Desipio Message Board

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:53:46 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:48:13 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:45:39 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties.  These things ebb and flow.  This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter.  These things have a tendency to swing.

The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party.  The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics.  The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.  

This.  Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses?  That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.

The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses.  They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either.  They're much smarter people than they let on.

All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.

Wow.  I think it goes both ways, brother.

Untrue.  

One side is giving rights, no matter who you are.  The other is trying to take. 

No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of.  Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights?  I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions?  I'm a rich white man.  I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."

As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them.  I got mine."

Nice inaccurate quoting there.

I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?

Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.

Sure.  If you hate poor people.

I guess I'm not the only one this applies to...

QuoteYou have to understand: there is no gray in this man's world.

Because apparently you either hate poor people or you just love and embrace them... no middle ground.

"I acknowledge that some poor people are born into circumstances that make it incredibly hard for them to better themselves.  Sure, they could use help with training so that they can get a job and move out of the ghetto.  Sure, they could use help getting health care so that they don't die.

I don't want to pitch in for them.  My money is my own.  My parents were middle class.   They could afford to put me through college and get me braces.  It's not my problem that everyone else isn't as lucky as me.

That guy needs chemo?  He should go get it, then.  He can't afford it?  Sucks to be him.  He's going to die?  That blows.  Oh, well.  Later!  I'm off to go get plowed and knock around some golf balls.  Let that poor dying guy know that I don't hate him or love him.  I just don't think he deserves any help, ok?"

Supposedly, we're the most advanced nation on earth.  In spite of this, we have people dying because they can't afford medical care.  We have people living in squalor because they can't afford training to do a real job.  There's one thing keeping the lower class lower: Pieces of shit that talk about mythical bootstraps and how it's not their problem.

Grey area, my ass.  Leaving poor people living in shitholes and dying from lack of care is hating on poor people. 

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:45:39 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 04:42:43 PM

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties.  These things ebb and flow.  This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter.  These things have a tendency to swing.

The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party.  The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics.  The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.  

This.  Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses?  That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.

The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses.  They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either.  They're much smarter people than they let on.

All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.

Wow.  I think it goes both ways, brother.

Untrue.  

One side is giving rights, no matter who you are.  The other is trying to take. 

No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of.  Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights?  I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions?  I'm a rich white man.  I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."

As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them.  I got mine."

Nice inaccurate quoting there.

I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?

Close I guess if you take it that way. You say it like he said some evil "I hate poor people" statement but really it was a reasonable, rational statement.

Sure.  If you hate poor people.

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 06, 2008, 04:24:19 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:11:56 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties.  These things ebb and flow.  This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter.  These things have a tendency to swing.

The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party.  The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics.  The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.  

This.  Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses?  That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.

The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses.  They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either.  They're much smarter people than they let on.

All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.

Wow.  I think it goes both ways, brother.

Untrue.  

One side is giving rights, no matter who you are.  The other is trying to take. 

No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of.  Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights?  I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions?  I'm a rich white man.  I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."

As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them.  I got mine."

Nice inaccurate quoting there.

I don't care to go look for it, but isn't that almost exactly what IAN said?

Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 03:34:44 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government. 

The Dems are going to socialize parts of the government?

Heaven forfend!

How exactly would they go about this? Are they going to somehow super-nationalize Federal agencies?

Every four years, half the country yells "SOCIALISM!" without actually knowing what it means.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 02:57:23 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 02:18:16 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties.  These things ebb and flow.  This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter.  These things have a tendency to swing.

The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party.  The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics.  The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.  

This.  Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses?  That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.

The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses.  They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either.  They're much smarter people than they let on.

All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.

Wow.  I think it goes both ways, brother.

Untrue.  

One side is giving rights, no matter who you are.  The other is trying to take. 

No one is going out there and giving rights to people that they don't understand or approve of.  Taking away rights that don't change your life at all is much easier to do and much easier to fake giving a crap about, i.e.- "Who gives a shit about denying gays marriage rights?  I'm not gay." or "Who gives a shit about denying women abortions?  I'm a rich white man.  I'll fly my daughter to an abortion-friendly country if I need to."

As someone round these parts one said...."Fuck them.  I got mine."

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties.  These things ebb and flow.  This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter.  These things have a tendency to swing.

The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party.  The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics.  The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.  

This.  Why does the Republican Party care so much about gheys and aborted fetuses?  That's really not a big problem...at all...ever.

The folks in charge of the Republican party don't actually give a shit about gays, aborted fetuses, or aborted gay fetuses.  They don't really care about "protecting" religion or guns, either.  They're much smarter people than they let on.

All of their social issues are manufactured to get the unwashed masses to pull the lever for their candidates.

Quote from: RV on November 05, 2008, 02:43:05 PM

Hold on a second, Thrill. Are you telling IAN that the information he receives via chain e-mails may not be based on actual facts? Typical librul GOTCHA accusation.

Oh, crap!  Now how am I going to add 4+ inches in 30 days?

QuoteOn the other hand, we're demonizing a guy because he's religious?  Really?

No, we're demonizing a guy because you have to be pretty damned stupid to be one step removed from burning witches.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:30:23 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:20:25 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM

Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
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

If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?

When did Obama write an article in the New Oxford Review about hating white folks?

From Dreams from My Father:

"That hate hadn't gone away"...."white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out, many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs. . . It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names"

"I found solice in nursing a pervasive sense of grievancee and animosity against my mother's race"

But, that's no New Oxford Review.  And, I guess these comments are just fine and dandy.

Holy fucking fail.

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 02:16:33 PM

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM

Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
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

If we're grabbing at straws, why does Barack Obama hate white people?

When did Obama write an article in the New Oxford Review about hating white folks?

Quote from: *In a Nutsack on November 05, 2008, 02:06:30 PM

Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:56:41 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:54:29 PM

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
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

Quote from: BC on November 05, 2008, 01:46:56 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
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.

Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:37:39 AM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 11:34:15 AM

Quote from: 5laky on November 05, 2008, 11:31:08 AM
The communists didn't succeed all over the country, though. Prop 8 passed.

I'm pretty disappointed.

Yeah, that dampens the Obama win a little bit.  Really disappointing.  I just can't believe that many people care what two people want to do in their own life, away from everyone else.  Especially if it makes them happy.

Read this.

It doesn't make me feel any better - in fact much, much worse.

I'm greeted by a picture of a man who is celebrating this win like it's the World Series. I'm then told two people having these rights will compromise my nuclear family and many others. I'm then told that kids might learn about gay people in school.

I'm waiting for something that makes sense on voting yes and I haven't seen it yet.

That picture is downright bizarre.

Epic Fail Alert

Barackula Saddam Hussein Muhammed Ihatewhitey Obama: "We can't solve global warming because I fucking changed light bulbs in my house."

Crickets.

Did Darryl touch you?

I still haven't gotten around to seeing an episode of the U.S. version, but the wife and I have watched about half of season one of the Limey version.

I positive this show.