The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

dohdough said:
We don't know how crazy her replacement is yet and he called himself a teabagger so...
Click to expand...
I'm from MN (for a time I even lived in Bachmann's district) so Tom Emmer isn't new to me. He's floated around here and there. After losing a bid for governor's office against our current governor he did a radio talk show for a while. He certainly comes across as someone who's in politics just for the attention and self promotion but he isn't nearly as crazy as Bachmann.

If anything, I could see Joni Ernst being the new Michele Bachmann. When I was attending law school in Des Moines, I did an internship at the state senate. The Senator I was interning for got into a few tiffs with Joni through the term.

On one of the more particularly amusing ones involving a school funding bill my senator actually quoted a superintendent from Joni's district as saying they needed increased funding. This was while the bill was in open discussion on the floor after she had said that she had talked to her constituents who had told her they didn't need increased funding.

rebelschs said:
Michelle Bachmann is a true American.

I hope she runs for a higher office one day. She would be a truly great president, like Reagan, Monroe, and Madison.
Click to expand...
Troll harder. Also, if you're such a true fan of hers, why'd you spell her name wrong?

If the justice department would ever finish up their investigation and change her we'll be done with her forever. She's already alienated the Republican Party who clearly told her they wouldn't support her re-election which is why she didn't run again.

If she can run again in 2016 she'll probably give it a shot. It won't be a serious run though, it'll just be like the lot of other clowns that throw their hat in the ring just so they can pay themselves a salary and all their other expenses out of their campaign funds. With her facing indictment and being on the outs with Republican Party, that doesn't seem likely at this point though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
detectiveconan16 said:
Yeah... But you gotta wonder where's the money gonna come from if even Congress can't agree on lowering taxes on the Federal level so states can raise them. If they do manage to repeal Obamacare, even for states that actually benefit from it, like Kentucky, I want to see an exit plan. They had years to give us some semblance of a plan unless it was just whine.

Heh. The guy who will lead the Environmental Committee has gone on record of saying Climate Change is the Big Lie, and I mean the Nazi definition. WTF.
Click to expand...
That's what frightens me. Does this majority power in Congress REALLY have serious, legitimate intentions of just cancelling the ACA and putting things back "the way they were"? Meaning, millions of people who now have healthcare as a result, are going to have it just ripped out of their hands. IF that actually happens, then goodnight, America.

In my opinion, that would be the straw that broke the camel's back. If people think what's happening in Ferguson is bad, allowing people to experience real healthcare for a couple years and then taking it away would bring on an incredible uproar. I can't even fathom the possibility of that happening because it seems so preposterous. But at the same time, when you have hardcore conservatives like McConnell making those claims, it makes you stop and think.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering the GOP leadership is made of old white men, and we got quite a few new politicians that don't fit the mold, I do doubt if the Republicans can really be lock step in the Senate.

 
Heard about Obama's plans for immigration reform. Can't blame him, considering he's at least doing something for the American people, or his Afro-Secret-Muslim homies. Meanwhile Congress says they won't work with the President despite saying they will two weeks ago, AND that they did plan to make him a one term president. So same fuck different day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heard that the slogan is "deport felons not families." This is unacceptable Fuhrer Obama! The GOP will make sure it will be the other way around, cause they gotta be the bizarro version of him.

 
detectiveconan16 said:
Heard that the slogan is "deport felons not families." This is unacceptable Fuhrer Obama! The GOP will make sure it will be the other way around, cause they gotta be the bizarro version of him.
Click to expand...
Don't call him Fuhrer! Hitler at least had some sort of plan, no matter how fucked up it was.

Obama is more like Officer Barbrady or Barney Fife.

 
I'm saying it's crazy that they can just charge a pregnant woman of a felony because they may test positive for drugs. The implications are that some pregnant women may not be willing to go to a hospital to give birth, making it more dangerous both for them and their children. It's like the restriction of abortion. I never said I'm so for abortions or drug addicted mothers, but making even more draconian laws that force women to find even more dangerous avenues to get the health care they need is irresponsible of politicians who constantly cry that the government is too much in their lives.

 
dohdough said:
We don't charge mothers that smoke with child abuse.
Click to expand...
We should. In the mean time yes laws targeted at drugs are usually targeted at minority communities. Lets make it fair and fine/jail all idiots we catch endangering the life of their child. At the very least I would love to see woman who are seen smoking while pregnant fined and sent for child care courses. It is one of the few things in life that I have a very very very VERY hard time not going off on when I see people I dont know doing.

 
Arizona is the first state to demand their high school students take the citizenship test in order to graduate. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/states-move-to-make-citizenship-exams-a-classroom-aid.html?_r=0

Considering how weak we are in STEM skills, I doubt our reading comprehension skills are even up to snuff. If anything those immigrant kids who this law is designed to hurt, might end up doing better than our home grown American children. Doesn't anybody remember how much they had to cram for their social studies standardized tests?

 
MSI Magus said:
We should. In the mean time yes laws targeted at drugs are usually targeted at minority communities. Lets make it fair and fine/jail all idiots we catch endangering the life of their child. At the very least I would love to see woman who are seen smoking while pregnant fined and sent for child care courses. It is one of the few things in life that I have a very very very VERY hard time not going off on when I see people I dont know doing.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...don't know how I missed this post. Necro bump!

I can completely understand your sentiment on the matter, but as long as these things are legal, I can't agree with forcing fines on pregnant women.

detectiveconan16 said:
Arizona is the first state to demand their high school students take the citizenship test in order to graduate. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/states-move-to-make-citizenship-exams-a-classroom-aid.html?_r=0
Considering how weak we are in STEM skills, I doubt our reading comprehension skills are even up to snuff. If anything those immigrant kids who this law is designed to hurt, might end up doing better than our home grown American children. Doesn't anybody remember how much they had to cram for their social studies standardized tests?
Click to expand...
This could most certainly come back to bite them in the ass and a nice subtle way to really try to stick it to people of certain melanin level. Any honest half-witted person can tell that this measure was enacted to target a specific racial group. It's like Arizona is in a race to out-Florida Florida.
 
I got 5 wrong but a few were because I wasn't taking the time to read the question properly. For instance, the question about who is the current Vice President, I missed the "vice" part and just answered Barack Obama.
 
"What is the economy of the United States"

heh. Trick question?

Hells yeah, bitches. US Citizen in the house!


I know this is just a example thing, but man, some of the questions in there are pretty sad. Maybe it's because I'm American, therefore, I have little use for geography, but seriously "What ocean is to the east of the US" just doesn't seem like an important citizenship question.

The funny thing is, sometime after 9/11, a friend and I were complaining about how suddenly patriotic everyone was being. We came up with this "Patriot or Idiot" five-question quiz and had this grand plan to go to the mall and film people asking then questions. We never did it, but we did ask several co-workers the questions and, man, they were stumped.

How many states are in the United States? (which multiple people seriously got wrong... and this was before Obama's 58-state hoopla)

Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military? (we accepted the specific person or the generic title)

What are the three branches of the Federal Government?

(Okay, I admit this one is really close to a trick question) - Which one of these people is not a US president featured on legal US tender: Dwight D Eisenhower, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Franklin, or Alexander Hamilton?

What is the significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in US history? (keep in mind, this was when we were talking about going into Iraq for their supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Most people got 0, 1, or maybe 2 right. A lot of the older folks got the Hiroshima/Nagasaki question. Virtually no one got the money/president question or the branches of government questions. The number of states was pretty painful to listen to. A lot of folks got the Commander in Chief question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with Senator Tillis. Handwashing regulations are hurting small businesses. If someone gets sick from eating food touched by penis-touchinghands, the market will take care of that, by having people not go there anymore when they hear this rumor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
detectiveconan16 said:
I agree with Senator Tillis. Handwashing regulations are hurting small businesses. If someone gets sick from eating food touched by penis-touchinghands, the market will take care of that, by having people not go there anymore when they hear this rumor.
Click to expand...
You do realize that he was making a point that certain things are common sense and wasting gov't time and resources on ineffective enforcement (a sign) is ridiculous. My sarcasm meter might be off today though....I do find it funny that some people want to have gov't regulate the hell out of people conducting business and paying taxes, but totally abhor the idea that gov't regulate in any way the behavior of the throngs of moochers who are contributing basically zilch in income tax and are costing us way over 6 billion a month in handouts.

 
Heard on the radio that the Republicans are blaming Obama for Reagan's trickle-down economics. I don't understand why they're now blaming the 1% that are filling their campaign coffers. Why do they not believe in the job creators' golden showers anymore?

 
detectiveconan16 said:
Heard on the radio that the Republicans are blaming Obama for Reagan's trickle-down economics. I don't understand why they're now blaming the 1% that are filling their campaign coffers. Why do they not believe in the job creators' golden showers anymore?
Click to expand...
Isn't that the Republican strategy? Blame Obama for everything including things done by the previous (Republican) administration.

 
I just read the past couple pages of this thread and have to wonder, are there actually people who support ACA? Let's not discuss the economics of the bill, or the health care system, as that is not the case here. How could any American support a bill that allowed a foreign company that defrauded the UK government process the information of American citizens? How could any American support a bill that allowed a foreign company, where Michelle's college friend is a senior VP, build a website (that they originally failed to do)?

Walk me through the thought process that says it's a smart business decision to give taxpayer money to a company being investigated for defrauding another gov't and it's a smart idea to condone nepotism. In fact, while you are at it, walk me through the thought process that tells you federal contracts in an industry that deals with American citizens should be given to foreign companies instead of supporting American business. 

 
People support the ACA, because it is defacto the only health care reform that made it through congress. It could have been much better, but that is neither here nor there.
 
I don't disagree that health care reform is needed, but the ACA is an absolute trainwreck and, as always, taxpayers are getting screwed. I guess at this point we're used to it and are happy with rolling over and playing dead. 

 
Not giving our money to a personal friend of Michelle Obama and not giving our money to a company that defrauded the UK government actually sounds like a better idea to me. 

 
Any friend of Michelle Obama is more likely the friend of politicians like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, etc.

Besides, the greatest victory of the Republican Party is not securing a do-nothing Congress, but creating a mass of people who are happy to roll over and play dead. How does a group of people get reelected year in and year out when very little of the American people believe in them? By rolling over and playing dead.

Besides, the ACA is crap. And not having it is akin to something even worse than it apparently, if you so forget that insurance companies were perfectly fine with letting children die even in the face of public outrage. That was practically 10 years ago.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Townes-Whitley isn't visiting the politicians you listed on a regular basis like she is visiting the White House, to my knowledge, and, again, to my knowledge, none of them were (or have wives who were) classmates with her. I am unsure of what this has to do with the issue of nepotism and shipping our money overseas to a corporation being investigated for defrauding another gov't. 

 
edogawa said:
Not giving our money to a personal friend of Michelle Obama and not giving our money to a company that defrauded the UK government actually sounds like a better idea to me.
Click to expand...
The governor of Florida defrauded medicare. A CA is designed to help millions get access to care. You think he bad outweighs that?
 
Everyone is entitled to emergency services. Too bad the ER doesn't cure terminal illnesses, breast cancer, heart and brain surgery, among MANY MANY other maladies that affect a human being.

Just heard on the radio that our great Congress has sent a letter to Iran explaining to the Ayatollah on how the US Constitution works. I'm laughing my butt off because almost five decades ago, the CIA helped stage a coup of the Democratic Iranian Government at the behest of oil companies. How convenient those holders of state secrets forget that history. Then again, we Americans forget what the hell our politicians did to us the past 10 years to stick it to the . Obama.

Edit: Oops. It was the Iranian Government schooling the US Congress over the US Constitution.

---

In other news, how dare the NYT have a liberal bias against crappy pictures! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11458490/George-W-Bush-cropped-out-of-New-York-Times-front-cover-image-of-Selma-march.html They cut Bush II out of the pic! And he's a great man or joke depending your mood.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder why libertarians aren't rushing to the aid of gay marriage supporters? I had a discussion at work today about the subject and it was mentioned that the Constitution was designed to to prevent the Government from taking away your rights. We have the right to vote, own guns, practice religion, not be enslaved, assemble peacefully, and all that stuff. However, marriage doesn't seem to be one of those rights.

If anything it's not "give two homosexual persons the right to marry," it's more you can't take away the right to marry from two consenting adults.

 
I think *most* Libertarians (although not all) fall in the court of "Supporting same-sex marriage (I.e: a contract between consenting adults). Too many fall under the "Leave it to the states" mentality (which I do tend to agree with, except I don't think state governments should be allowed to discriminate against citizens based on gender) or the "Well, I care, but it's not an issue I vote on" mentality - they're more focused on issues like government spending (military and welfare), the Federal Reserve, Federal overreach, etc. And, as some folks on here like saying - there's no perfect candidate. Personally, if someone was runing for president who had a actual plan to gut military spending, return welfare spending to the states (and cut federal dollars spent), a serious audit of the Federal Reserve and a wholesale revision of federal drug laws - but said no to same sex marriage... I'm not sure I could vote for them... but I'd consider it.

For some folks, though, same-sex marriage is like abortion is for me - don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
 
detectiveconan16 said:
I wonder why libertarians aren't rushing to the aid of gay marriage supporters? I had a discussion at work today about the subject and it was mentioned that the Constitution was designed to to prevent the Government from taking away your rights. We have the right to vote, own guns, practice religion, not be enslaved, assemble peacefully, and all that stuff. However, marriage doesn't seem to be one of those rights.

If anything it's not "give two homosexual persons the right to marry," it's more you can't take away the right to marry from two consenting adults.
Click to expand...
The Libertarian Party fielded a gay individual as its first presidential candidate, in 1972, and has, in a broad sense, supported marriage equality for decades. You're going to need to be more specific when you say 'libertarian,' though. Some are less pragmatic than others, and want complete elimination of government jurisdiction over marriage. Some hold the same end goal, but accept gay marriage as a step in that direction. Some see gay marriage as expansion of government involvement in marriage, and oppose it on those grounds.

Finally, a decent chunk (probably even the majority) of libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and do support government acceptance of gay marriage.

 
So...where are these socially-minded Libertarians in the public discourse?

I mean, if you weren't talking politics, and instead were claiming that Leprechauns were real, it wouldn't be very long until someone said "ok, cool story. Now prove it."

With that in mind, where are these Leprechauns you speak of? No more abstract "a decent chunk." Point to one. Just one. Pretty please.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top