The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

Gezzz if most republicans based their ideals on scientific and proven research, we actually may have a functional positive gov't.

I for one do not see much hope left in the USA, considering Obama is a failure much to like his predecessor Bush. Obama is far worst because of his overall popularity which allows he to keep and add to the worst of Bush's policies without much throwback.
The republicans are overall far more dangerous as they accepted Bush's anti-Consitution tactics and are even more accepting of Obama following Bush's tactics.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Akin wasn't mocked because he is anti-abortion. There are plenty of politicians who are anti-abortion and aren't mocked for their views. Akin was mocked because he made completely unscientific and ridiculous claims which many saw as blaming the victim. And let's not pretend like it was only "liberal nazis" that were criticizing him. I recall both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan calling for Akin to step down, among others. Between Akin and the other candidates that made similar comments (Richard Mourdock, Tom Smith, Roger Rivard, etc), I feel like the Republicans did more to create the narrative this time around.

To try to color this as people being unfair to Akin purely because he's against abortion is entirely disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

Republicans get to make completely idiotic statements and then act like victims of a liberal media conspiracy. It's part of their standard play book.
 
[quote name='Clak']Democrats get to make completely idiotic statements about anecdotes and then act like everyone else is an idiot, because their policy based on that anecdote is just "common sense". Why would you be against common sense? It's part of their standard play book.[/QUOTE]

Fixed.
 
[quote name='egofed']Carrey has armed bodyguards protecting him.....Hypocrisy at its finest. Thanks, Clak.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Do his armed bodyguards carry assault rifles?
 
Almost like bitching about unions while benefiting from one, amiright?

troll+face.gif
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Do his armed bodyguards carry assault rifles?[/QUOTE]

I wouldnt be surprised if they went hunting using semi automatic rifles aka assault weapons.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Do his armed bodyguards carry assault rifles?[/QUOTE]

Do assault weapons account for more than 1% of gun violence?

Don't let facts get in your way. (See my above post.)
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do assault weapons account for more than 1% of gun violence?

Don't let facts get in your way. (See my above post.)[/QUOTE]

What does that have to do with whether or not Carrey's bodyguards are armed with them? You're so eager to refute my post that you do so with an argument I've never even posed. I'm genuinely curious if Carrey's armed guards do carry the guns he's come out against, which, you know, is a fact in and of itself.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']What does that have to do with whether or not Carrey's bodyguards are armed with them? You're so eager to refute my post that you do so with an argument I've never even posed. I'm genuinely curious if Carrey's armed guards do carry the guns he's come out against, which, you know, is a fact in and of itself.[/QUOTE]

Think about that for a second.

You were so eager to refute his post that you are setting up an argument that carrey isn't hypocritical because his bodyguards aren't carrying the guns he is purportedly against.

The problem with it is that although his guards may not carry assault weapons, they are carrying the statistically more deadly guns. It is quite ironic.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']What does that have to do with whether or not Carrey's bodyguards are armed with them? You're so eager to refute my post that you do so with an argument I've never even posed. I'm genuinely curious if Carrey's armed guards do carry the guns he's come out against, which, you know, is a fact in and of itself.[/QUOTE]

There is a word I like, that word is factoid.

Even if assault weapons were used in a relatively small amount of the total occurrences of gun violence but those instances were horrific mass murders it would still be worth talking about.
 
[quote name='Clak']Almost like bitching about unions while benefiting from one, amiright?

[/QUOTE]


I'm not in a union, never was. I'm in a right to work state, so the union has dick for power anyway. Basically it forces the city to pay the same amount to jackasses that were hired under diversity and affirmative action, who are negligent in their duties and have sometimes straight up refused to enter a burning building, the same amount as the firefighters who actually get the job done. Thanks unions, you da best:applause:....


Oooooo, almost forgot how the union works so hard to make firing anyone, no matter how poor an employee, nearly impossible.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Do his armed bodyguards carry assault rifles?[/QUOTE]

Does his comedy video only lampoon "assault weapons"? It seemed like an attack on pretty much all firearms to me. I'll have to watch it again later to check.
 
[quote name='egofed']Does his comedy video only lampoon "assault weapons"? It seemed like an attack on pretty much all firearms to me. I'll have to watch it again later to check.[/QUOTE]

I think another thing that should be asked is: Does he attack those who carry it around for sport, for their jobs, or both?

My phone refuses to play the video, so I don't know what all is said in it.
 
The dumb thing is that the video is making fun of Charlton Heston more than anything else. The fact that Heston had a gun fetish and was a darling of the right is part of the skit.

edit- Btw, for those unaware, Heston actually supported gun control in the past. Waffler!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='4thHorseman']I think another thing that should be asked is: Does he attack those who carry it around for sport, for their jobs, or both?

My phone refuses to play the video, so I don't know what all is said in it.[/QUOTE]

I only watched half of it because I didn't find it entertaining. Not because it opposes my views (not even sure if it does) but because it just didn't seem funny.

I'm not sure it even opposes guns from what I watched, I couldn't understand a lot of it. I only went after assault weapons because someone else started to go after them. My bad.

[quote name='Clak']The dumb thing is that the video is making fun of Charlton Heston more than anything else. The fact that Heston had a gun fetish and was a darling of the right is part of the skit.

edit- Btw, for those unaware, Heston actually supported gun control in the past. Waffler![/QUOTE]

What part of that gun control would you say is similar to today's proposed gun control?

This is one of those moments we were ranting about earlier. In politics it's either "all in" or "all out". People are too lazy to identify the different degrees of opinions.
 
[quote name='egofed']Does his comedy video only lampoon "assault weapons"? It seemed like an attack on pretty much all firearms to me. I'll have to watch it again later to check.[/QUOTE]

Fair point. Everything I've read regarding the video has described Carrey as coming out against "assault weapons and guns with large magazines", though having watched the video, I'd agree it takes a much broader stance.

[quote name='Knoell']I only went after assault weapons because someone else started to go after them. My bad.[/QUOTE]

If by "go after", you mean "asked a simple question regarding Carrey's hypocrisy", then sure.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Fair point. Everything I've read regarding the video has described Carrey as coming out against "assault weapons and guns with large magazines", though having watched the video, I'd agree it takes a much broader stance.



If by "go after", you mean "asked a simple question regarding Carrey's hypocrisy", then sure.[/QUOTE]

If by "go after", you mean "asked a simple question regarding Assault Weapon statistics", then sure.

I can play that game too. You know that his guards (if he has any) don't carry assault weapons. I don't even think the SS Agents closest to Obama carry them, however it doesn't even matter what guns he is carrying and that was my point. I know where you were going, and I still think you were on your way to making a point.

If you were geniunely curious as to what weapons his guards carried then I apologize.
 
I'm a little sketchy on what constitutes an "assault weapon". I used to have a picture of what they are (AK-47s and such), but in recent times, I've learned that the term encompasses many more guns and there are more attributes as to what defines an "assault weapon" than I am familiar with. Based on that, I figured there was a possibility Carrey's guards actually carried a weapon with that classification, though I doubted it.

But, I never had any intention of "going after" assault weapons.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']I'm a little sketchy on what constitutes an "assault weapon". I used to have a picture of what they are (AK-47s and such), but in recent times, I've learned that the term encompasses many more guns and there are more attributes as to what defines an "assault weapon" than I am familiar with. Based on that, I figured there was a possibility Carrey's guards actually carried a weapon with that classification, though I doubted it.

But, I never had any intention of "going after" assault weapons.[/QUOTE]

Put it this way: my cousin has an old Japanese war rifle that holds 11 9mm rounds. Not too long ago, he replaced the stock on it. It used to be a brown, wooden stock and he replaced it with a black plastic one that folds up. This thing is basically a handgun, as it's only semi-automatic and the clip holds the same as a handgun. But just because he replaced the stock with one that just looks like an assault rifle stock, it's considered one in many states. (But luckily not Wisconsin. :)) What they consider an assault rifle is simply ridiculous.

EDIT:
[quote name='Clak']http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ion-bill_n_3003401.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

Keep proving what people already know.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with Democratics on some key issues, yet the Republicans are completely retarded. We need a new political party. :(
 
[quote name='Clak']http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-religion-bill_n_3003401.html?icid=hp_front_top_art[/QUOTE][quote name='Clak']

Keep proving what people already know.[/QUOTE]

Do you know what your official state bird is? Mammal? Food? Book? Rock?

This is just stupid on your part for pretending it is a big deal and on their part for wasting time while in session on a stupid bill. It's like when Governors or Presidents declare it national softball catcher day. Waste of time and no one cares.

[quote name='Purple Flames']Here in NC we have a 9.4% unemployment rate and one of the lowest teacher's salary rates in the country, but it's nice to see that lawmakers are focusing on what really matters :roll:[/QUOTE]

Your cost of living is also on the lower end of the scale and teacher's salaries shouldn't be a main focus of any lawmaker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Purple Flames']Here in NC we have a 9.4% unemployment rate and one of the lowest teacher's salary rates in the country, but it's nice to see that lawmakers are focusing on what really matters :roll:[/QUOTE]

I wonder what the unemployment rate would be if we actually tallied disability and those who have just stopped looking for work?

Official State religion? How can this be legal? Seems like a cheap gimmick to grab the Christian vote. If we could actually keep gov't and religion separate, maybe we could focus on the real issues we have in this country. At least we don't have it nearly as bad as other parts of the world. Having the word "Muslim" ACTUALLY in the name of your ruling party makes freedom of religion a bit hard to believe in....plus all the burnings, stonings, etc that they commit on those who believe differently.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, to be fair, there is no "separation of fowl and state" clause in the federal Constitution...[/QUOTE]


HEHEHEHHE...:applause:
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Fair point. Everything I've read regarding the video has described Carrey as coming out against "assault weapons and guns with large magazines", though having watched the video, I'd agree it takes a much broader stance.

[/QUOTE]


Just wanted to say "thanks" for actually acknowledging when a sound, reasonable point is made here. :applause:

I think most of us here are guilty of NOT doing that.
 
And here's yet another gem from the Tarheel State:

In an attempt to keep college students from voting in NC, Senate Republicans Bill Cook, Norman Sanderson, Ronald Rabin, Neal Hunt and Shirley B. Randleman have filed the aptly-numbered Senate Bill 666, which would eliminate the $2,500 dependent child tax deduction for parents if their child votes in the town or city where the child attends college.
Click to expand...

http://statevoices.salsalabs.com/o/509/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=566

I swear I love this state, but the politics are fucking things up.
 
Yet you'll still see the average republican struggling to figure out why younger voters aren't more attracted to their party. I fucking wonder why.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']And here's yet another gem from the Tarheel State:



http://statevoices.salsalabs.com/o/509/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=566

I swear I love this state, but the politics are fucking things up.[/QUOTE]


Why the heck our we giving a "child" tax credit to a person of voting age anyway? Fair tax, flat tax, whatever, we need something better than this complicated, bloated tax system we live with. Cut all the loopholes and deductions and just give us a lower rate. Wouldn't it be equal and in the spirit of treating all people the same to just take 10% of ALL income (include stock options, dividends, interest, etc)?
 
[quote name='egofed']Why the heck our we giving a "child" tax credit to a person of voting age anyway? Fair tax, flat tax, whatever, we need something better than this complicated, bloated tax system we live with. Cut all the loopholes and deductions and just give us a lower rate. Wouldn't it be equal and in the spirit of treating all people the same to just take 10% of ALL income (include stock options, dividends, interest, etc)?[/QUOTE]

Why am I not surprised you chose the wrong aspect of that article to be outraged over?
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Why am I not surprised you chose the wrong aspect of that article to be outraged over?[/QUOTE]

I got your point on the article, I would like to hear their reasoning. Is it because dependents should be living in the same household to qualify as dependents? I don't know. To what age can you claim "children" as dependents? I guess I should have some kids.;) I do find it odd that parents who have multiple kids end up paying less (or none, or even make money!!!) than those with one or no kids while using more resources (teacher salaries, free lunches, busing costs, etc.). They would still be getting a deal if we switched to a flat 10% rate by benefiting with the above resources for all their children while still only contributing 10% of their income.
 
[quote name='Clak']Because it doesn't effect him personally. On the other hand he gets outraged because MAH MONEY!!![/QUOTE]

I shouldn't be outraged when I see preferential and unjust uses of "MAH MONEY"? A friend of mine has 5 kids. He told me he got about an $18,000 tax refund a few years ago. I can guarantee that he made less (probably a LOT less) than $80,000 that year. Doesn't the math seem a bit skewed there? He does home school, so maybe there's some extra credits there? Anyway, don't progressives push for equality in all things, no matter race, sex, sexual orientation, personal choice, etc? So a flat tax rate would make us all equal in the eyes of the gov't.;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No, progressives want extra equality for select folks.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, and that's where they lose instantly lose credibility
 
[quote name='egofed']Anyway, don't progressives push for equality in all things, no matter race, sex, sexual orientation, personal choice, etc? So a flat tax rate would make us all equal in the eyes of the gov't.;)[/QUOTE]

Do you think that the first $40,000 of income that Sean Hannity (or some similarly wealthy person) pays tax on is taxed at a different percentage than the first $40,000 of income anyone else pays?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you think that the first $40,000 of income that Sean Hannity (or some similarly wealthy person) pays tax on is taxed at a different percentage than the first $40,000 of income anyone else pays?[/QUOTE]

I know how the tax system works. So someone who is successful is now "more equal" and the gov't deserves a larger percentage of their money? What if we based the system by what gov't services you used instead of what you earned? Or better yet, figure up the amount that the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country. Bam! True equality in taxes. Face it, the current tax system is based on demand (largely created by our entitlements and military), not "equality". Do you support affirmative action and other discriminatory "diversity" practices? If so, then I know pretty much all I need to about your belief in "equality".:roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you think that the first $40,000 of income that Sean Hannity (or some similarly wealthy person) pays tax on is taxed at a different percentage than the first $40,000 of income anyone else pays?[/QUOTE]
Is it just me, or does he have no understanding of what equality means? A flat tax rate wouldn't even be close. Disingenuous as a motherfucker.
 
[quote name='egofed']I know how the tax system works. So someone who is successful is now "more equal" and the gov't deserves a larger percentage of their money? What if we based the system by what gov't services you used instead of what you earned? Or better yet, figure up the amount that the most basic and required gov't services cost and divide by the number of adults in the country. Bam! True equality in taxes. Face it, the current tax system is based on demand (largely created by our entitlements and military), not "equality". Do you support affirmative action and other discriminatory "diversity" practices? If so, then I know pretty much all I need to about your belief in "equality".:roll:[/QUOTE]
A person making $1,000,000 requires more government services and infrastructure to make that money(and protect it) than a person making $40,000. It's not a hard concept to follow.
 
[quote name='dohdough']A person making $1,000,000 requires more government services and infrastructure to make that money(and protect it) than a person making $40,000. It's not a hard concept to follow.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the fact they need a much smaller percentage of that $1,000,000 in order to maintain a standard of living (even a much higher standard of living, at that...).
 
[quote name='dohdough']A person making $1,000,000 requires more government services and infrastructure to make that money(and protect it) than a person making $40,000. It's not a hard concept to follow.[/QUOTE]


Wrong. If I play the stock market and choose wisely, and you play and choose poorly, we still used the same resources but had different outcomes. I have other examples if you need em. Also, the same police and military protect everyone.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Not to mention the fact they need a much smaller percentage of that $1,000,000 in order to maintain a standard of living (even a much higher standard of living, at that...).[/QUOTE]

This should have nothing to do with equality in the eyes of the gov't! Social equality is how the gov't treats you, what is expected of you, and the consequences of your actions. ( I know the legal system has huge flaws in this area).Your standard of living should remain pointless in the eyes of the law if you want true equality.
 
[quote name='egofed']Wrong. If I play the stock market and choose wisely, and you play and choose poorly, we still used the same resources but had different outcomes. I have other examples if you need em. Also, the same police and military protect everyone.[/QUOTE]
A vast majority of people on those scales of income aren't making it on stocks. Not to mention the government controls used to even make those earnings possible on the stock market. Even in your example, there are different rules and protections for varying levels of capital that someone making $40k on stocks would never have access to if they were making a million.

Either way, no one person can accumulate that kind of capital on their own. A person making a million in income requires the services of MANY people. Instead of requiring something as simple as roads for their own personal usage, they need the roads for their employees as well. No roads plus no employees equals no moneyz or at least less of it.

There's also a reason why a lot of local infrastructure and public services are tied to local taxes and it's not to give "equal" protection to EVERYONE.


tl;dr:

1838504-cant_tell_if_troll_or_just_stupid.jpg
 
[quote name='egofed']This should have nothing to do with equality in the eyes of the gov't! Social equality is how the gov't treats you, what is expected of you, and the consequences of your actions. ( I know the legal system has huge flaws in this area).Your standard of living should remain pointless in the eyes of the law if you want true equality.[/QUOTE]

And others would say that social equality is about making sure our fellow citizens don't get left behind in poverty...
 
[quote name='dohdough']

1838504-cant_tell_if_troll_or_just_stupid.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Way to let yourself down. Are you people incapable of debate or argument without resorting to insults or claiming the other person is 'crazy' 'trolling' ?

On the whole equality debate. Would those who fly the flag, protest or care if a right wing guy was discriminated against for his views somewhere? I highly doubt it.

There's a lack of integrity and respect within the majority on the left at the moment. It's almost cult like. Not at all endearing.
 
[quote name='dilemna']Way to let yourself down. Are you people incapable of debate or argument without resorting to insults or claiming the other person is 'crazy' 'trolling' ?

On the whole equality debate. Would those who fly the flag, protest or care if a right wing guy was discriminated against for his views somewhere? I highly doubt it.

There's a lack of integrity and respect within the majority on the left at the moment. It's almost cult like. Not at all endearing.[/QUOTE]

That's nice and all, but you conveniently ignored most of my post. Tell me more about militant liberal nazi's though. I'm DYING to read more about it.:rofl:

For someone that "seems interested in actual debate," you sure as hell don't really engage in any.

edit: As for defending a right-wing nutbag, it would depend on what. I'm not going to stake out a stance on vague nonsense like the hypothetical scenario you just pulled out of your ass to score a vacuous rhetorical point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top