote on repealing Obamacare.
I thought this was dumb things conservatives say, not dumb things Liberals think conservatives do therefore it's automatically fact.
The next best alternative to not voting on the same issue 42 times is not sitting on your ass and doing nothing.
I guess that depends on whether or not whatever bill they ended up passing was passed by the Senate as well. That appears to be the definition of "waste" these days.
source: http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-de-fuh...134942788.html
Quote:
"Someone is paying the National Park Service thugs overtime for their efforts to carry out the order of De Fuhrer," Barton wrote. "[W]here are our Constitutional Sheriffs who can revoke the Park Service Rangers authority to arrest??? Do we have any Sheriffs with a pair?"
Fuhrer, the German term for leader, is most often associated with Hitler.
"While the POTUS continues to punish the American people," Barton continued, "he keeps open his golf course, he keeps open Camp David, and he retains his and his wife's excessive staff and stable of Czars! I'll bet he has kept in service his 3 food tasters!!!"
"The Chief Executive is acting as an Imperial President," she added, "without regard to his citizens, only caring about his agenda. With all the exemptions he has unilaterally bestowed on many interest groups, could he not delay the ACA Individual Mandate for a single year? Without regard for the elected House of Representatives. What do you call that?"
Fuhrer is associated with Hitler? Gee Golly, thanks for the information!
Czar is associated with those evil people that ruled Russia too, like Ivan the Terrible!!!
Picking on Michelle Bachmann is seriously low hanging fruit, or maybe fruit cake is the right description. It's embarrassing that she's a fellow Minnesotan and has continued to get elected in my state. Thank God she's not running again. On a positive note, Jesse "the mind" Ventura is making political waves again! He always guarantees some good solid entertainment.
EDIT: I'm editing this because I see the cause for confusion. I pasted the article and did not write any personal comments. I'll correct that now so there is no misunderstanding.
I think she'd agree with you. Did you catch her testicle envy?
You would never threaten to physically assault a Republican former governor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This happened, and as of today, the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end time history. - Michelle Bachman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...ef=mostpopular
"The Minnesota congresswoman referred to a decision by the Obama administration to allow vetted Syrian rebels not affiliated with terrorist organizations to help them resist chemical weapons attacks, which was spurred by the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons on civilians," Tashman wrote. "While the administration’s move is only related to non-lethal, defensive and protective aid, Bachmann falsely claimed that 'President Obama waived a ban on selling arms to terrorists.'"
This chick if fucking scary.
More from Michelle. She may need her own thread.
“Rather than seeing this as a negative, Jan, we need to rejoice, ‘Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,’” she continued. “And so when we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this, that these days would be as the days of Noah. We are seeing that in our time.”
The host agreed, saying “We’re privileged to live [in these times].”
Uh, Bachmann was never governor... I believe that comment was in reference to the former Governor of Minnesota. He might be up for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrDG4sPul8w
I tell you, you got an answer for everything, Gorilla.
Is that like when Dems say that they need to tone down the rhetoric, then call Republicans terrorists?
Republican flip flops tho lately have been nuts. I do got to admit, that people like Bachmann give the party a bad name, Then again, I don't think Weinner gave his party a great name either.
One reason why the insane people like Bachmann keep getting elected.. They play up to their base. It's likely her district has been gerrymandered so much that they may even believe the end days are upon us. One of the biggest reasons to do away with Gerrymandering.
I see the senate as being the senior guiding house, which I believe is the intent of it. I wouldn't mind them having a term limit of two terms of five years, so a decade total (If elected to a second term), since (at least in my view) you'd only be able to serve in the House for one four year term and then returned to your devices.
I don't think "career" politicians should exist, at least not on the Federal level though I'd argue that it shouldn't exist on any level. (I suppose four years House, ten years Senate, eight years President would be a career, but I'd be fine with someone taking that path.)
It's called the Constitution, maybe you've heard of it? And it's perfect exactly the way it was written.Quote:
I'm down with that. As long as they have term limits. Say...1?
Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, John Adams...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
But as you know, like any good libtard I have personally fished the keys to various Founders' graves from the Potomac so I could spit directly in their faces, so let's try objective facts instead. What are the percentages of corruption (accused, then convicted) relative to time served in the Congress?
The Senate was originally appointed by the state, not elected. They were supposed to be the.. go figure, Statesmen, the educated people that ensured the good of the STATE was looked out for. I personally think shit went bad when they changed it to voting for them. Previously, if a Senator went against the interests of a state, they would be pretty much instantly recalled. Now, they can switch parties mid term and there really isn't a damn thing that can be done.
Yeah, if only it had stayed that way, but it didn't. I can't see the manner in which our esteemed members of Congress are selected, nor their terms, being changed anytime soon. The purpose of my dislike of a career politician, is that they become detached from their voter base and they don't even realize it.
Oh, and Happy Leif Erikson Day (10/9)!
Less powerful members of Congress are even more corruptable.
Well, we can take this list and start with Truman because everyone knows that nothing bad happened under FDR, the first coming of our Lord and Savior BHO INRI GHOTI, so the list can't be trusted until after that. All figures given at the time of conviction:
Curley - 2 term rep
May - 8 term rep
Thomas - 5.5 term rep
Brehm - 3.5 term rep
Bramblett - 0.5 term rep
Lane - 7.5 term rep
Boykin - 14 term rep
Brewster - 1 term sen (finally!)
Ted er uh Kennedy - 3.5 term rep
Hastings - 3.5 term rep
McKneally - 1 term rep
Whalley - 6.5 term rep
Gallagher - 6.5 term rep
Hanna - 5.5 term rep
Brasco - 4 term rep
Podell - 3.5 term rep
Dowdy - 9 term rep
Tonry - 0 term rep (served 4 months in Congress, served 6 months in prison)
Clark - 10 term rep
Michael Myers - 2 term rep
Diggs - 16.5 term rep (first black guy on the list, just throwing that out there)
Richmond - 4 term rep
That gets us through Carter, and since you people wouldn't change your minds no matter what the numbers said and I'm only doing this for my own interest, let's take those 21 reps and see what we get: 116.5 terms over 21 gives us an average of 5.5 ± 1.0 terms. The average career of a representative according to the least known by far Manning sibling was 4.6 terms and you can tell she'll never get a ring on account of not including an error bar, but to the best of our knowledge the two measurements are statistically indistinguishable.
Now, was it fun coming up with that list after I stated my reason not being related to scandals or corruption?
Yep! It says Senators are to be appointed by State Legislatures...if we actually did this I don't think the term limits would be necessary. But we don't, so. I would also not be at all opposed to an amendment to the Constitution forcing term limits. As I've stated in previous posts, I do believe that properly ratified amendments become part of the document. Congress and the SCOTUS deliberately circumventing it is what I'm against.
Hmm...Thomas Jefferson was a Lawyer who only became a politician during the Revolutionary War. He was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates and then Governor of Virginia, during the war. After the war he was appointed to the Continental Congress. After a 2-year stint there he was appointed Minister to France. After that he was appointed Secretary of State. Vice President and President he did on his own, though.Quote:
Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, John Adams...
But as you know, like any good libtard I have personally fished the keys to various Founders' graves from the Potomac so I could spit directly in their faces, so let's try objective facts instead. What are the percentages of corruption (accused, then convicted) relative to time served in the Congress?
John Jay was a Lawyer who also got into politics during the Revolution, but took a slightly different path than Jefferson...although President of the Continental Congress, that position didn't really mean anything...more of an honorific. Though briefly in the New York Congress and Minister to Spain, He spent most of his time as a Judge, either with the New York Supreme Court, or eventually the US Supreme Court, being appointed there by the OG. (Original George)
John Adams...gee, another lawyer, again entering politics due to the events leading up to and during the Revolutionary war...was a member of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1777, but spent most of the time after that as an appointed diplomat to various nations...including Jolly Old England itself in 1785. He spent a couple years there before returning to the States and being elected Vice President, and then President. After failing in his reelection campaign he retired to private life.
Which one of these men sat in the same seat in Congress for 30 years serving no function other than making sure they got reelected again?
Do you have any???So the Constitution should be literally interpreted but Amendments contradicting it should also be literally interpreted but not the 17th. Brother, it kind of sounds like you aren't for literal interpretation at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
At the age of 32. The youngest Congressperson today is only 29, although in a clear sign of conspiracy the youngest Senator and Representative are both named Murphy. I warned you guys we couldn't trust those Papists, now look what your carelessness has wrought.Quote:
Thomas Jefferson was a Lawyer who only became a politician during the Revolutionary War.
I naively assumed that "career politician" meant "someone whose career was in politics". I see now it means "a politician whose service Thondizzo does not find worthwhile for any number of as yet unspecified reasons", although in my defense we could have saved some time by being upfront about this in the first place.Quote:
Which one of these men sat in the same seat in Congress for 30 years serving no function other than making sure they got reelected again?
I'm still not getting how more easily influenced politicians is a good thing. It becomes puppet of the year.
Is that not almost immediately obvious?
To accomplish anything, they need pull, and who is ready and willing to provide that? To win a race, they need a tremendous amount of financing. Who provides that? They also will want a strategy to provide future reward, because they're human. Lobbying slots and working with a major corporation/law firm do an excellent job of forwarding that.
If your job can be Congressman for the next 20 years, why do you need someone else to give you a job?
If you need to quit your job to be in Congress for 4 years and then need to find a job after that, wouldn't you be very strongly inclined to have one hand wash the other?
Everyone would have the same pull as anyone else. And for the House, there would be no elections. They would be selected much like a jury. For the Senate, they'd only have two elections, their first and their second as they'd only have two five year terms. As far as that "strategy to provide future reward" I don't see how it could be any different then it is now. Heck, it might be less seeing lobbying would be a pretty full job market.
I think it is better to have more fresh faces in Congress more often.
And that's basically what it boils down to. I prefer government by the people; others prefer to support the New Monarchy.
I thought we already won this war?
I don't see any more potential for exploitation then what occurs right now. You mention needing money for election campaigns, but the way I mention has less elections for an individual. Sure, people will become corrupted, but they won't be there as long as they are now.
Voting someone out loses all meaning. You could have an unbroken chain of quickly manipulated candidates. You gain, effectively, Tammany Hall 2 in that scenario. It's a disaster. What's obligating these people to serve the public interests or even be good at their jobs?
They don't have to care one bit for the voters any more.
Voting someone out sure does have meaning, they don't come back for another five years, not to mention impeachment proceedings do exist for Senators. A President doesn't have to care about voters after his reelection does he?
Obviously if the thing I said were to actually take effect (which it never will, until I become Emperor of Earth), I'd expect more safeguards, especially a way for the state to initiate recalls of Senators and the lottery-drawn members of the House.
Except at the time of its writing, Senators weren't elected.
http://www.readthesmiths.com/article...il-dogfood.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
I think we'd be better off is for every state, something like Arnold Schwarzenegger once tried to do for California, is to have a non-partisan panel of retired judges draw up district lines, for every state, and essentially end gerrymandering.
(on that note, the effort was defeated in California by Pelosi)
Ted Cruz...
1. On Obama’s plot to kidnap him: “So this afternoon President Obama has invited the Senate Republicans to the White House. So after leaving here, I’m going to be going to the White House. I will make a request. if I’m never seen again, please send a search and rescue team. I very much hope by tomorrow morning I don’t wake up amidst the Syrian rebels.”
2. On the press: “The media wants America to give up and allow this country to keep sliding off the edge of the cliff.”
3. On the Constitution: “This is an administration that seems bound and determine to violate every single one of our bill of rights. I don’t know that they have yet violated the Third Amendment, but I expect them to start quartering soldiers in peoples’ homes soon.”
Yep, Back clearly did not pick up on that Cruz was not serious when he was making those comments.
I don't know I kind of think, if you're a politician and a servant of the people you should be held accountable for everything you say whether it's joking or not. Cruz says stupid stuff like this all the time when he gets nervous. But there's a point at which you have to say to yourself, okay...I'm in the public eye and I'm a national figurehead for the conservative party...no more stupid jokes.
A big problem is that he's not accountable to the american people, only accountable to enough people in his district to get re-elected. We like to think that we pick our rep's but it's equally true that our rep's pick us.
I understand the anger that the Tea Party is expressing. The problem is that you can't govern from a place of anger. They are not really for anything, just against things. The USA has changed and these people are stuck in the denial, anger and bargaining stages of grief. It happens whenever we evolve. As latrin likes to point out the arguments they are making are the same arguments made for things like not allowing women to vote, institutional racism and even the debate over changing the name Redskins.
Good points. And you're spot on that they are not really for anything. It's interesting how the demographic of the Tea Party tends to be boomers. They have been losing traction in social issues gradually over the last thirty years and now the economy is sunk, they are getting up there in years and they are trying to blame the younger generations for their problems. Its probably the most counterintuitive "uprising" the US has ever had. I see their collective message as "Hi, we're the boomers. We had it easy because our parents were brave as fuck for 2 world wars so that we could coast through life. Now these shitty new people are asking for all the same entitlements we had and fuck them! we're old and we want to be taken care of, only old people get welfare, hah!" History will also not fail to see they became popular with the rise of the first black president, whatever those facts imply.
Watching the news clips of the Veterans march on DC, including the idiot with the Confederate flag. I'm surprised how those guys were such dicks to the cops. Most of the cops were probably veterans.
Also surprised to hear them say stupid stuff like telling the cops they better clean up the horse shit off of "our" streets and telling them "you work for us". Isn't that the whole point Obama was making when he said "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." These folks are a real national treasure. It's just a shame they might make the news in other countries.
No particular demographic has a monopoly on idiocy, and I think some of them let the war hero talk go to their heads.
I've still been looking at the trucker's facebook page every now and then. It's such a sad display of idiocy and conspiracy theories. It makes me laugh while the last little bit of hope I had for humanity is squashed.
No, that wasn't Obama's point at all. His point was YOU ARE ALL NOTHING WITHOUT GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!111Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So I've been observing Pete Santilli's chat room. Aaaaaaand...wow.
pccountrydoctor: we need to realize that this Administration is already poised to shoot, kill and bury Americans, if necessary.
TopGun: This country was founded on Judeo-Christian Values and until we get back to our roots we will continue to falter
Alicia: our country started going to pot when they took prtayer out of schools and GOD out of everything
doug andrews: leave God out and there is no strength in the marines
pccountrydoctor: Those of us, awakened, are the leading edge of any hope this country has.
Yep, those are the guys I want forcing change in the country.
Alicia: when we take the country back we NEED to put GOD back in HIS place leading the country
doug andrews: to take the country back we need God to take it
pccountrydoctor: Doug, we ALL believe in God's needed presense in this ... but we need to be God's angels in this, and act !!!
doug andrews: uniting without God is no true force
doug andrews: how can a general lead if he says nothing about God
Jeff65: Look people......Our Constitution was a divinely inspired document...it has witheld our government longer than any other....
grunt0311: we do God's work because we have faith in Him!
doug andrews: and this movement will break apart without him
doug andrews: without God this chat will not have power
liberj: without God we are nothing
TopGun: Jesus is all powerful, with or without this
asset: Just tried to call the Senators office to see if the impeachment rumors are true...no answer, and now my phone is dead.
Yeah...I think I prefer the communists.
Now wait just a minute, there's no evidence that President Obama has a government program to bury Americans. I assume PC Country Doctor refers to Tabor, so shame on you Tabor.Quote:
pccountrydoctor: we need to realize that this Administration is already poised to shoot, kill and bury Americans, if necessary.
Unfortunately I missed the line about how Obama has african, russian, and chinese armies hidden on other continents waiting for his command to storm the US. You would have liked that one, but it scrolled off too fast.
I know better than to even ask for you to back this up but I am anyway. Can you support this argument with anything more tangible than whatever conspiracy you are able paraphrase?
In other news for Dumb Things Conservative Say:
Quote:
Rove concludes:
"Barack Obama set the trap. Some congressional Republicans walked into it. As a result, the president is stronger, the GOP is weaker, and ObamaCare is marginally more popular."
"It's who wins and comes out of the fight that has long-lasting effects. And I got to tell you right now, out here in the real world, outside of New York and Washington, D.C., these people think Ted Cruz is a hero. They think that those Republicans in the House are heroes. And they think that Obama is destroying this country." - Tom DeLey
Heh, so Back's quantification of anything that is 'dumb' is merely what he disagrees with.
I think we just nabbed another quote.
Qualcomm?
The Democrats and Republicans will run the most centrist candidates possible. The establishment will win the Republican war, because if they don't the Republicans are even more likely to lose. Why do you think I talk up the local Libertarian candidates so much?
Rove is a conservative now?
Read something that said some republicans in the party are now calling it O'Boehnercare!
But I thought Viagra wasn't covered?
I doubt anyone was really surprised that Boehner caved. That's what republicans like him do cause they're a bunch of spineless dicktwats.
As dumb as I think most democrats' political views are, if republicans had the balls to keep up the fight like democrats do, this country would be in much better shape.
Samuel Wurzlebaker AKA Joe the Plumber in Christianity Today interview
Quote:
“... People don’t understand the dictionary–it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do–what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.”
Quote:
I like Sarah Palin a lot, actually. I just don't know if that's where God's leading her. I just know the Republican Party's done its best to blackball her. I don't know what her agenda is. If she ran, would I vote for her? Absolutely. John McCain was the lesser of two evils.
Other than "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children," where's the problem?
I think there are two things that make it a pretty stupid statement for general publication, but given the media that published it, it's not that unusual, or 'queer' - notice this is used correctly here.
first, just because 'queer' exists as a defined word, it isn't used in that meaning when it's used as a slur for gay people. If you hear someone yell 'Hey Queer!' you don't think 'Oh, that gentleman thinks that other person is strange and unusual. I should applaud him for his command of the English language'.
second, after defending the slur because it's a proper word, he falls back on the 'some of my best friends...' which I think is generally accepted as bullshit - unless you know a lot of highly desperate people. Most people I know don't really call people who use slurs against them and justify it, don't think they deserve the same rights as you, and know that you don't think enough of them that they can be around your children, etc. 'friends'. I find that sort of hard to believe.
Well it's a known fact that gays try to recruit others to their way of life at a very young age so he's smart to keep his gay friends away from his children.
Also gays can be cured of their gayness.
I'm confused why real gaydar devices aren't being sold yet. At least in Spencer Gift stores if nothing else.
Is that store even around anymore?
Yes, that store is still around, I go in there for laughs from time to time.
This.
Granted, I don't put much "faith" in God and his "direction", but I don't consider it "dumb" if someone believes in God and such.
Dumb, to me, is something like believing an island will capsize if too many people are standing on it.. or someone trying to redefine the word "is".
I can not believe she was almost the #2.
Perfect response:Quote:
Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has said Pope Francis has “taken her aback” with his liberal interpretation of Christianity and has expressed fears he may be being influenced by the mainstream media.
In an interview with CNN, Palin laid bare her misgivings about Pope Francis, who has impressed believers and nonbelievers alike with his humble and practical application of the gospel.
She told interviewer Jake Tapper: “He's had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me. There again, unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media.”
Quote:
Another wrote: “If Sarah Palin's this shocked by Pope Francis, she'll be catatonic when she finally gets round to reading about Jesus in the New Testament.”
I know, truth hurts :(Quote:
Red Rep
Thread: Dumb things conservatives say:
.
http://www.tri-parishtimes.com/news/...a4bcf887a.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Lindel Toups
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyllis Schafly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat Buchanan
"...they use the library to look at drugs and food stamps (on the Internet)."
I have a Constitutional right to look at anything I want on the Internet. It's in there somewhere, trust me.
I have chosen to waive that right. Could you tell?
OMG, they look at food stamps! Next they'll be using old tube TVs as fire places, eating alpo for dinner and having epic battles with Humungus over gasoline.
All I can say in response is: break the deal, face the wheel.
Those toubled times get us every time.
Remember when the liberals never did anything like that?
http://nowse.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/ovaries.jpg
Faux Cyrillic is so, so annoying.
Because liberals never do anything like that to republicans.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...hitAsshole.jpg
I never saw the one you posted either. Therefore it must not really exist.Quote:
Anticor your argument would be better supported by a meme that was more widely distributed amongst the liberal base. I have never seen that one and I consider myself a COLLECTOR of such things.
Besides, I thought you only collected severed cocks?
It's funny given that Methais has made fun of "But you do it too!" arguments.
You never fail to deliver irony.Quote:
You're not good at the smart stuff.
http://youtu.be/eKxLTJvQHagQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's because you're not good at the smart stuff.
But I'm here to help!
Plural non-possessive requires no apostrophe.
Example of correct use: Liberals are stupid.
Example of incorrect use: Liberal's are stupid.
http://i.imgur.com/MELivZl.jpg
You'd better apologize to the Jews.
http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r...-the-juice.jpg
Sheesh, who let that woman design a placard? It's not a NinjasLeadtheWay post, nobody's going to spend the time getting really close so they can read all the little words.
Er...well...you specifically said it belonged in this thread, and this thread is dumb things conservative...oh...right. I mistyped. How do you know he's a conservative?
Nah, here's what I think. The guy holding the sign isn't religious or conservative at all, but his father was killed by a roving pack of gays so he joined the demonstration to get revenge, and he's just holding whatever sign someone gave him to hold up.
Makes WAY more sense than his being a conservative religious loon.
That's pretty dumb. Almost as dumb as Nancy Grace saying that potheads shoot, stab, and strangle each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Bqob-weFk
In a few more years we won't have to hear this bullshit from either side because it will be legal everywhere and there will be nothing left to debate.
Hopefully someone will have fired Nancy Grace long beforehand.
It's probably because he kind of looks like George Zimmerman.
He does look familiar, and now it's pissing me off because I can't think of who he looks like either.
In a desperate attempt, I came up with these, even though I already know they're wrong:
http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...x_j_murphy.jpg
http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2012/08/mal-what.gif
That's pretty fucking sad. "Look, guys, we shouldn't have to tell you that rape is bad but since you're not getting it just don't talk about rape at all."Quote:
GOP strategists have worked hard since the 2012 election to keep Republicans from alienating female voters by holding training sessions and advising candidates to simply avoid talking about rape.
That's fantastic. Now here's what he said, but without being taken out context:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...cwCYAAo_mf.jpg
I think Huckabee is a massive dork regardless, but yeah.
I just realized I got trolled by Think Progress, holy shit I must be tired.
Their "source" for this? Another "article" on their own website.Quote:
GOP strategists have worked hard since the 2012 election to keep Republicans from alienating female voters by holding training sessions and advising candidates to simply avoid talking about rape.
And if you follow their own link it brings you to a story about the "training sessions" Republicans were being signed up for and it turns out it was some smart ass group offering them training sessions.
And the advice to stop talking about rape was from a top GOP pollster because a couple of yahoos were talking out of their ass about rape and they figured it was better to distance themselves from rape talk altogether.
Just because you want to derp out like you like to about poor sourcing doesn't mean it's actually untrue.
David Vitter's PR lady is a pretty big deal in Republican polling/crisis managment circles.
The people who you claim are "selling sessions" have 365,000 members and gave 5.6 million to Republican candidates in the last election cycle. Not the biggest but not small either.
Offering == selling?
Tg, I think he just called your mom an old professor.
On a side note.. if the fed is going to be giving every woman free birth control, well, paid for by the tax payers, I don't think men should ever have to pay child support then again if the two people were not married, in a long term relationship, or it is documented that the man wanted her to terminate the birth.
After all, the government gave her birth control for free, how is it any longer any of the man's responsibility?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...st-the-machine
Ah conservatives. They care about people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4761388.html
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Ben Carson, the retired Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon and Fox News commentator, recently warned supporters of Oregon GOP Senate candidate Monica Wehby that progressives are turning the country into the next Nazi Germany.
Carson made the comparison during a Jan. 31 fundraiser he headlined for Wehby in Wilsonville, Ore. A video of his speech posted on YouTube shows Carson discussing the "secular progressive movement," a term coined by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly to negatively characterize individuals with liberal or left-leaning values.
Carson said one of the main goals of progressives was to "fundamentally change who we are," and part of that entailed "keeping a blanket of silence over the majority." Most Americans have common sense, Carson added, but are afraid to speak out because they might be targeted or investigated by the IRS -- a reference to the agency's 2012 targeting of tea party groups. It was later found that progressive groups were also targeted, but Republicans have nonetheless used the IRS controversy to cast the Obama administration as authoritarian.
Carson then likened the status quo to Germany under Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, teeing up what he later implied was the choice facing voters in the 2014 midterm elections.
"There comes a time when people with values simply have to stand up. Think about Nazi Germany," he said. "Most of those people did not believe in what Hitler was doing. But did they speak up? Did they stand up for what they believe in? They did not, and you saw what happened."
"And if you believe that same thing can't happen again, you're very wrong," Carson added. "But we're not going to let it happen."
I'm more disturbed that one neurosurgeon is deriding another. What is this country coming to? You can't show me one quote of the Founding Fathers that explicitly supports brain surgeon on brain surgeon violence.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jl08Pk11RN...racy-chair.jpg
Says the guy who thinks the government is here to save us because that's what they tell you.Quote:
Of course the guys telling you that are the ones who can save you.
Does that somehow change the irony of Back's "I love and trust everything government does as long as it's democrats because they're here to save us from evil conservatives" belief while simultaneously trying tell people that they should be suspicious of those who say they're here to save you?
Or is this the part where you respond with something completely irrelevant with the words republican and racist randomly thrown in?
I think this laughably stupid rep pretty much points the arrow in a certain direction on who's more off base. Godwin's Law is what it is for a reason.Quote:
Thread: Dumb things conservatives say:
That's the thing though. There's not. You believe the lie that there is. That's why you're liberal.
"Run, Sarah Run!"
LOL. Wait.. isn't that what Obama should decide first. Then once he has decided. He can let you know. Then you can let me know, ok?
(remember when Obama told the old PM of Russia that Putin shouldn't worry, after he gets re-elected there could be a "reset")
Nahhhh....
You liberals will NEVER bad mouth your true Savior.
There's this fascinating two wrongs don't make a right theory that you never quite learned.
You've been obsessed with Obama since before he was even elected. I've made my criticisms of him quite clear. I think he attempted to negotiate too much with Republicans for years and destroyed his own mandate. I think NDAA and drone use are creepy as fuck. He did the exact opposite of what he claimed he'd do on Guantanamo. His use of the NSA is just as creepy as Bush's. His education policy is pure shit. The list goes on. You're arguing with the invisible "liberals" that you picture in your head here.
Your party, which you've lied about for years, presents no positive alternatives. Your fake party is even worse and has done nothing but damage America further.
Which conservatives are you referring to that claim he's the "best" ever?
The only one I've heard give Putin praise was NBC during the Olympics. I think everything I've heard since the Russian invasion was Putin is a piece of shit and Obama is completely out of his league.
I always thought it was just the young people who idealized Putin in memes. Never realized one party owned that.
You guys are joking right? Is this sarcasm? You're saying that the right isn't idealizing vladimir putin?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...onal-autocrats
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...-conservatives
The Increasingly Awkward Conservative Crush on Putin
Quote:
The reason for all this ancient history is the situation today in Ukraine, where an autocratic Russian leader who exudes manly vibes has ordered his armed forces into Crimea. It is unclear whether this move on Russia's part will prove successful, but, amidst uncertaintly among western leaders over what to do, there has arisen a new strain of the Burnham syndrome. Conservatives don't just see the west and President Obama as weak; they also seem envious of Putin's bullying. "There is something odd," Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote in New York magazine, "about commentators who denounce Putin in the strongest terms and yet pine for a more Putin-like figure in the White House."
Sarah Palin, for example, said this last night to Sean Hannity:
Well, yes, especially under the commander-in-chief that we have today because Obama's -- the perception of him and his potency across the world is one of such weakness. And you know, look, people are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates. We are not exercising that peace through strength that only can be brought to you courtesy of the red, white and blue, that only a strengthened United States military can do.Put aside the syntax for a moment and ask: is there not a bit of envy here? Isn't Palin very clearly desirous of a tough-guy president who wrestles bears and drills for oil? (The swooning over Bush's landing on that aircraft carrier was a telling sign.)
Now read Rush Limbaugh:
In fact, Putin—ready for this?—postponed the Oscar telecast last night. He didn't want his own population distracted. He wanted his own population knowing full well what he was doing, and he wanted them celebrating him. They weren't distracted. We were.If only America wasn't distracted by silly things like the Oscars, perhaps we would have the strength to stand up to the tough Russia. (On his web page, Limbaugh has a photo of a shirtless Putin.) In case the point isn't obvious enough, Limbaugh continues:
Well, did you hear that the White House put out a photo of Obama talking on the phone with Vlad, and Obama's sleeves were rolled up? That was done to make it look like Obama was really working hard—I mean, really taking it seriously. His sleeves were rolled up while on the phone with Putin! Putin probably had his shirt off practicing Tai-Chi while he was talking to Obama.Limbaugh quite clearly wants this kind of leader.
What's with the Mom jeans anyway? For a party that's fighting the "War on women" label you'd think they'd be smart enough to steer clear of disparaging women who no longer wear sexy pants because their bodies changed due to motherhood.
Uh? Saying what a tough guy Putin is and what a weakling Obama looks like doesn't mean people have a "crush" on Putin.
Geezuz H Christ. Where do yo people come up with this shit? I think Putin is an asshole, I think he's been an asshole for a long time now. My opinion of him hasn't changed.
Do I think Putin is more of a "tough guy" than Obama? Well DUH! Would I rather have a more "tough guy" in the White House? Well that depends...not one that is going to invade MEXICO of all places! Maybe Canada.
But I would like someone in the White House who does more than play golf, campaign 24/7 and does his basketball picks every gosh dang damned week. Isn't Obama pretty much ignoring this Putin thing right now and is off vacationing in Florida?
Putin riding shirtless on a horse is Russian campaigning.
Only if you tell me some more good fairy tales about tort reform reducing healthcare costs, amnesty and work visas being good until Obama proposed it, and tax cuts creating revenue. Then tell me how illegal immigration was a huge priority when Republicans had the White House and Congress. I also want to hear about how deregulation protected the Gulf Coast from oil spills. Then we can to a cost benefit analysis of government subsidies yet have it explained how Democratic subsidies are bad. There are precious few other "conservative" ideas.
How do you know none of the solutions work, have we put them into effect and they failed? Or are you basing them working on your opinion? or something you were told by someone?
face it, you fundamentally disagree with the Republican party. You disagree with conservatism (which the republican's are not always part of sad to say). So of course you would think that anything they propose is not good.
In the category of SMART things conservatives say...
Quote:
[Former Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates also reiterated his previous remarks that his fellow Republicans should "tone down" their criticism of President Barack Obama over the Ukraine situation. Congressional Republicans have accused the president of being "naïve" regarding Russia's actions and intentions in the region.
"Putin invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was president," said Gates. "Nobody ever accused George W. Bush of being weak or unwilling to use military force."
Like always.. you can't answer a question. Why are all Liberals like you and Back. Ask you guys a question, and you say how bad the "other side" is instead. If it wasn't sad, it would be funny.
Amnesty was a Regan thing. I wasn't old enough back then to really like it or not, but if Bush had done it, I would have been pissed. We should NEVER give amnesty for people that sneak into our country illegally. It's like giving people a warning for DUI's it just encourages MORE DUI's. Why the fuck would anyone want to go thru the hassle, process, and cost of doing it right.. when you can sneak in for free! Work visa's I do agree with. They make perfect sense. So does securing our border.
The first Bush didn't have a Republican house, or Senate. So no luck there. The second... He had Congress for most of his term, but only the Senate for the first half. And those years he was dealing with the fallout of 9/11. Do you REALLY think he could have pushed anything tough through a Dem held Senate on immigration? I do fault Bush for not fixing the Immigration issue when he had the chance. Course, with the Clinton bad economy, and 9/11... he had a full plate.
I agree with amnesty at certain times. A kid that was brought here illegally when he was 2 and grew up here, went to school here, etc shouldn't be shipped to Mexico.
He didn't have to. McCain had a bi-partisan plan. It exploded over the course of one weekend when right wing radio got a hold of it. They called it amnesty. Rubio also had a plan. He may have been able to get somewhere with it especially considering his GOP credentials and multi-cultural appeal. Unfortunately the right killed that too.
It's interesting how you'd complain about questioning when using them as trolling/avoidance is precisely why I phrased my post the way I did. Then again you don't actually talk to people, you're talking to "liberals" so I can't even really take anything you say seriously.
Your complaint about Republican immigration policy would make sense if Mexico actually had the rule of law. The difference between paying a coyote to let you across the border and bribing officials to escape Tijuana is usually just that the officials cost more.
You only mentioned the first Bush (which I never mentioned) to attempt to detract from just how bad your "Dubya dealt with the fallout from 9-11" point was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ol_of_Congress
Seems like he had control for a little bit longer than just 9-11.
Pretty much indeed. Because damnit, those poor people really should bribe corrupt officials properly!