The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

The Old Testament has incidents of God telling PARTICULAR people to go slaughter PARTICULAR people for a PARTICULAR purpose. That's true.

It doesn't have a whole lot in the way of just "commanding" all readers to carry out death and destruction in the name of it's diety; when other popular non-christian religious scripture does a whole lot more of.
 
:rofl:

I look forward to thrustbucket still not changing his mind or accepting that he is wrong on the matter - Islam is still worse than Christianity in that regard, in his mind.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"How soon we forget" - I'm no christian, but to be fair, the last of the Crusades was in the 13th century or something. I think we can "forget" about them now, in terms of modern christianity. If you want to bring up examples of mass killings by christians in the name of christianity, at least bring up something that happened when people who are alive might remember it - or remember their parent/grandparent talking about it.[/QUOTE]

murdering staff at Planned Parenthood clinics? The IRA (oh yeah, they aren't terrorists)? The KKK? Hutaree?
 
See how easy that was... instead of trying to prove your point using vaguely related events from 700+Years ago, there's so many better, more recent examples ripe for the picking... Although, I wouldn't quite qualify incidents at Planned Parenthood clinics - and to some extent, the KKK as "Mass Killings" (has the Hutaree actually killed anyone yet?). I don't recall any group of these individuals killing 1,000+ people at once. I guess it would vary based on one's definition of "Mass Killing"...
 
I wasn't sure whether to post this in the "Union Busting" thread or here, but I guess it's slightly more applicable here. The video, as well as yesterday's original story, can be found by following the link.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...y-salary-tape-be-pulled-from-the-internet.php

GOPers Demand Sean Duffy Salary Tape Be Pulled From The Internet (VIDEO)

First the Republican Party in Polk County, Wisconsin, pulled the tape of Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) fretting about making ends meet on his $174,000 a year salary from its own website. Now they want it gone from the whole Internet.

For a couple hours, the local county GOP was successful. But we've put an excerpt of the video back up.

A day after TPM posted the video we obtained of Duffy talking about his salary at a Polk County town hall meeting earlier this year, the Polk County GOP contacted the video provider we used to host the video, Blip.tv, and demanded the video be taken down.

The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World. Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary (which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin) and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way.

In the clip, Duffy is asked whether he'd support cutting his own salary. Duffy says he would, but only as part of a plan where all public employees' salaries would be cut. He then said that the $174,000 in salary (not including benefits) he receives is a squeeze for his family of seven to live on:

I can guarantee you, or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I'm living high on the hog, I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I'm not living high on the hog.

Duffy's office said any Democratic criticism of his response was "a misleading attack."

This guy's a real shitpile, complaining about how $50,000 a year is too much for teachers, then whining about his own "puny" salary.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/29/ron-paul-nullification/

One of the most powerful lines in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech was his call for racial unity even in Alabama, a state with “its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.” Indeed, following the landmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case, nearly every southern congressman signed the “Southern Manifesto,” which asserted that states were free to ignore federal laws and directives. Now, 48 years later, the unconstitutional idea that states can invalidate federal laws which they don’t like is making a comeback in conservative circles.

This week, the nullification camp, led by right-wing historian Thomas Woods, got a boost from a sitting congressman: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Speaking at an Iowa homeschool event, Paul told the crowd that “in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional.” “That is why,” Paul declared, “I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws”:

PAUL: The chances of us getting things changed around soon through the legislative process is not all the good. And that is why I am a strong endorser of the nullification movement, that states like this should just nullify these laws. And in principle, nullification is proper and moral and constitutional, which I believe it is, there is no reason in the world why this country can’t look at the process of, say, not only should we not belong to the United Nations, the United Nations comes down hard on us, telling us what we should do to our families and family values, education and medical care and gun rights and environmentalism. Let’s nullify what the UN tries to tell us to do as well.

Knowing Paul, he's probably laying the groundwork to propose the return of slavery.
 
http://front.moveon.org/indiana-gop...-rape-or-incest-to-get-an-abortion/?rc=fb.fan

Indiana GOP Rep Thinks Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion

On March 29, Indiana Representative Eric Turner (R) introduced HB 1210, a bill that would make all abortions illegal after 20 weeks. Dismayed, Rep. Gail Riecken (D) offered an amendment that would exempt “women who became pregnant due to rape or incest for whom pregnancy threatens their life or could cause serious and irreversible physical harm” from being forced to carry to term. That’s when Rep. Turner claimed that women would use Riecken’s proposed amendment as a “giant loophole.”

You really have to see it to believe it—watch the video of Turner’s outrageous statement and Rep. Linda Lawson’s (D) incredibly emotionally charged rebuttal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_xf383_QhU&feature=player_embedded

Since Riecken’s rape/incest amendment was voted down, Turner’s original bill is now up for a final vote in the Indiana House. Then it will move to the Senate—where legislation like this has passed before.
 
You know, I'm typically pretty silent on the abortion topic - as I have mixed feelings about it... but the entire "Abortion is bad except in cases of rape/incest" train of thought always rubbed me the wrong way.

IF you're going to take the stance that a fetus is a human life and it's murder to terminate the fetus, then fine - I can see your logic there. I'm not going to argue with you one way or another on that.

But is a fetus-baby created from rape somehow worth less than a non-rape fetus-baby? "Oh, you're a special little snowflake etc., etc... but you... your sperm-daddy was an evil, horrible man and thus your life means nothing. Begone." Wha?

And yes, I understand the genetic issues with babies born from incest - however, are you going to allow the same exemption in your abortion-ban bill for parents who can confirm genetic disorders in their non-incest babies? Are fetus-babies with (possible) genetic disorders worth less than fetus-babies without genetic disorders?

Again, IF you're of the type that a fetus is a human life and thus is sacred, etc., etc... should it matter who the parents are with regards to that human life?
 
75378-TrollFace.png
 
Oh, I get it. This is another one of those posts where we're just supposed to accept the "Republicans are evil" thing 100% at face value and any discussion related to the actual story is trolling/off topic/etc. I see now.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I'm typically pretty silent on the abortion topic - as I have mixed feelings about it... but the entire "Abortion is bad except in cases of rape/incest" train of thought always rubbed me the wrong way.

IF you're going to take the stance that a fetus is a human life and it's murder to terminate the fetus, then fine - I can see your logic there. I'm not going to argue with you one way or another on that.

But is a fetus-baby created from rape somehow worth less than a non-rape fetus-baby? "Oh, you're a special little snowflake etc., etc... but you... your sperm-daddy was an evil, horrible man and thus your life means nothing. Begone." Wha?

And yes, I understand the genetic issues with babies born from incest - however, are you going to allow the same exemption in your abortion-ban bill for parents who can confirm genetic disorders in their non-incest babies? Are fetus-babies with (possible) genetic disorders worth less than fetus-babies without genetic disorders?

Again, IF you're of the type that a fetus is a human life and thus is sacred, etc., etc... should it matter who the parents are with regards to that human life?[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a dude with a penis sans uterus.
 
I'm not sure what, exactly, my genitalia has to do with anything here. You think because I have a penis, I can't call out the hypocrisy of someone saying "all life is sacred except rape babies"?

*edit* Lemme clarify that.
IF you are of the type that you believe that a fetus is a human life, is sacred, etc., etc....

and

IF, for this reason, you are against abortion with the exception of cases involving rape/incest...

Then, I find it disturbing that you are, basically willing to deem one "life" worth less than another simply due to the sins of the father (or, I suppose mother) or because of any genetic disabilities that may occur in the child.

IF you do not fall into the two above categories, then this does not apply to you in any way, shape or form.

Again, this is only in reference to those who think a fetus is equal to a walking, talking person like you or I. I wouldn't think anyone would be okay with deciding the man walking down the street is okay to be terminated because he's got a defect or his father was a rapist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it is a matter of a baby created by rape being sacred or not, but that the pregnancy was put uipon the woman against her will and she should not have to carry, and at the very least deliver it, and then most likely put it up for adoption. Its just a traumatic experience all around, and some people don't believe a woman should be forced to it after being raped.

As for the hypocrisy of people believing that all life is sacred but then saying the abortion of children of rape is ok is a result of a compromise made by the moderates of the pro life side reacting to the criticism the pro choice side throws around all the time. We have all heard it, "pro life people want to force rape victims to have their rapists children".

I think it is a working compromise from the pro life movement that stopping the abortion of so many lives would be a greater victory than stopping none. You can say that they aren't standing by their convictions then, but they can always work on the other situations after they stop the abortion of children because it doesn't fit someones particular lifestyle.
 
[quote name='Strell']Can we pool our money and buy an island to live on? Please? I make awesome fajitas so it will be worthwhile for everyone.[/QUOTE]
See I had the same idea, only we stay here and they go. Surely we could raise enough money to buy some little volcanic island in the pacific somewhere.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I don't think it is a matter of a baby created by rape being sacred or not, but that the pregnancy was put uipon the woman against her will and she should not have to carry, and at the very least deliver it, and then most likely put it up for adoption. Its just a traumatic experience all around, and some people don't believe a woman should be forced to it after being raped.[/quote]

I won't argue against that (although there are those that will).

As for the hypocrisy of people believing that all life is sacred but then saying the abortion of children of rape is ok is a result of a compromise made by the moderates of the pro life side reacting to the criticism the pro choice side throws around all the time. We have all heard it, "pro life people want to force rape victims to have their rapists children".

But - and again, this is only aimed at those who are hard-core a fetus-inside is equal to a baby-outside people. Now, I know there are uber-hard core folks that will come out and say "No Abortion. Period." - and, at least they're consistent. It's just the rest of them. Most rational people would be disgusted at the idea of killing a one month old baby because the father was a rapist. If they feel that the fetus is the same as the baby, shouldn't they feel the same way about killing rape-fetus babies?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I won't argue against that (although there are those that will).



But - and again, this is only aimed at those who are hard-core a fetus-inside is equal to a baby-outside people. Now, I know there are uber-hard core folks that will come out and say "No Abortion. Period." - and, at least they're consistent. It's just the rest of them. Most rational people would be disgusted at the idea of killing a one month old baby because the father was a rapist. If they feel that the fetus is the same as the baby, shouldn't they feel the same way about killing rape-fetus babies?[/QUOTE]

I often have the same dilemma as those people. Recently I told a friend of mine that rape should be considered an exception to that no abortion rule. I think abortion of the fetus should be stopped but at the same time I don't think a woman should be forced to give her life (medical complications) or be forced into pregnancy (rape).

She asked me exactly what you are asking, Why? It is still a baby. The answer is I don't know. Yes the fetus is a person, but so is the woman. She has rights too. If she does not want to deliver a baby then she doesn't have to. I think the debate about abortion should stay away from who has more rights? the woman or the fetus? and move more towards the reasoning behind the abortion. We should be guiding people to be more personally responsible rather than controlling exactly what they do. A lot of people will say banning abortion does control what people do, however I think the cases where there is no good reason besides convenience, someone has to stand up for the rights of the person that is to be born.

If there is no threat to her life, what right does she have to terminate the life of another human? (this can go right back to the rape question) Save the crap of it isn't human yet, enough babies have popped out of women for us to be quite sure that she isn't aborting a potato.

The rape situation is a lose-lose situation. The woman is emotionally traumatized, and the baby is either killed, or born into terrible situation. A kind of fix may be to make women who do not report rape more aware that they need to seek some assistance to make sure they arent pregnant.

Of course then you may break the rules of those who believe birth control and the morning after pill are forms of abortion as well, so there really is no fix. I just believe that not allowing the abortion of fetuses for poor reasons is a good start to saving lives.

If you look at it in black and white - pro lifers vs pro choicers, sure there are hypocrites on both sides. However if you really look at each individual issue the sides are blended far more than people believe.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/04/trump-iraq-oil-soldiers-died-vain/

Trump: If We Don’t Take Iraq’s Oil, U.S. Soldiers ‘Would Have Died In Vain’

In his quixotic search for attention, likely GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has added a foreign policy leg to his farcical platform. Revealing his thoughts on the Iraq war to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly last week, the real estate mogul boiled his policy down to an argument of “to the victor belonged the spoils.” Fearing that “15 minutes after we leave,” Iran would tromp into Iraq and “take the oil,” Trump argued the U.S. should “stay and keep the oil,” “take what’s necessary for us and we pay our self back $1.5 trillion or more.”

O’Reilly later mocked Trump’s policy on Fox and Friends: “You’d basically be re-invading the country you already invaded to try and get their oil. Come on, can you imagine the world reaction to that?” Unswayed, Trump doubled-down in a Fox and Friends segment this morning. Still convinced Iran will pounce on the oil fields once the U.S. withdraws, Trump insisted that if we don’t “take the oil,” the 5,885 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq “would have died in vain“:

TRUMP: I very simply said that Iran is going to takeover Iraq, and if that’s going to happen, we should just stay there and take the oil. They want the oil, and why should we? We de-neutered Iraq, Iran is going to walk in, take it over, take over the second largest oil fields in the world. That’s going to happen. That would mean that all of those soldiers that have died and been wounded and everything else would have died in vain– and I don’t want that to happen. I want their parents and their families to be proud.
 
I just wanted to roll in here real quick and thank you folks.

Listening to (or reading about) Liberals (or message board 'herp derp Fox News sucks' pretend Liberals) crying about Republicans is one of my new favorite past-times.

Keep up the hate. Nobody does it like you do. :)
 
[quote name='Rouzhokuu']I just wanted to roll in here real quick and thank you folks.

Listening to (or reading about) Liberals (or message board 'herp derp Fox News sucks' pretend Liberals) crying about Republicans is one of my new favorite past-times.

Keep up the hate. Nobody does it like you do. :)[/QUOTE]

Hmmm I don't know, Strell making abstract nonsensical comments and then complaining that everyone else is off topic is a pretty big pastime around here.
 
I like Strell as well, but hell, where's the context?

[quote name='Strell'] I personally like watching idiots lose all their data on devices they are too stupid to use. [/QUOTE]

[quote name='Rouzhokuu'] I'm kind of an iPad noob.

I tried to sync some photos to my pad earlier, and I guess when I hit 'sync', I didn't have the 'sync my apps' box checked, and it deleted all of my apps from my iPad.

When I clicked that box and re-synced the apps to my pad, all of my save data was gone.

I tried to restore a previous backup, but it didn't do any good.

I assume all my save data is gone, and I need to be less of a noob next time? I thought that when you first open up iTunes with your iPad connected, it automatically backs it up, so this kind of thing wouldn't happen, but I guess not. =/[/QUOTE]

Here's Shep Smith saying fuck the birthers, they won't get air time here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shep-smith-focusing-on-%e2%80%98stupid-stuff%e2%80%99-of-birthers-plays-into-%e2%80%98simpleton-hands%e2%80%99/
 
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/04/heads-up-mexico-you-may-be-next.html

The time has come, insists Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas), "for the U.S. to show serious commitment to war in our own backyard."


It's shamefully narrow-minded of Washington to confer the blessings of humanitarian mass murder on distant Bedouins while ignoring our Mestizo neighbors to the South. McCaul, a former federal prosecutor who now chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, is eager to help rectify that inequity by designating six Mexican drug syndicates -- including Los Zetas, which is led by U.S.-trained military personnel -- as "foreign terrorist organizations."

This would permit deportation or prosecution of anyone providing "support" to the narcotics syndicates. Of course, this wouldn't apply to the public officials in the United States responsible for the huge narcotics price support program called the "War on Drugs."

I like to troll pro War-On-Terror types by saying we should invade Mexico.

Maybe I shouldn't do that anymore.
 
This is like a cardinal in a cyclone listening to the enema man while hanging out with snoopy snoopy poop dogg:

SIMPSON: Who the hell is for abortion? I don’t know anybody running around with a sign that says, “Have an abortion! They’re wonderful!” They’re hideous, but they’re a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don’t think men legislators should even vote on the issue.
Then you’ve got homosexuality, you’ve got Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We have homophobes on our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. Now if they’re going to get off on that stuff—Santorum has said some cruel things—cruel, cruel things—about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul.
Now if that’s the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, “Stick with your folks.” But, I’m not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values—while you’re diddling your secretary while you’re giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it.

What does UB think of that first bolded part about male legislators?
 
[quote name='IRHari']What does UB think of that first bolded part about male legislators?[/QUOTE]

Personally, I don't think anyone should legislate abortion, gender has nothing to do with it.
 
There is a way to ensure that you do not have a baby. Its called not having sex. When you have sex you should be ready for the responsibility. Killing an unborn baby is an abandonment of your responsibility for your actions. In most cases I would say the government should leave people to make their own mistakes, but in this case it involves another human being that is defenseless.

Spanking your kid is a terrible thing nowadays, and liberals do not hesitate to jump all over the so called abuse, but yet they willingly accept the murder of innocents for the sake of convenience because they haven't been born yet. How they get past this is beyond me, I guess they just play dumb and pretend its not a child in there.
 
[quote name='Knoell']There is a way to ensure that you do not have a baby. Its called oral sex.[/QUOTE]

Just so we're clear that abstinence isn't the only guarantee.
 
Knoell, not all abortions are vanity abortions but good luck trying to legislate out vanity abortions while keeping medically necessary abortions and abortions of pregnancy as a result of abuse as available options.

That's the underlying problem with legislating something like abortion. It's very much have your cake and eat it too.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How they get past this is beyond me, I guess they just play dumb and pretend its not a child in there.[/QUOTE]

Weren't you defending the idea of killing the innocent "child" because daddy was a rapist?
 
bread's done
Back
Top