The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

I read this article yesterday, and I wonder if people think this is an acceptable cost to exercise our second amendment. It most likely is, considering the safety of our family and children does not even come close to our right to arms.
The safety of your family and children is the reason for most reasonable people to own firearms. I read the article, but didn't see if it supports a full ban on gun ownership or just stricter laws. The comments had a few "full ban" supporters. Are you "full ban", Conan? Diabetes, obesity, liver disease, emphysema, etc cost us a huge amount each year also. Should we ban or heavily regulate tobacco, alcohol, and sugar?

Did I just hear that right on the radio? The Texas Governor and Ted Cruz is afraid of Obama's Muslim Martial Law?

Oh yup:

Of course, the only way to stop Obama's tyranny is with a well-armed militia (ie a terrorist group of wackos).

Besides I'm pretty sure the military has done plenty of training exercises over the decades, especially Reagan.

Last edited by a moderator:
Did I just hear that right on the radio? The Texas Governor and Ted Cruz is afraid of Obama's Muslim Martial Law?

Oh yup:

Of course, the only way to stop Obama's tyranny is with a well-armed militia (ie a terrorist group of wackos).

Besides I'm pretty sure the military has done plenty of training exercises over the decades, especially Reagan.
It scares me that there are people out there like this who have the ability to persuade others. Not only do they think that Obama is attempting to do this (he actually suggests that Obama is going to refuse to leave office)...but their ego is also so inflated, that they believe if there was some sinister plot, they would be able to uncover it with some unclassified document. Because yeah...that's not something that would be at the highest classification level or anything. It's just so stupid.

And the sensationalizing is ridiculous. Throwing out words like "invasion" and "takeover", on top of stating as fact that Texas is "listed as a hostile enemy". It couldn't possibly be marked as hostile because of the border problems they've had and concern over terrorist groups targeting ciivilians like the incident that just happened two days ago (I realize that story was posted in March, but the point still stands).

But nope. It's not any of that. It's Obama trying to bring down America and crush his own people. Oh, wait...that's right. We're not "his people", lol :roll:

Not only do they think that Obama is attempting to do this[...]
Can't speak for this individual case, but when it comes to this kind of media, I usually ignore Hanlon's Razor and assume these folks aren't really *that* stupid (they did, after all, build themselves a nice media empire) and assume they're just feeding the dumb masses what they want.
You seriously thought members of Congress were actually "against Obamacare" when they could benefit from manipulating it? I think all of these candidates are as bad as Hillary Clinton if not worse.

Last edited by a moderator:
Just heard about Tennessee's new law requiring women to get an abortion 48 hours to see a doctor if they need one. This is coming from a state that the Daily Show calls a third world country in terms of health care. Where you have to do a complicated lottery system so the poors can afford to see a doctor. I imagine what the ER visits are like.

Last edited by a moderator:
More because I trust him to make an honest effort to do what he says.

I'd rather a guy say "I'm going to punch you in the gut", then have him punch me in the gut than have a guy say "Yeah, I got your back.", then punch me in the gut.

Any Republican or Democrat that gets elected is going to screw us all over. Might as well vote for the guy who does what he says he'll do. Besides, I do like many of the things Sanders backs (for example, he's probably second to Ron Paul in his determination to audit the Federal Reserve, although Sanders doesn't seem to want to go the distance that Paul pushed for.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not all against socialized health care or education. I think there needs to be some pretty major changes in our government structure before I'm ready to hand them the keys, but I view health and education like police or fire and would be happy to have them socalized (as long as private options remain for those who choose to use them) - once these kinds of changes (more transparency, more local control, greater accountability, better recourse to challange issues, etc.) are in place. But, we'll never have these things...
Ok if it is done on a local level then I can live with it. Problem is that if it is nationalized then how is one supposed to vote with their feet? If there is an option to opt out then its a different story, yet in the end I still strongly believe that the federal government should only guarantee the natural rights, everything else is a privilege.  

Now I hope Bernie Sanders pushes the whole debate to the left but my money is still on O'Malley who I think will win the nomination. 

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was indicted on counts of evading bank reporting and lying to the FBI.  He has been paying off someone who has blackmailed him for $3.5mil.  The bank reported the large cash withdrawals and Hastert lied to the FBI about them, then tried to make withdrawals just under the mandatory reporting limits.

Exactly what Hastert was being blackmailed with is still unknown.  The payment recipient lives in Yorkville, IL which is a stone's throw from here and a fairly small community surrounded by cornfields.  Hastert coached wrestling in Yorkville between 1965-1982 or so, so it's possible that it somehow relates to that.

Last edited by a moderator:
So... he's in trouble for not getting the government's blessing to spend his money?
And lying to the government when they asked?

Can we throw government officials in jail when they lie to us?
Yup, sexual abuse while Hastert was a teacher & wrestling coach seems to be the crime he was paying hush money for.  Makes you wonder if this explains his mishandling of the Mark Foley scandal (where Foley was sexting teen pages) where Boehner, Alexander and Renyolds all claimed that they spoke to Hastert about it but Hastert apparently did nothing to stop it.

Last edited by a moderator:
So, the second part, if true, is bad and he should be strung up in the town square by his balls (can't read your linked article due to pop-ups and I'm just popping in on mobile, so can't commit to anything beyond that) - however, in a society where individuals are presumed innocent, they should not have to report to any other agency regarding withdrawals of cash from their own accounts. Withdrawing large amounts of cash isn't a bad thing and, unless you can prove that I'm guilty of something, I should need to discuss it with you.
You don't report withdrawing cash. The banks report it and the feds decide if it's worth investigating. But 

structuring payments to evade the bank reporting is a crime.

If you don't like it, you have the option of not keeping your money in our federally insured and supported banking 

system. I understand that coffee cans can hold your money and don't report any withdrawls.

Last edited by a moderator:
Cheating isn't a crime, but covering it up is. Ha, still damn true in this country.

Anyway, heard Pataki is running for office. I would like to see a Sanders Pataki race, considering the rest of the camp are pretty "classy."

You don't report withdrawing cash. The banks report it and the feds decide if it's worth investigating. But
structuring payments to evade the bank reporting is a crime.

If you don't like it, you have the option of not keeping your money in our federally insured and supported banking
system. I understand that coffee cans can hold your money and don't report any withdrawls.
Except keeping your money out of a bank ends you up in trouble as well.

It's almost as if the government doesn't recognize the fact that the money doesn't belong to them. It's like they think we only have a license to use it so long as they see fit.
It's almost as if the government doesn't recognize the fact that the money doesn't belong to them. It's like they think we only have a license to use it so long as they see fit.
Could be. But then Hastert passed the legislation that was used against him in this instance so don't lose too many tears crying over it.

During the holiday weekend, Scott Walker and his cronies decided to sneak plenty of provisions into the next budget. Some of them include protecting state politicians from media scrutiny, taking away the right to a weekend, and eliminating the living wage. Scott Walker must be hell bent on taking America back to the good ole days of the Industrial Revolution, where our ancestors fought and died for the right for fair labor practices, fair wages, and knowing that we won't be maimed on the job.

The public records thing is complete bull.
One Day Rest in Seven, without more info, I could go either way on.
Bringing the state's wage laws in-line with the rest of the country (how many states use the phrase "living wage"?) makes a whole lot of sense. A minimum wage is something that can be reasonably well defined and quantified. I've yet to hear a reasonable quantification of the term "living wage" that makes a lick of sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think it's a good idea to drug test welfare recipients, even those that get food aid? How much does a drug test cost? And how is it better than the $120 per month a person gets in SNAP benefits?  And this is while they go through the byzantine application process which is akin to a guaranteed IRS audit.

Scott Walker for President 2016. Because he's made the hard choices, screwing public employees, our kids, doctors, schools, etc except the cops and firefighters by cutting $250 million from the budget. He had to do it because the Bucks need a new stadium, and who's going to pay for it?

Last edited by a moderator:
God, it's only been 40 minutes and it feels like this debate has already gone on 2 hours.

So far this debate has been awful. The format, the questioning, Fox encouraging the crowd to cheer and hoot... It's like ameture hour.

Marco Rubio is the only candidate killing it. He's speaking with authority, He's willing to say things beyond the conservative line, he's talked about his personal story, he flashes a great smile and persona, he's refuse to step on landmines like attacking bush or trump, and so far he's only actually spoken for like, 60 seconds!  


Donald Trump is the presidential candidate we don't need, but the one we deserve. I guess those bunkers White people bought in the 1950s will actually be useful within a few years.

As quoted from a Gawker comment:

“The female moderator questioned me about my history of misogynistic comments because she was on her period.”
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pretty neutral on abortion - I lean pro-choice, but don't have a strong opinion on it.

With that said, aside from legitimate health concerns of the mother, I take issue with anyone (politician or otherwise) who is willing to classify a fetus as a person, but authorize the execution of that "person" in cases of rape. If you're going to take the stance that a fetus is equal to a baby, would you be okay with killing a baby in a crib because its father was a rapist? That makes no sense to me.

Now, I don't believe a fetus is equal to a baby, so this doesn't apply to me - I'm just saying from a consistent and sane standing, if you're going to be against abortion because you believe a fetus is a person, then there should be no exceptions (although you could sway me in cases where there is great risk to the mother's life).
bread's done