The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Spokker']Hitler and Rush Limbaugh are not the same. And the men who fought for Hitler were likely conscripted. Those who work in Rush's network of syndicated stations, those who handle sales, etc., do so voluntarily.[/QUOTE]

Please stop. You have no effing clue what you're talking about.

Part of the German shame about the rise of the Nazis is that they willfully allowed it to happen. Germans were happy to follow someone that believed in the superiority of the German people. Hitler gave them "hope" even if it was at the expense of Jews, gays, Romany, Russians, the French, and the mentally disabled.

The fact that you put likely in your statement means you did absolutely no research or thought before you posted some hot garbage.
 
Did any of you see the latest Gingrich controversy. One of the major news magazines airbrushed one of his pictures and supposedly the campaign is hopping mad.

Here's the original picture...
400px-Gingrich_at_Iowa_fair.jpg


And here's the airbrushed picture.
jessica-simpson-naked.jpg
 
[quote name='depascal22']Please stop. You have no effing clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
Soldiers as old as 60 were drafted during the height of the war, so it was quite extensive. There were certainly objectors. The current pope was drafted into the Hitler Youth. He was eventually sent to war where he deserted. He's probably the most famous example.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
And that still doesn't address the question of why you linked a study on employment discrimination as a reference to supporting reassignment surgery. Did you think no one would check the link?[/quote]She talks about it in the paper.

Creating some jobs in a niche market while spreading hate and ignorance is not a net gain for society. I doubt that you're as concerned about people working at NPR affiliates as people working because of Limbaugh.
Click to expand...
Wait wait... don't tell me, you wrongly assumed I don't listen to or care about NPR because of past statements. I don't believe you have all things considered at the moment. Perhaps you should step out and get some fresh air. This may not be the talk of the nation, but I have friends who work there and at other stations.

It would seem that my acknowledgment and praise (though not absolute praise) for the alternative health care systems around the world, my admiration for Dennis Kucinich and other things means nothing if I do not thoroughly and without question stomp on and lambaste anyone who says a positive thing about free-markets or Libertarian principles.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Please stop. You have no effing clue what you're talking about.

Part of the German shame about the rise of the Nazis is that they willfully allowed it to happen. Germans were happy to follow someone that believed in the superiority of the German people. Hitler gave them "hope" even if it was at the expense of Jews, gays, Romany, Russians, the French, and the mentally disabled.

The fact that you put likely in your statement means you did absolutely no research or thought before you posted some hot garbage.[/QUOTE]
Just ignore him, he didn't even understand the point of my post.
 
You can be a fucking idiot and still listen to NPR. You could sit and listen to Stephen Hawking lecture about physics, but if you're a fucking moron it isn't going to do any good. People who recognize this in themselves are usually ones who surround themselves with intelligent people and go to them for council on things which they don't understand. Ivory tower liberal intellectuals and all that, you know, smart people. We have a few of those here, but even when they speak about subjects in their field you get *some* people here who throw up the shields, put their fingers in their ears and yell LALALALALA.
 
[quote name='Clak']So did sgtdumbassmurder get banned?[/QUOTE]
Holy Crap. His posts are gone! As in he has been completely deleted from CAG except for our quotes of his posts. Even gargus still has his threads on CAG.
 
call me whacky call me crazy, but wasn't there something in the Pledge To America about one issue per bill? If so, why have the (R) crowd been trying to slap a keystone vote onto every single bill up for vote?
 
Yeah, I reported him as it was clear he was either an Alt account or a previously returned banned member given he was referencing people banned years before he signed up in 2011. Given that all the post are deleted, looks like they wiped the whole account or something.
 
And I'm still here, so y'all know it's not me. Not that such will deter the true believers.

Who did he reference from pre-2011? PittsburghAfterDark or somesuch?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And I'm still here, so y'all know it's not me. Not that such will deter the true believers.

Who did he reference from pre-2011? PittsburghAfterDark or somesuch?[/QUOTE]
Something that sounded like Reganliss? Crotch mentioned it in the thread that was deleted yesterday.
 
Oh, I must have missed it. Guy was an awful troll, very very obvious.

Compared that with someone like Bob and Knoell - certainly they enjoy being contrarian just to be contrary, but you never shake that belief that they probably do believe most of that bullshit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Something that sounded like Reganliss? Crotch mentioned it in the thread that was deleted yesterday.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I forget who it was he referenced. Crotch said it was someone that was banned in 2006.[/QUOTE]
Regalsin. Banned in late '06. Posts read like zionist conspiracy theories given a couple passes through babelfish. A google search shows that that name comes up quite a bit on the internet, though I don't give enough of a fuck to see if the posting habits are the same.
 
Sarah Palin weighed in Thursday on a video of Barack Obama embracing the late Professor Derrick Bell, stating during an interview that the clip revealed that the president is "bringing us back...to days before the Civil War" when racial discrimination was prevalent.
...
A video released earlier this week showed Obama, then a student at Harvard Law School, praising Bell at a rally in support of the university hiring more minority faculty.
"He is bringing us back...to days before the Civil War, when unfortunately too many Americans mistakenly belived that not all men were created equal," she said. "What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin."
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/sarah-palin-obama_n_1334674.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Does this woman make sense to anyone anymore?
 
today's talk radio BS point:

If the Labor Force Participation Rate had stayed the same as during the Bush years, current unemployment would be over 10% instead of the current 8.3%

Whaaa?

Let's take a look at this one.
LFPR is basically this - (Unemployed + Employed) / population aged 15 to 64

So the numerator is pretty constant. Carl is one of 10 unemployed people and there are 50 employed people. Carl gets a job so now there are 9 U and 51 E.
The denominator fluctuates based on the age of the population.

Here's where the math falls apart; the unemployment rate is unemployed people / (unemployed people + employed people). In the above example, unemployment is 1/6 or 17% rounded up.
Now apply that to the rate equation and just say that the denominator is 80. 60/80 or 75% labor force participation rate.
So, if we'd stayed at 75% instead of dropping to let's say 70%, unemployment would be higher. How?

Let's make the math even easier and try to use more current numbers while dropping a whole mess of 0's.
Participation rate - 15 unemployed + 60 employed (75) over 100 people in the pool. So I guess they think that means 15% unemployment? In this example it's 20%.
Now the participation rate will be 70%. 15u + 60e (75) over 107 people in the pool. The probelm is that the unemployment rate in this example is still 20% and participation rate doesn't change anything.

I honestly think they don't understand what the hell they're saying. I've worked the numbers on this about 6 different ways and I simply cannot use math to create a situation where unemployment % goes up with any change to the participation rate.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Soldiers as old as 60 were drafted during the height of the war, so it was quite extensive. There were certainly objectors. The current pope was drafted into the Hitler Youth. He was eventually sent to war where he deserted. He's probably the most famous example.[/QUOTE]

The vast majority of fighting men were able-bodied men. The very young and old were only tapped in 1944 and '45. The war started in '39...

Reports have the total number of German soldiers in WWII at 18 to 20 million. Can you possibly prove that the majority were old, young, or conscientous objectors? You can't so you put likely in your statement. It requires no work and no effort on your part.

Do you possibly think that you could assemble Panzer divisions made from less than ideal conscripts? "Here, kid. I know you're a teenager but you can drive this tank to Russia and take out a bunch of Russkys for me?" Get the fuck outta here. You think blitzkrieg works with 60 year olds? The Wehrmacht was a well-oiled machine that would've conquered most of Europe if Hitler wasn't an egomaniac with a God complex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...y-will-leave/2012/03/07/gIQA9SwJzR_story.html

Just thought I would leave this here. Sorry if it has already been posted
Henderson bolsters his argument with data from the Barna Research Group. Between 1991 and 2011, the number of adult women attending church weekly has declined 20 percent. The number of women going to Sunday school has dropped by about a third, as has the number of women who volunteer at church.

And although the Barna data have been disputed by other researchers, Henderson goes further. Even those women who go to church regularly, he says, are really only half there: Their discontent keeps them from engaging fully with the project of being Christian. He calls this malaise among women “a spiritual brain drain.”

I think of these faithful conservative females in this political season, struggling to make ends meet and keep their eyes on God as the men of the right, also known as “the patriarchy,” disrespect and insult them.
Click to expand...
 
Susan’s story was published in January by a small Christian publishing house in the book “The Resignation of Eve.” In its pages, the author, an evangelical minister named Jim Henderson, argues that unless the male leaders of conservative Christian churches do some serious soul-searching — pronto — the women who have always sustained those churches with their time, sweat and cash will leave. In droves. And they won’t come back. Their children, traditionally brought to church by their mothers, will thus join the growing numbers of Americans who call themselves “un-churched.”
Click to expand...

I hope so, they'd be better off, the women and children that is.

Nevermind that the Bible talks about women submitting to men and sitting silently in church, Henderson declaims. That’s ancient history. “Until those with power (men) decide to give it away to those who lack it (women), I believe we will continue to misrepresent Jesus’ heart and mar the beauty of his Kingdom,” Henderson writes.
Click to expand...
Ohhh, I'm telling Jesus.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']She's someone who is desperately clinging to relevance. Attacking the president, yet again is, putting it in wrestling terms a cheap pop, and a minor way to get herself some attention again, no matter how fleeting that attention might be...[/QUOTE]

People who watch "Game Change" say they feel sorry for her.

But you have to remember all the awful things she has said. The awful positions she has advocated. The awful things she had done.

Palin really is a no-good louse. Noone should feel sympathy for her, I don't care what a dopey movie has to say.
 
[quote name='camoor']People who watch "Game Change" say they feel sorry for her.

But you have to remember all the awful things she has said. The awful positions she has advocated. The awful things she had done.

Palin really is a no-good louse. Noone should feel sympathy for her, I don't care what a dopey movie has to say.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...Hitler loved his dogs, but it doesn't negate all the evil he unleashed on the world. While I don't have a huge problem with people hating on her because there's a line between victim of circumstance and full-on perpetrator, I think there needs to be an examination of the system that allows and propels people like Palin into the spotlight.
 
It kills me, I don't know how many times I've heard someone say she was treated unfairly because she's a woman, but when Clinton lost the nomination to Obama I didn't hear many people saying the same for her. She certainly didn't go around braying and whining about it like some helpless victim.

Palin gets treated as she does because she's a moron who doesn't deserve the amount of attention she's gotten. She can't handle being in the big leagues and never should have gotten there in the first place. Her only claim to fame is being picked as McCain's running mate. Which just makes you question McCain's sanity even more. Now she's just clinging desperately to what is left of her momentum. If she's lucky she might become a pundit, I'm sure Fox News could find room for her, maybe her and O'Reilly could do a show together. They could call it Nuk n' Futz.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I find the headline with appropriate picture at Drudge Report absolutely hilarious right now for some reason.
 
[quote name='Clak']Guys, I'm sacred. No I take that back, I'm scared shitless right now. I'm afraid the world may be about to end.

Pat Robertson supports legalizing marijuana.

This made me chuckle though:



Sure you aren't Pat, sure you aren't.[/QUOTE]

Surprisingly Pat has been more moderate, at least in terms of his history. Earlier in the year he told the extreme right to cool it. Although he mainly said that because he was afraid his party would blow the chances for the next election. I just see this as an extension of that as he garners more support for the republican party. Or at the very least try not to alienate the libertarians.
 
Are you kidding? Pat Robertson moderate? This is the guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that 9/11 happened because of...well to me many things for me to remember, basically god was pissed at us. Then there was that little gem about Haiti making some kind of pact with the devil. He's a crazy loon, which is why this was so out of left field.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I dont know if telling your people to tone down saying in public what they actually believe makes you a moderate.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's kind of sad that we lose our shit when a conservative Christian says something that makes sense.

Shows you how far off the crazy end those folks have gone.
 
Sounds to me like the Establishment and Christian Coalition are looking to keep their bastard child under control by moderating their message to have more playdates with the independents.
 
[quote name='Rick Santorum']They [the libertarian right] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone...[/quote]

Nobody needs to say anything. Rick said it best himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top