The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[BC]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.

The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.

[HST Redux]

Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter?  I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.

Oh, yeah? Tell that to the judge who married me.

[morpheus]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

[BC]

Oh, Tracy Bingham says let's nip this in the bud keep talking about this, it is important.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/54a90816970255/

To make her be my dumpster. Oh, wait, did I actually say that?

[De Jesus]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.

The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.

The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?

Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.

[GNM]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

[GNM]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.

The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.

The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?

Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.

Reagan increased the size of the government and didn't cut enough social programs to pay for it.  At the time, supply-side economics was all the rage so no one really gave a damn about the national debt.

That being said, there hasn't be a major party candidate who was truly fiscally conservative since Goldwater.  A fiscally responsible president would have to be before FDR, I think.

[morpheus]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

This.

[Andre Dawson's Creek]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

This.

Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?

[BC]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.

The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.

The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?

Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.

Reagan never had a Republican Congress with him and (rightly) wanted to spend on the military to force the Soviets to outspend their means. The Democrats in Congress controlled the spending and he took the bullet on spending in order to defeat the Soviet Union. It is true that doesn't necessarily equal small government, but the situation would've been different if he had ever received a GOP Congress to work with him. The one unfortunate part of the Reagan years is that his coattails never were big enough to get a Congress that would have helped him cut domestic spending.

[*In a Nutsack]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

This.

Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?

Why must you always resort to douchebaggery?

Jindal 2012!

[Andre Dawson's Creek]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

This.

Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?

Why must you always resort to douchebaggery?

Jindal 2012!

He doesn't stand a chance against the Illinois Gunderson machine.

[TDubbs]

You motherfuckers made this thread unreadable.  Fuck.  Go read my booblie one at least and don't fuck it up.

[De Jesus]

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

This.

Does this mean exorcisms will be covered under Medicare?

Why must you Bobby Jindal always resort to douchebaggery believing strongly in hocus-pocus?

Jindal Beezulbub 2012!

God Warrior'd

[Thrillho]

Swingers in the White House?



Now, that's liberal.

To respond to myself, my real question is: just what exactly is Barack's right hand up to in this pic?

Dude's apparently a born multitasker.