The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='MSI Magus']Your crazier then I thought if you think we as a society already take care of our sick and elderly.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']I'd say that we, as a society, already recognize the need to take care of the sick, elderly and needy.[/QUOTE]

Two points to the first one to step forward and point out the difference between what I said and what Magus seems to have read.
 
To say we as a society recognize the need should imply that we do. I guess you could say we recognize the need but fail to take care of them...but that would just kind of prove the point for the need for government to do it.
 
The fact is we can't rely on charity for things like taking care of the poor and elderly.

Charity runs counter to the extreme form of capitalism we live under that's all about maximizing pleasure (profits) and minimizing pain (losing money).

Our system of capitalism promotes extreme individualism and and every man for himself society.

Thus the only way to provide remotely adequate services for those who can't care for themselves is through "forced" charity in the form of taxes. We just have to find ways to raise enough taxes and make the systems more efficient in terms of costs.
 
Santa Claus is kinda all about unfair labor though...

The difference between those two statements is something like this: "I recognize that this is a stop sign" and "I stopped at the stop sign". Yes, there is a certain amount of care given to the sick and the poor, but it isn't anywhere near the level that it could be. Hell, between nursing homes and health insurance we've essentially made care for the elderly and sick profitable enterprise as opposed to "care". We don't "care" about Mildred's illness, we recognize patient outcome.
I think the most brilliant person in the world will be the one that can figure out how to make a profit off of helping the poor. You'll see the (R) flipflop so fast that you'll think they'd all been posessed by Mother Theresa...

On the other hand, not all things taxes are "charity"
One could hardly say that military salaray is welfare, or congressional/senate salary is the same (some of them are even black, gasp!)
 
Well and besides Capitalism there is also globalization which encouraged fast growth, instability, corruption and the formation of giant multi national mega corporations. All of these things combine to further create a world that is less charity friendly. You can then also add in the media which throughout the years has focused more and more on a mix of negative reporting and stupid stories like lost dog saves baby or celebrity crap. That stuff links in to charity because the negativity end of it makes people feel less stable and thus less likely to give while the stupid stories detract from reporting on important stuff meaning the populace is ever more unaware of whats going on.
 
I wasn't saying that all taxes are charity. Just that there's no way we could have the needed safety nets for the poor and elderly with only private charity, so we need some "forced charity" in terms of part of taxes raised being essentially "forced donations" to fund those programs. Of course basic taxes are always needed to fund the military, government, maintain roadways and other infrastructure etc.
 
I wasn't attributing "all taxes are charity" to anyone in particular, just that it's a popular theory amongst the right that seems to go against their christian leaning...

And fuck you if you don't think lost dog saves baby is good story. There was a story last night on the local news about strays being found after the N. Mpls tornado that are being returned to owners through friends and neighbors. This helps the animal shelters reduce their intake and also helps neighbors connect (something that seems to be dwindling more and more).
This is the way things ought to be, not Rush's delusional every house behind a fortress BS.
 
"Compassionate" conservatism has mostly always been a myth. At least among fiscal conservatives. Their all about "personal responsibility"--aka every man for himself.

But even among social conservatives their compassion is usually limited to people who share their worldviews.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']To say we as a society recognize the need should imply that we do. I guess you could say we recognize the need but fail to take care of them...but that would just kind of prove the point for the need for government to do it.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']But, because we, as individuals, are not a collective, we'll never reach that point. Which is why we do need a government.[/QUOTE]

Why do I feel that, had you read my post, but with a different name beside it, we'd be having a totally different conversation, rather than just repeating and restating what I already said in my post?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why do I feel that, had you read my post, but with a different name beside it, we'd be having a totally different conversation, rather than just repeating and restating what I already said in my post?[/QUOTE]

You are talking out both sides of your mouth bob. Do you suddenly feel that we should have a government run healthcare system? Do you suddenly believe that we should invest far more in education? Do you suddenly believe we should take steps to end corporate welfare, charge them at a higher rate and invest that money in to programs to help the less fortunate? Do you suddenly think we should have stricter regulation on business and what they can do with the environment?

Most of the positions you take at this board are in contrast to what you are stating here. Again maybe you see a need for government, but the type of government you generally back here is a weak wristed government that could never accomplish anything.

Again I am not trying to be insulting but all of your posts point to this, you like many conservatives who seem to have a decent heart also have the naive belief that a conservative government would still have the teeth and the will to fight the rich and take care of society. That is a fantasy. Sometimes in life we have to chose and sometimes we must as adults chose things we dislike. I would love to believe as you and many conservatives/libertarians do...I just have recognized that they are impossible, at least in this day and age.
 
In Bob's defense, what I think his deal typically is deals more with ineffeciency and waste than amounts. Would it be better to spend more on education, or to spend the same amount on education if it were done in a manner that had better outcomes? Option B sounds pretty darn good if you ask me.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']You are talking out both sides of your mouth bob. Do you suddenly feel that we should have a government run healthcare system? Do you suddenly believe that we should invest far more in education? Do you suddenly believe we should take steps to end corporate welfare, charge them at a higher rate and invest that money in to programs to help the less fortunate? Do you suddenly think we should have stricter regulation on business and what they can do with the environment?[/QUOTE]

And yet, if you've spent any time reading my posts, instead of assuming you already know what's in them, you'd know the answers to most of these questions.

Government-ran health care? Sure. But not by our current government.

Invest more in education? No. Spending in education isn't the problem.

End corporate welfare? Yes. I've been saying this for as long as I've been on this board.

Charge them at a higher rate? ... depends what you mean. Higher than they're being charged now? Not really. Higher than other people are charged? To an extent. Personally, I'd rather see people taxed than corporations. It's much easier to tax a corporation, then let the corporation hide those taxes in the various aspects of their operation so that they're all hidden within the price of the end product and no one really knows how much they're paying in to the tax man.

Invest that money in to programs to help the less fortunate? ... to an extent. Wisely invest that money into these programs after our government has been reformed into a system that isn't abused by power-hungry politicians - okay.

Stricter regulation on business and what they can do with the environment? - Yes and no. I don't think the issue is necessarily the amount of regulation on private business, but the government/politicians' willingness to properly and accurately enforce that regulation. How many times have we had some kind of environmental issue and we hear "This regulation was in place, but it wasn't enforced/checked/followed up on because of this or that." I don't think adding a bunch more regulations, with our current set of politicians in play, is going to help anything.

I had a post on here about how Mattel imported a bunch of lead-coated toys from China and the US Government responded by putting all these new testing requirements by third parties in place, but then added an exemption to the bill that allowed Mattel do their own testing.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32582238/ns/business-consumer_news/)

So, Mattel, the primary reason for this new regulation, gets a slap on the wrist and the other toy companies (most of them much, much smaller than Mattel) now get to pay all the costs for third parties to test their toys for lead, which was never a problem for them.

We don't necessarily need *more* regulation, we need smarter and more efficient regulation headed up by more common sense regulators.
 
[quote name='nasum'] Would it be better to spend more on education, or to spend the same amount on education if it were done in a manner that had better outcomes? Option B sounds pretty darn good if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

The problem is it requires both. Waste needs to be eliminated, but more money is needed as well.

The bulk of the most talented people aren't going to choose to be teachers when they could earn more money in the private sector. Students need current text books, high tech class rooms, up to date computer labs etc.

There's a ton of problems with education beyond money--and money isn't anywhere near the biggest problem for sure. But you'll never get education improved if you can't make teaching an attractive job financially so that the a reasonable chunk of the best and brightest college graduates want to do it.

But it's really all moot. As long as society is full of broken homes and parents who just don't give a shit about being involved with their kids, there's not much the school system can do to improve average educational achievement.

Anyway, sorry for the brief derail as education is a topic for another thread.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And yet, if you've spent any time reading my posts, instead of assuming you already know what's in them, you'd know the answers to most of these questions.[/QUOTE]
I wish! But let's see how deep the rabbit hole goes on this one...again...

Government-ran health care? Sure. But not by our current government.
Click to expand...
What kind of "government-run" healthcare are you talking about and what do you mean by our "current government?"

Invest more in education? No. Spending in education isn't the problem.
Click to expand...
Ok...so what IS the problem if it isn't funding?

End corporate welfare? Yes. I've been saying this for as long as I've been on this board.

Charge them at a higher rate? ... depends what you mean. Higher than they're being charged now? Not really. Higher than other people are charged? To an extent. Personally, I'd rather see people taxed than corporations. It's much easier to tax a corporation, then let the corporation hide those taxes in the various aspects of their operation so that they're all hidden within the price of the end product and no one really knows how much they're paying in to the tax man.
Click to expand...
If corporations want the ability of unlimited contributions to political causes, then they need to pay the piper. What you describe sounds completely convoluted and makes absolutely no sense. What are you trying to say here.

Invest that money in to programs to help the less fortunate? ... to an extent. Wisely invest that money into these programs after our government has been reformed into a system that isn't abused by power-hungry politicians - okay.
Click to expand...
And who puts those "power-hungry" politicians in office?

Stricter regulation on business and what they can do with the environment? - Yes and no. I don't think the issue is necessarily the amount of regulation on private business, but the government/politicians' willingness to properly and accurately enforce that regulation. How many times have we had some kind of environmental issue and we hear "This regulation was in place, but it wasn't enforced/checked/followed up on because of this or that." I don't think adding a bunch more regulations, with our current set of politicians in play, is going to help anything.
Click to expand...
What is the "this or that?" Usually its not for lack of trying, it's because these businesses have politicians in their back pocket.

I had a post on here about how Mattel imported a bunch of lead-coated toys from China and the US Government responded by putting all these new testing requirements by third parties in place, but then added an exemption to the bill that allowed Mattel do their own testing.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32582238/ns/business-consumer_news/)

So, Mattel, the primary reason for this new regulation, gets a slap on the wrist and the other toy companies (most of them much, much smaller than Mattel) now get to pay all the costs for third parties to test their toys for lead, which was never a problem for them.
Click to expand...
And how did Mattel get that exemption? With $1 million in lobbying. And with that new corporate donation ruling, they can devote even MORE funds to lobby in their interests. Who can we thank for that?

We don't necessarily need *more* regulation, we need smarter and more efficient regulation headed up by more common sense regulators.
Click to expand...
Our current regulations are being whittled away and nothing is going up to take their place. This is not because current regulators are impotent or incompetent. This is because of the revolving door between government agencies and corporations. The latest FCC chairperson going to Comcast is nothing new.

And you know what? Sorry, but you and your ilk don't get to define what "common sense" is. Just because you say, doesn't mean it's true. Common sense does not equal logic. It's just some folksy-assed buzzword that the right uses to simplify complex concepts into soundbites instead of really examining an issue.
 
Oh...and about the Rand Paul thing? His amendments involve blocking the ability of law enforcement to get warrants for businesses that show evidence of money laundering. And that helps the average joe how?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']"Compassionate" conservatism has mostly always been a myth. At least among fiscal conservatives. Their all about "personal responsibility"--aka every man for himself.

But even among social conservatives their compassion is usually limited to people who share their worldviews.[/QUOTE]

Yep, you cut out all the conservative doubletalk you end up at heart of the matter.

It is especially maddening considering we had con posters here who posted they would rather see people die then have reform enacted, then lie about it when it was brought up.

Speaking of....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/mcconnell_puts_medicare_in_the029870.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']And yet, if you've spent any time reading my posts, instead of assuming you already know what's in them, you'd know the answers to most of these questions.

Government-ran health care? Sure. But not by our current government.

Invest more in education? No. Spending in education isn't the problem.

End corporate welfare? Yes. I've been saying this for as long as I've been on this board.

Charge them at a higher rate? ... depends what you mean. Higher than they're being charged now? Not really. Higher than other people are charged? To an extent. Personally, I'd rather see people taxed than corporations. It's much easier to tax a corporation, then let the corporation hide those taxes in the various aspects of their operation so that they're all hidden within the price of the end product and no one really knows how much they're paying in to the tax man.

Invest that money in to programs to help the less fortunate? ... to an extent. Wisely invest that money into these programs after our government has been reformed into a system that isn't abused by power-hungry politicians - okay.[/QUOTE]

We're not so different, you and I. Those stances aren't that radical.

That being said, with those beliefs, why would you continually back Ron Paul? Ron Paul not only believes those things at the federal level (env'l regulation, gov't run hcare) are bad ideas, he thinks they're unconstitutional.
 
[quote name='IRHari']We're not so different, you and I. Those stances aren't that radical.

That being said, with those beliefs, why would you continually back Ron Paul? Ron Paul not only believes those things at the federal level (env'l regulation, gov't run hcare) are bad ideas, he thinks they're unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Paul is against government-ran health care - I think he's against it at the Federal level, which is something I can get behind. People constantly attempt to liken the idea of government health care to, say, the police... which are ran at the state and local levels.

But why do I back Paul? Means to an end. Ultimately, I'd like to see as much power removed from the Federal level and returned to the state/local levels as possible. He's someone that supports that ideal. Do I agree with him 100% on everything? No (For example, leaving abortion laws up to the state). But he's the single politician that honestly seems to be for an over-all smaller Federal Government.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oh...and about the Rand Paul thing? His amendments involve blocking the ability of law enforcement to get warrants for businesses that show evidence of money laundering. And that helps the average joe how?[/QUOTE]

I figured it might be something like that.

Anyway, is there anyone out there who thinks that if came down to Rand being the deciding vote (not him against the world) he would still be against any of it?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oh...and about the Rand Paul thing? His amendments involve blocking the ability of law enforcement to get warrants for businesses that show evidence of money laundering. And that helps the average joe how?[/QUOTE]

You're going to have to be more specific, he offered 8 amendments and co-sponsored another. I'm guessing you're talking about the suspicious activity reports?

msut: Yes. It was part of his Senate campaign, both primary and even in the general, when I thought he had gone off the rails into neo-conville.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']msut: Yes. It was part of his Senate campaign, both primary and even in the general, when I thought he had gone off the rails into neo-conville.[/QUOTE]

I am not going to go in full sarcasm mode and point out the usual winner between political expediency and campaign promises.

But just as an example of how self interest trumps basically everything else, Rand is for cutting everything BUT medicare payments to doctors. Because that was little more than half his meal ticket.

As for the man who inflicted Rand on the rest of us... Ron's entire schtick is to talk a lot of shit, load up bills with lots of goodies for his district and then vote against them knowing they will pass.
 
[quote name='Msut77']As for the man who inflicted Rand on the rest of us... Ron's entire schtick is to talk a lot of shit, load up bills with lots of goodies for his district and then vote against them knowing they will pass.[/QUOTE]

Links?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Links?[/QUOTE]

He adds pretty much any request he receives from his district as an earmark to bills.

msut: He was against the PATRIOT Act before he even ran for office. This may come as a shock to you, but people outside of your worldview can share an opinion with you. The world isn't going to end. Hell, we agree on a number of things, and I dip my toes in ancap ideology here and there.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Links?[/QUOTE]

'tis true, 'tis true.

It's a step up from adding pork to a bill, then voting for it, however.

No politician is perfect. But in a world filled with Bushes and Obamas, Ron Paul is a God among slugs. :D
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He adds pretty much any request he receives from his district as an earmark to bills.[/quote]

Do you think he would get voted out if he ever stopped delivering the goods?

Ron could still run for president every chance he gets and collect campaign donations (while not spending them on campaigning), one would think the direct marketing would keep him flush enough.

msut: He was against the PATRIOT Act before he even ran for office. This may come as a shock to you, but people outside of your worldview can share an opinion with you. The world isn't going to end. Hell, we agree on a number of things, and I dip my toes in ancap ideology here and there.
Click to expand...

Blind squirrels sometimes get stuck in broken clocks or something.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
[quote name='FTB']He adds pretty much any request he receives from his district as an earmark to bills.

msut: He was against the PATRIOT Act before he even ran for office. This may come as a shock to you, but people outside of your worldview can share an opinion with you. The world isn't going to end. Hell, we agree on a number of things, and I dip my toes in ancap ideology here and there.[/QUOTE]

Blind squirrels sometimes get stuck in broken clocks or something.[/QUOTE]

lol, owned
 
The ApPaul falls very far from the Tree (of Liberty):

[RAND] PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] It's a step up from adding pork to a bill, then voting for it, however.[/QUOTE]

Is it? You'd rather have someone who deceptively makes it look like he's vehemently against pork, then someone who is all for pork and openly votes in favor for it?
 
[quote name='IRHari']The ApPaul falls very far from the Tree (of Liberty):[/QUOTE]

The larger context of the discussion revolved around getting warrants through judicial channels if you want to investigate people. He was talking to Hannity, and in pandering he stepped in it (interestingly enough, he got Hannity to agree that aspects of the PATRIOT Act are bad by talking about the problems associated with the Act as opposed to naming it). I'm betting that he misspoke, but if he didn't, I won't bother defending it. It's flat wrong.

I wouldn't support him if he ran for president, simply because he does pander.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is it? You'd rather have someone who deceptively makes it look like he's vehemently against pork, then someone who is all for pork and openly votes in favor for it?[/QUOTE]

He's not against earmarks, appropriated spending is Congress' responsibility.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Is it? You'd rather have someone who deceptively makes it look like he's vehemently against pork, then someone who is all for pork and openly votes in favor for it?[/QUOTE]

I'd rather have 435 congressmen/women putting pork into bills, then voting against them than have 435 congressmen/women putting pork into bills and voting for them.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']He's not against earmarks, appropriated spending is Congress' responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Paul is perfectly consistent with con values.

Cons only ever cared about government money spent on other people.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd rather have 435 congressmen/women putting pork into bills, then voting against them than have 435 congressmen/women putting pork into bills and voting for them.[/QUOTE]

I'd rather you leave and never come back.
 
[quote name='camoor']
gollum3.jpg

[/QUOTE].
 
[quote name='camoor']I'd rather you leave and never come back.[/QUOTE]

You know, there's a pretty awesome ignore feature on these forums.
 
If everyone here who disagreed with you ignored you bob, it would basically be you and Knoell finding some little nit to pick with each other, otherwise you'd be posting to yourself basically.
 
[quote name='Clak']If everyone here who disagreed with you ignored you bob, it would basically be you and Knoell finding some little nit to pick with each other, otherwise you'd be posting to yourself basically.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me should ignore me.
I'm saying that someone who doesn't want to see my posts should ignore me.
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2011/06/02/the_factory_of_selective_moral_outrage

^^^ Here's a good article titled the Factory of Selective Moral Outrage.

Its main point is that most of the media/celebrities/"progressive" groups etc. (essentially the left) are a loud force against actions on the right, but do not show the same sense of outrage on the left. They bring up shit to help their agenda but will not make the exact same effort when its in their own camp.

For example: We're still in Iraq, we're more involved in Afghanistan, and now we're starting in on Libya w/o congressional approval. And the left says.......nothing

Another example: How we have a "Stay Classy Republicans" thread so as to divert attention away from what's really going on back onto the right.
 
Or how about when Republicans like tivo (not essentially the right, I'm excluding libertarians), decried Bill Clinton's expansion of government, then when W Bush got in, they cheered on almost every expansion of government power that W Bush proposed./endbroadstrokes

It's kind of ironic that you're outraged at the left's selective outrage, yet....you don't show the same outrage at the right's selective outrage. It's like you're bringing up shit to help your agenda but you won't make the exact same effort when its in your own camp.

Why don't you tell us 'what's really going on', please exclude any nazi comparisons, thank you. And please include more reasons why slavery was a good thing for black people.
 
you watch the tea party. If the representatives don;t do what they said, the tea party will vote them out. They are ready for a new era of smaller government, less control, etc.

Now look at the dems. They were big opponents of Bush and the wars but now their deafeningly quiet. Obama just signed an extension of the patriot act even tho he had pledged to end it. The left didn't raise a peep. Where's Michael Moore asking around if people will sign their children up to go to Afghanistan?

What about Gitmo. The left was viscously decrying its existence and now what? Have they all gotten together and said its ok?
 
[quote name='tivo']you watch the tea party. If the representatives don;t do what they said, the tea party will vote them out. They are ready for a new era of smaller government, less control, etc.

Now look at the dems. They were big opponents of Bush and the wars but now their deafeningly quiet. Obama just signed an extension of the patriot act even tho he had pledged to end it. The left didn't raise a peep. Where's Michael Moore asking around if people will sign their children up to go to Afghanistan?

What about Gitmo. The left was viscously decrying its existence and now what? Have they all gotten together and said its ok?[/QUOTE]

Several problems here.

1. The Tea Party has not been around long enough for you to claim they will vote out politicians for not doing what they want. My guess is that since we have a two party system and they will be presented with a Tea Party candidate who let them down or a Democrat, they will vote along their party lines...the same way they did when they were Republicans(hint they are still Republicans under a different name).

2. The Tea Party does not want smaller government, they want what they want cut..but that is hardly smaller government. Yes some in the tea party are true small government conservatives, but most are typical Republicans. Just look at polls and you will see that most Tea Party people do not support cutting medicare nor defense...why...because they think it effects them. Tea Party people like most Americans are ignorant as fuck and are just children having a tantrum. They refuse to look at facts or educate themselves and instead go on believing that cutting foreign aid and welfare will equal small government and thus strong America. So you can cut the myth that the Tea Party supports small government, truth is the support the idea but not the policies.

3. You say look at the dems.....but you must not be looking in the right places. Most major liberal journalists did something about the extension of the patriot act...but since your conservative and it was not in your face I imagine you just assumed it did not happen/is not happening(hint global warming).

4. The reason the left does not decry many of the other things like gitmo you are talking about is because we do not have a champion at the moment and because people cant win on good policy anymore. The left is the new right and the right is the ultra right. Most people that are actually on the left are just depressed as shit at this point and are no happier with people like Obama then you are.
 
[quote name='tivo']you watch the tea party. If the representatives don;t do what they said, the tea party will vote them out. They are ready for a new era of smaller government, less control, etc.[/QUOTE]

Of course they are. As we'll soon see when we see how they coalesce around the Republican nominee, right? We'll see how much deficits matter when the President has an (R) next to his name. Didn't seem to matter that much when it was W. Had to fight them terrists, right?

[quote name='tivo']Now look at the dems. They were big opponents of Bush and the wars but now their deafeningly quiet. Obama just signed an extension of the patriot act even tho he had pledged to end it. The left didn't raise a peep. Where's Michael Moore asking around if people will sign their children up to go to Afghanistan?[/QUOTE]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll376.xml

I know facts don't matter when you've already come to your conclusion, but the left did raise a peep. Visit sites like FireDogLake. Read some Digby. If you stay in the conservobubble you probably won't see facts that contradict the caricature of liberals that you've formed in your head.

[quote name='tivo'] What about Gitmo. The left was viscously decrying its existence and now what? Have they all gotten together and said its ok?[/QUOTE]

No. They didn't say its ok. Again, get yourself out of the bubble. Less Townhall, more FireDogLake.

The opposition to Gitmo is the fact that it's like purgatory. You're not exonerated, but you're also not found guilty. You are held indefinitely without any kind of trial. Even Obama's plan to 'close Gitmo' doesn't get to the core problem of Gitmo.

By the way, what's the tea party position on habeas corpus for terrorist suspects? What's the tea party position on invading and occupying countries that pose no threat to us?
 
2/3 against isn't a peep! The Democrats won't stop the Republicans from doing bad things, that's why I vote Republican.
 
[quote name='tivo']They bring up shit to help their agenda but will not make the exact same effort when its in their own camp.[/QUOTE]

and this is news because...
 
[quote name='tivo']Now look at the dems. They were big opponents of Bush and the wars but now their deafeningly quiet. Obama just signed an extension of the patriot act even tho he had pledged to end it. The left didn't raise a peep. [/QUOTE]

I'll just leave this here...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC3cg04-Dj8[/youtube]
 
You're a fucking moron.

Is it that hard for you to understand that we shouldn't be fucking around in Libya, and that someone should say something regardless of party affiliation?





edited because I put should instead of shouldn't.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']You're a fucking moron.

Is it that hard for you to understand that we should be fucking around in Libya, and that someone should say something regardless of party affiliation?[/QUOTE]
I thought you would be against the actions in Libya. Guess not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top