The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

I just like (idelogy or not) it needs to be explained that there is an amount to spend on an important problem that can be over zero dollars and less than 700 trillion dollars. Because the congressional troll had to trot out a logical fallacy.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Wow. It's not really that he doesn't understand the concept, just that he's ideologically against the government spending any money. Apparently private charities are supposed to take care of this, I guess he thinks that these private charities don't currently exist or something.[/QUOTE]

No, he realizes that they do exist, but the problem is that people don't give enough because of their tax burden. If we reduce taxes even further (and cut to the bone every spending project that isn't military might) then more people will have more money and of course since that more money isn't being taxed people will give it to the charities and not hoard it for themselves. DUH!
 
[quote name='nasum']No, he realizes that they do exist, but the problem is that people don't give enough because of their tax burden. If we reduce taxes even further (and cut to the bone every spending project that isn't military might) then more people will have more money and of course since that more money isn't being taxed people will give it to the charities and not hoard it for themselves. DUH![/QUOTE]

He's for cutting military spending, too.
 
[quote name='nasum']in an equal percentage towards everything else?[/QUOTE]

His stated position as a Senator is against Iraq, Libya, troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, undeclared war, and nation building. Suggested recently that there should be fewer than 10k troops in Afghanistan. When he wasn't pandering to conservatives, he was saying things like "Iran won't be a threat with one nuclear weapon," "they attack us here because we're over there," in 2007/08.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/...ians-who-need-to-be-educated-and-disciplined/

Bachmanns husband goes on the radio and says that gays are barbarians that simply need to be educated and learn discipline.

Again proving the stupidest people on the planet tend to be those that have the most kids. Seriously her husbands as big of a douchey idiot as she is.

BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…

And let’s face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='nasum']so troops overseas bad, but that doesn't address actual spending.[/QUOTE]

You can't possibly be that dense.

@Bachmann:

Look at pictures of the guy, listen to his voice, and take into consideration his virulent anti-gay stances and profession. Any one of those things wouldn't ring any bells, but all three... I would be shocked if he isn't the classic case of the closeted and bigoted hom... er, barbarian.
 
[quote name='Clak']And he wouldn't be saying that stupid shit if there wasn't an audience for it, that's the worst part.[/QUOTE]

I am really hoping that she wins it. If she or by some long stretch Perry won I think it would not only spell Obamas reelection but more importantly a major set back to Republicans in general. I have grown up in the swing state of Ohio my whole life and found that its not that America is a right of center nation, its that more voters are right of center. Most people I talk to actually hold a slightly left of center world view....the problem is just they do not vote and or are uninformed.

I think someone like Bachman who is a "leader" of the tea party movement coming out as the head Republican will shine light on just how fucking crazy Republicans are. Those of us that read the paper and try and educate ourselves already know, but the general populous is ignorant to what people like Bachman and many other conservatives believe.
 
Wait a minute, they both worked on Carter's campaign? The fuck.....

But yeah "christian counselor" sounds like "compassionate conservative".
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Carter was the first major evangelical Christian presidential candidate to appear on the scene after the birth of the evangelical movement, if memory serves me correctly.[/QUOTE]

Kind of crazy to think that one of the more liberal presidents was the first real evangelical. Also separate note Carter IMO is one of if not the most underrated presidents. If he would have been reelected instead of that moron Reagen we may be energy independent already today. Another note. Carter was the last president to actually come out and tell the American people the truth, you need to tighten your belts and make sacrifice for your country at times. Regan is the one that started the modern idiocy where we think the government and corporations can solve all our problems.
 
Carter merely resides with Clinton as the least bad president of the last 35 years. A good deal of our national security apparatus began or greatly expanded under Carter, and his handling of the middle east was an utter disaster.

Many of his post-presidency stances have been much better, however.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Carter merely resides with Clinton as the least bad president of the last 35 years. A good deal of our national security apparatus began or greatly expanded under Carter, and his handling of the middle east was an utter disaster.

Many of his post-presidency stances have been much better, however.[/QUOTE]

Yes but his domestic policy was amazing. We tend to praise Presidents who preside over a good economy or that expand defense/make us feel safe and then we forget everything else. Carter may not have been the best President, but he did some great things that were ahead of his time and if Regan would not have dismantled everything good Carter did do, we would be a lot further a long.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']You can't possibly be that dense.

@Bachmann:

Look at pictures of the guy, listen to his voice, and take into consideration his virulent anti-gay stances and profession. Any one of those things wouldn't ring any bells, but all three... I would be shocked if he isn't the classic case of the closeted and bigoted hom... er, barbarian.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter if you spend $5 on candy or $5 on a pack of smokes, you've still spent $5...

Bachmann - what percentage of the population is gay again? I'd like to see a probability assumption on one of those kids having a coming out party at some point.
 
[quote name='nasum']Doesn't matter if you spend $5 on candy or $5 on a pack of smokes, you've still spent $5...

Bachmann - what percentage of the population is gay again? I'd like to see a probability assumption on one of those kids having a coming out party at some point.[/QUOTE]

If you aren't prosecuting six wars, you aren't spending over $1 trillion a year in militaristic glory. If you consider foreign aid to be military spending, he's for cutting all of that, too.
 
I'd agree with that, Obama has caved to the right in so many ways since taking office. I'm surprised that repealing don't ask don't tell wasn't somehow co-opted into something else entirely.
 
[quote name='IRHari']That story will never get the awesome traction the John Edwards hair story got. Ever. Calling it now.[/QUOTE]

I hope you're wrong. But I doubt you are.

Anywho, here's a fun game:

Seeing as though this pledge has an anti-Sharia clause in it, can anyone find a pledge that is more compliant with Sharia than this one? Anti-gay, anti-divorce, anti-porn, protecting the innocence of women, etc.

Also, a contest:

Who can find the most items consistent with Sharia in this pledge?
 
[quote name='Clak']This shit is incredible.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youaredumb.net/node/1808

"Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

But what they've SAID, grammatically, is that they want to protect women and children from all forms of pornography. Now, since they're fanatics, I can only assume they mean both production and consumption. Which means that what they're truly striving for is a world where men watch only gay porn. Which, as we know from Jesus-freak sociology, TURNS MEN GAY.
Click to expand...
 
That shit seriously reminds me of some stupid pledge to remain a virgin or not drink or whatever that kids in high school make. Except this isn't high school and these are adults, at least legally anyway.
 
Gary Johnson's response is kind of awesome:
“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book”.
“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.
While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.
The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012. If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this ‘pledge’ and its offensive language.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='IRHari']Gary Johnson's response is kind of awesome:[/QUOTE]
In other words, Michelle Bachman 2012.:D
 
Never taken as single gun safety course, but even I know you don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']It's a shame that Santorum is getting a national stage while Johnson is getting shut out.[/QUOTE]

fair and balanced is more important than shutting out inane individuals for reasonable, thoughtful individuals.
 
You guys forgot to mention Mitch McConnell's new nicknames on freep:
Mitch Ass (McConnell)
Bitch McConnell

There are others, but I forget the rest...LOLZ
 
So to go back and add a little update to a report for fairness sake it sounds like the Utah/Arizona(cant recall where)women that pointed a gun at a reporter most likely did not. It sounds like most likely the reporter VASTLY stretched the truth.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']So to go back and add a little update to a report for fairness sake it sounds like the Utah/Arizona(cant recall where)women that pointed a gun at a reporter most likely did not. It sounds like most likely the reporter VASTLY stretched the truth.[/QUOTE]
Just to add more detail so people don't need to go fishing for info:
The senator from Arizona was showing off her gun and the reporter stepped into her line of fire. While this means that she didn't intentionally take aim at the reporter, the point that she wasn't being mindful of what was in front of her gun is a pretty big issue. Malice is irrelevant when it comes to being on the business end of a loaded gun.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Agreed but thats still quite different from reports she purposely aimed a loaded gun.[/QUOTE]

Yes, quite different in that it's totally safe to brandish a loaded firearm as long as you're not pointing it at anything in particular.

She's negligent either way. If anything, being unaware of what she was or could have been aiming at makes her more negligent.
 
[quote name='62t']http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...oup-marriage-pledge-candidates-160133885.html

An Iowa conservative Christian group last week essentially asked presidential contenders to say black families were better off during slavery.[/QUOTE]

Not that I want to seem like I'm defending Bachmann and Santorum on this, but I can almost guarantee that the group pitched the vow as a pledge to uphold "traditional marriage" by any means possible, and they signed on without reading it.

I am now going to clean the puke off of my shirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top