Frankly, I'm amazed the Christian conservatives have stuck around this long.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
I mean, Giuliani doesn't help his case by the fact that there are like four seperate videos of him in full drag (one with Trump's face in his fake breasts).
Edit:
What is driving away the religous right:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8 Zair fucked around with this message on 10-24-2007 at 01:12 PM.
the fuck was that
Republicans are supposed to be about fiscal conservatism, smaller government and free-market economies. Trying to pass constitutional ammendments about flag burning, gay marriage or abortion doesn't further any of those objectives and is actually counter the one about smaller government. If you think all that shit's bad, the best advice I can give you is--DON'T DO IT!
We're supposed to be the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt fer cryin' out loud. Not the Party of God.
The DREAM Act has been brought to the floor, what, four times now? And it's something that eighty percent of the population opposes. The democratic congress has been sitting in front of a big, red button with "End The War" written below it in comic sans, but they don't even talk about the possibility of pressing it, which is what these guys are so unhappy about. Also, stem cell research anyone? Gay marriage? Is there a high profile issue that they've even tried to deliver on?
Representatives on both sides of the aisle just aren't representing anymore. Instead, they're acting like aristocrats, stuffing every piece of legislation with more and more pork to beautify their respective domains. Maybe they can't hear us through all the freshly cut ribbons piled around them. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 10-24-2007 at 06:15 PM.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Callalron booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Good riddance and I hope the door doesn't smack 'em in the ass on the way out. And I say that as a registered Republican of almost 30 years.
Unfortunately, if they leave and find some catholic ayatollah to vote for, the odds of Hillary winning are 100%, and that woman is insane enough to do damage that will take generations to recover from.
quote:
Blindy.ing:
Evangelicals voting for catholics? Are you insane?
christian, my mistake sorry sorry
The title of the article is "Christian Activists Eye Third Party". Typically "activists" in my book are a vocal minority who yell and scream for attention. I feel that many people who think much like I do are scoffing at the idea that these clowns could speak for us. Not too many would jump ship because Jimmy Dobson says so.
And dare I move on to the Christian Ideal of FORGIVENESS? So Rudy has been divorced a couple times and is secure enough in his masculinity to have dressed in drag a few times. I don't give a damn about that. What I care about is weather he's going to be tough on taxes and tough on defending our shores. I could easily support any of the current GOP candidates except for one or two RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) I'd likely even vote for McCain, only because he isn't Billary. Kaglaaz How'ler fucked around with this message on 10-24-2007 at 06:51 PM.
quote:
How.... Maradon!.... uughhhhhh:
my mistake
that didn't just happen
quote:
ACES! Another post by Blindy.:
Evangelicals voting for catholics? Are you insane?
Which is probably why they loathe Giuliani. His actual politics and actions don't matter; he's a Catholic so he's still a heretic in their eyes.
quote:
Maradon! thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Unfortunately, if they leave and find some catholic ayatollah to vote for, the odds of Hillary winning are 100%, and that woman is insane enough to do damage that will take generations to recover from.
I think you have Hilary and GW confused.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Noxhil2 who doth quote:
I think you have Hilary and GW confused.
What the hell are you talking about? Bush can't even run in 08
I exaggerate, but still.
EDIT: Fuck, why do I keep putting two Ls in her name? Mooj fucked around with this message on 10-25-2007 at 12:09 AM.
-Hillary Clinton
quote:
Maradon! impressed everyone with:
What the hell are you talking about? Bush can't even run in 08
I think he was implying that we'll take generations to recover from these 8 years and that Hilary couldn't possibly be worse
I don't know if I agree, but that seems to be his intention
quote:
Kegwen has sealed the pact
I think he was implying that we'll take generations to recover from these 8 years and that Hilary couldn't possibly be worseI don't know if I agree, but that seems to be his intention
I would think there would be a load of difference between a man who's been accused of fascism and a woman who embraces the title unapologetically.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Mooj:
power-mad bitch
Haha, why is she a power-mad bitch? Damn her for wanting to be president!
Or is it because she actually tried to work on healthcare while first lady? Is that so horrible?
She probably does want to be a socialist dictator of this country, though, which would make her a power-mad bitch, but it's kinda hard to dig up actual evidence of that without resorting to the plethora of quotes of hers that positively scream with marxism.
I think 90% of the hate raged against her is pure bandwagoning to be honest.
And yet, I spend nights going after quotes in video game discussions.
Where the fuck are my priorities?
quote:
Maradon! fell asleep and read just about every paragraph.
This article kinda glosses over the fact that neither party is listening to any part of either constituency on almost any issue. The evangelicals aren't alone.The DREAM Act has been brought to the floor, what, four times now? And it's something that eighty percent of the population opposes. The democratic congress has been sitting in front of a big, red button with "End The War" written below it in comic sans, but they don't even talk about the possibility of pressing it, which is what these guys are so unhappy about. Also, stem cell research anyone? Gay marriage? Is there a high profile issue that they've even tried to deliver on?
Representatives on both sides of the aisle just aren't representing anymore. Instead, they're acting like aristocrats, stuffing every piece of legislation with more and more pork to beautify their respective domains. Maybe they can't hear us through all the freshly cut ribbons piled around them.
I still want to know what this "big, red button" is. I'm going to reassert that if there was such a button, Congress would have used it by now. A few things to remember;
1. Congress cannot end the war directly. The President can. He can pick up the phone, call Baghdad, and get the troops moving out tomorrow (barring long range and short range political, humanitarian, and logistics concerns); the Congress cannot. The main weapon Congress has been trying to use has been cutting off funding. Even if they passed a bill through both houses with the votes to override a veto, that wouldn't immediately get the troops moving - not until the money already allocated ran out - a very indirect method.
2. Congress cannot pass a law removing the President's authority; he's Commander-in-Chief according to the Constitution. To remove the President's CoC power; you'd literally have to impeach and convict him. Which would put Dick Cheney in office... until he got impeached and convicted... and replaced with Pelosi. That thought alone should keep people up nights. Screaming.
3. I don't see Hillary Clinton picking up that phone to Baghdad on 12:01 pm January 20, 2009 and ordering the troops out.
There is no "big, red button" available to Congress. The President, yes, but not Congress. And not Congress, as long there are 34 Republicans in the Senate.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Zair who doth quote:
I don't love Hillary, but I don't hate her either. I can't really figure out what about her is worse than the average Democrat that enrages people so much.
The problem is that she isn't any different from the average democrat. None of the democrats are, some are just a bit more adept at politics than others.
I'd trust any one of them with the destruction of this country.
quote:
Mightion Defensoring:
I still want to know what this "big, red button" is.
Power of the purse. Congress can vote to stop funding the war and the executive branch will have absolutely no choice but to withdraw immediately.
It's not pulling the rug out from under the troops, anybody who portrays it that way is stupid or selling something. The troops would have everything they have now, they'd just have to leave immediately.
quote:
1. Congress cannot end the war directly.
But they can very effectively end the war indirectly. Power of the purse is one of the checks and balances built into our system of government. It gives congress immutable control over anything that costs money. There is ample precedent. Look it up.
quote:
Even if they passed a bill through both houses with the votes to override a veto
Power of the purse is not subject to veto, a budget is not a bill. I encourage you to learn a bit more about how our government works.
quote:
that wouldn't immediately get the troops moving - not until the money already allocated ran out - a very indirect method.
Indirect, but not possible to circumvent, so the matter of directness is completely moot. The president would have no reason to let the existing funding just run out before making withdrawal plans. People would start coming home the day the budget was passed.
quote:
2. Congress cannot pass a law removing the President's authority
I encourage you to learn a bit more about how our government works.
quote:
There is no "big, red button" available to Congress.
You are completely wrong. If you paid even a little attention to current events or the workings of our government, you'd know better.
The reason the democrats have not used their power to end the war is because they fully realize that an unconditional withdrawal would result in widespread slaughter and a catastrophic loss for the united states in that region. They want that to happen, very badly, but they DON'T want it to look like they caused it by pulling funding, and they DON'T want it to happen under a democratic presidency. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 10-25-2007 at 06:55 PM.
quote:
Maradon! wrote their words upon the rocks;
You are completely wrong. If you paid even a little attention to current events or the workings of our government, you'd know better.The reason the democrats have not used their power to end the war is because they fully realize that an unconditional withdrawal would result in widespread slaughter and a catastrophic loss for the united states in that region. They want that to happen, very badly, but they DON'T want it to look like they caused it by pulling funding, and they DON'T want it to happen under a democratic presidency.
Yes, Congress, has the power of the purse. No, they cannot force the troops to come home immediately - the simplest proof is they didn't start packing up and coming home when the President vetoed the spending bill that included a timeline. Because the funding hadn't run out yet, and Congress cannot play Indian giver with money already allocated.
Considering the new fiscal year started on 10/1, there is nothing Congress to do with the "power of the purse" until the next budget session, which I believe start in April. Yes, they can (and have "promised" to) deny the President any funding requests he makes for more money, but they can't remove money already appropriated in this year's budget.
Congress cannot start the troops coming home tomorrow, October 26th. The President can, because he's Commander-in-Chief. What I meant to say earlier was "Congress cannot pass a law removing the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief".
Even so, even I cannot believe all the Democrats in Congress are as consciousless as you imply- that they want a mass slaughter and a major defeat for the US? The consequences of such would not magically disappear the instant George W. leaves office. Do you think every other country in the world will magically become our friends on that date? Mightion Defensor fucked around with this message on 10-25-2007 at 08:11 PM.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about the Spice Girls:
they fully realize that an unconditional withdrawal would result in widespread slaughter and a catastrophic loss for the united states in that region. They want that to happen, very badly,
You are dumb.
quote:
It has been ordained by Primus, that there will be a Chosen One who will use the Matrix to "light our darkest hour." That darkest hour may come sooner if Mooj keeps posting things like this:
... Did you totally ignore everything else he said? Jeez.
I cut my reply short because I'm at work and was getting interrupted by customers.
quote:
Zair's account was hax0red to write:
You are dumb.
And you're a hamham.
It's no secret that the Dems would love to have something happen in Iraq that they can say "Hey, that's Bush's fault! Vote for us and it won't happen!"
What Maradon is saying is that the only reason the Democrats haven't exercised their power is because if they did that, the resulting chaos would very clearly be their fault.
They want the Republicans to look bad. Plain and simple. Right now, it's Bush's war. If the democrats do anything to change that, and things go bad (Which they would, there's no question), the republicans would turn right around and say "Hey, great job guys. You going to keep up this track record if you get voted into office?"
quote:
Maradon! attempted to be funny by writing:
But they can very effectively end the war indirectly. Power of the purse is one of the checks and balances built into our system of government. It gives congress immutable control over anything that costs money. There is ample precedent. Look it up.
They are already on that. They've shot down Bush's call for more money, saying they aren't going to authorize more money without a withdrawl date set.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2252200020071022?rpc=92 Reynar fucked around with this message on 10-25-2007 at 10:11 PM.
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
They are already on that. They've shot down Bush's call for more money, saying they aren't going to authorize more money without a withdrawl date set.http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2252200020071022?rpc=92
That's very different from saying "No money. Period."
quote:
ACES! Another post by Mooj:
stuff
Of course the Democrats would worry about taking the control, and thus the responsibility that comes with it.
But do you honestly believe they hope for US failure and for US and Iraqi casualties to stack up (slaughter as Maradon said), so they can win elections?
That is retardedly cynical and partisan, I'm sorry.
If you honestly believe the Democrats are that evil, stop listening to talk radio, please.
quote:
Zair had this to say about (_|_):
Of course the Democrats would worry about taking the control, and thus the responsibility that comes with it.But do you honestly believe they hope for US failure and for US and Iraqi casualties to stack up (slaughter as Maradon said), so they can win elections?
That is retardedly cynical and partisan, I'm sorry.
If you honestly believe the Democrats are that evil, stop listening to talk radio, please.
News flash.
ALL politicians are that evil. The republicans are no better than the democrats in that regard. Or have the past two decades of shifting majority leadership in the house and senate been completely lost on you?
The lives of American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians mean jack shit to the people in Washington. Their value is only as great as the amount of votes their death or survival can bring to the two respective parties.
Similarly, both sides are fucking hypocritical to say that the war and subsequent reconstruction effort are a bad thing. Oh, Americans died. Here's another news flash. When there's a military action, PEOPLE DIE.
The whole damn thing, the news, the political speeches, the congressional wankery? All of it is done for the sole purpose of getting a bunch of people bigger paychecks at the expense of their political enemies.
Yes, I am cynical, but it's not unwarranted. I doubt that there are even twenty politicians in the country that give a damn about not just the war in Iraq, but even their own constituents. Mooj fucked around with this message on 10-25-2007 at 10:31 PM.
quote:
Zair said this about your mom:
Of course the Democrats would worry about taking the control, and thus the responsibility that comes with it.But do you honestly believe they hope for US failure and for US and Iraqi casualties to stack up (slaughter as Maradon said), so they can win elections?
That is retardedly cynical and partisan, I'm sorry.
If you honestly believe the Democrats are that evil, stop listening to talk radio, please.
Bush believes Democrats are evil.
Clinton believes Republicans are evil.
Obama seems pretty happy with the ideaof everyone cupping each other's balls.
