Conservatives say stupid shit

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Don't be silly. Unborn life is sacred; the instant you're out of your mother's womb, you're on your own.

Well, just to be fair: the darker the fetus is, the more likely the GOP will be to find a sad-but-excusable reason to permit the abortion.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by maddog

No, that can't be right ... how would he talk?

#2874

With his mouth full. Very bad manners, that.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pregnancy from legitimate rape hardly ever happens, but when it does it's because God wanted it too.

What's so hard to understand?

It's like it's a miracle, or something.

[Vivisectus]

Good point. When someone is saved from death by a string of very unlikely circumstances, they call it a miracle. But if someone is harmed in a similar set of circumstances (The woman was going to go on a long holiday to Venezuela, but just as she was about to drive in to the airport, her little plastic bobble-head jesus fell into her lap, distracting her and causing her to hit the curb and pop a tire... just when the serial rapist was cruising for a victim in that very spot!) they never do.

Just because it is bloody awful does not make it any less miraculous!

[BrotherMan]

The Daily Show said something very succinct about the issue (not just this congressman, but about the GOP's platform):

Babies:
IVF? Can't.
Rape? Must.

[ImGod]

You can't make up this sort of .

Former FEMA head Michael Brown criticizes Obama for responding too quickly to hurricane Sandy

[Ensign Steve]

Brown suggested Obama was just trying to look good.

Yeah, some assholes will stop at nothing to make themselves look good! Doing their fucking job, preparing for the inevitable, caring about other humans, all kinds of sociopathic shit. But not Brownie! He's too cool to care about looking good.

[LadyShea]

LOL, the olds are gonna cockpunch these assholes
A Moving Message About The Election From A 97 Year Old And Her Friends | MoveOn.Org

[AynMisesLibertarian]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, the olds are gonna cockpunch these assholes
A Moving Message About The Election From A 97 Year Old And Her Friends | MoveOn.Org

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I CAN NOT STOP LAUGHTING

READ THE COMMENT.........liberal

Why are you here wasting your time trolls? What will become of you when Obama wins? Will you suffer while the rest of us prosper? Our country is nearly back on track and no sane person wants to go back to trickle down with even less of a safety net. And why would any sane person want you involved in what kind of medical procedures women can have? You don't want to use birth control because of your religion you don't want any one else to ignore your religion and make their own decisions. Get lost.

71 THUMBS UP

now enter the libertarian

1. " Why are you here wasting your time trolls?" Answer - Just a man in search of truth, an intelligent conversation and having a little fun.
2. " What will become of you when Obama wins?" - Answer - Not only do I not see this happening. I see Romney winning by a much larger margin than is expected.
3. " Will you suffer while the rest of us prosper?" - Answer - Unfortunately we will all suffer if Obama wins. While it may look promising at first.....time WILL reveal the truth about Obama. Deceitfulness never lasts. The truth will come out and the tide will turn (I just believe this will happen sooner than later).
4. "And why would any sane person want you involved in what kind of medical procedures women can have?" Answer - They wouldn't. Never brought this up. You did.
5. " You don't want to use birth control because of your religion you don't want anyone else to ignore your religion and make their own decisions"" Answer - Birth control is not a problem. Had a vasectomy a long time ago. I'm Presbyterian and believe everyone should take responsibility for their actions.
6. "Get lost" - Answer - I guess that was more of a suggestion than a question. So.....a little intellectual discourse makes you uncomfortable? Good! Most things worthwhile and constructive do result in some discomfort. Birth, a job, exercise, reconstruction, puberty all require some discomfort to get through. However, we all make it and I choose to believe come out better as a result of our struggles.

102 FUCKING THUMBS UP IN THE THINK TANK CREATED BY SOROS

HE WON AWAY BY A LOOPSIDE

[livius drusus]

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by AynMisesLibertarian

HE WON AWAY BY A LOOPSIDE

ENVY KICKEN

[Ari]

If Romney wins it will frankly show a giant flaw with the system. The GOP has clearly shown they hate women and want to control them. Women make up half the population. If a candidate and their party can be actively working against half the population and still get elected, something is wrong.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Ari

If Romney wins it will frankly show a giant flaw with the system. The GOP has clearly shown they hate women and want to control them. Women make up half the population. If a candidate and their party can be actively working against half the population and still get elected, something is wrong.

Let's not forget, either, that he regards 47% of the country as worthless parasites.

[Watser?]

Although some of those 47% are already women, so they are prolly double worthless parasites or something.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Ari

If Romney wins it will frankly show a giant flaw with the system. The GOP has clearly shown they hate women and want to control them. Women make up half the population. If a candidate and their party can be actively working against half the population and still get elected, something is wrong.

Not just half the population, alas.

In addition to the female half of the population, the Republican Party has made it abundantly clear that they're not just indifferent to -- but actually hostile toward -- the interests of anyone who's not wealthy. And they're scarcely even bothering to pretend otherwise anymore. Heck, some of them are all but parading their disdain for the poor and working-class members of our society as a badge of honor.

Ironically, this means that the Republican Party is actively working to make life harder for many of its most ardent supporters.

[ImGod]

It's odd. My In-laws were down this weekend and they were complaining about Obama and debt and how they were voting for Romney to save America.

But

They are retired, collecting SS, on Medicare, and making up the difference with a teacher's pension that my Mother-in-law helped negotiate as part of the Teacher's Negotiation Group. I guess they couldn't bring themselves to be called a Union.

I seriously don't get it.

They are sucking the government teet along with my Sister in law and her husband who can't afford shit, has their kids in Medicad, use free school lunches, etc.

It has to be because the guy is black. Has to be.

I told them the Republicans have convinced me SS, medicad and medicare will not be there for me and I'll vote for anyone who will end the programs immediately so I no longer have to pay into a system I'll never use. They didn't like that for some reason.

[LadyShea]

I had a similar experience this weekend, ImGod. I heard how the government has to get a handle on these business monopolies and corporate corruption, how the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, and how the middle class needs more support for their families....BUT Obamacare sucks because it's "too long" and too many brown people are on "welfare" (while 4 family members receive benefits including disability, maternity medicaid, and medicare). Romney is being voted for because he is white. That's the bottom line.

I told them the Republicans have convinced me SS, medicad and medicare will not be there for me and I'll vote for anyone who will end the programs immediately so I no longer have to pay into a system I'll never use.

Oh man, I should have thought about using that.

[The Lone Ranger]

Listening to the news this morning about the devastation wrought by Sandy, I'm reminded somehow of the hypocrisy of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

After he spent a lot of time talking about how the only "legitmate" function of the Federal Government is national defense, and how pretty-much everything else it does -- including disaster-relief services -- should be privatized, he turned around and complained that the Feds didn't send enough money to help deal with the effects of Tropical Storm Isaac, and publicly demanded that the Feds "provide for reimbursement of expenses that the state is taking to prepare for the storm."

He made his initial complaint about the supposedly inadequate response of the Federal Government before the storm even hit.

Originally Posted by Bobby Jindal

While Tropical Storm Isaac has yet to strike the state, it has necessitated significant amounts of State and local government expenditures. The State's expenditures for emergency protective measures are already approximately $8,000,000 and exceed the State of Louisiana's threshold when making a request for a major disaster declaration.

Given the extraordinary developments of this storm and its approaching impact on the State of Louisiana, I ask that you exercise your discretion to approve the State's pending request for all emergency protective measures. Further, I ask that you consider a cost-share adjustment to eliminate the State's non-federal share of the costs for this event. When threatened with extraordinary disasters, states depend upon the availability of the full spectrum of assistance available under the Stafford Act.

Finally, a core responsibility of the federal government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens when threatened. This disaster declaration will help ensure that we best protect life and property in our state.

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Ari

If Romney wins it will frankly show a giant flaw with the system. The GOP has clearly shown they hate women and want to control them. Women make up half the population. If a candidate and their party can be actively working against half the population and still get elected, something is wrong.

The "flaw in the system" would seem to be the population at large. We collectively vote these sociopathic liars into office, and we do it again when we know just how shitty they're going to be (W's second term).

It's not like politicians and their ways are a new thing. It's the same old bullshit tactics.

We could perhaps be forgiven for electing Obama. It's rare that a politician does the exact opposite on everything of what they said to get into office. Plus what choice did we have? Think McCain/Palin would have been better?

We almost deserve the ass-blasting we get for being the fucking brain dead sheep we are. We have a memory like someone afflicted with Alzheimer's.

[The Man]

It's easy to blame the populace for the people they elect, but the fact is that most politicians get in with less than 35% of the populace's vote. The majority of the American public do not want the losers who get in, as evidenced by the fact that they either stay home or vote for someone else. The actual problem here is a system that effectively amounts to organised bribery.

Something like 95%, I think, of the time an election is won by the candidate who is able to raise the most money. (I haven't kept up with the statistic in recent years but it was certainly true before the 2010 election, and I wouldn't imagine that election changed it in the slightest). By and large this means that 95% of the time the most business-friendly candidate wins, because it's next to impossible to win an election without business. And if you don't think this means that business is going to expect favours from the politicians in return, I have a relative in Nigeria who needs your financial help so she can claim her inheritance. It's also worth noting that this system heavily favours incumbents. Even the freaking Soviet Union had a higher turnover of elected officials than we do. (People are always shocked when I tell them the Soviet Union had elections, but it's true; they just didn't elect the people at the top of the government).

What's the solution? Certainly not term limits. Politicians would just go into lucrative careers in the private sector in return for favours they enacted as politicians. The solution is to end the system of bribery. There are several things to do to prevent this. One is to lock out the two-party system. First-past-the-post, bloc voting guarantees a two-party system. There's even a name for it in political science: Duverger's law. People fear the spoiler effect, so they are unwilling to vote their conscience. The result of this is that, even with only about 35% of the populace voting for a given victorious candidate, a lot of those people don't even think that person is the best candidate; they are simply voting for a lizard, as Douglas Adams put it, so the wrong lizard doesn't get in.*

The answer to this is to replace FPTP with either range voting or instant-runoff voting. Either of these are much more friendly to third parties. Also, while it is mathematically difficult to combine a representative system with proportional representation, it is not entirely impossible. Simply send parties in proportion to the number of votes they get, based on where they received the largest percentage of their votes.

Beyond that, of course, you need to end the system of legalised bribery. Limit campaign finance spending to $1,000,000 per presidential candidate, total, and much less for Senate and Congressional candidates. Alternatively, disallow private donations to politicians altogether and force public funding for anyone able to poll over a very small percentage of support (1% or even less, I'd say).

Beyond that, I'd also limit the campaign season to two months. One month for primaries, one month for the general election. That's all you get to make your case to the public. We are the only democracy that wastes this much of our politicians' terms in office with their re-election campaigns. They actually start lobbying for financial support for their re-elections almost the day they take office. It's ridiculous and an absurd waste of resources.

Oh and it's probably worth getting rid of the electoral college as well, or at least replacing it with something that doesn't make your vote mathematically irrelevant if you live in 80% of the states. It effectively means that people living in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and a small handful of other states get much more attention from politicians than people living in the rest of the country.


*There is also a good YouTube explanation of the problem here:

The Problems with First-Past-the-Post Voting...

[erimir]

We?

Anyway, I think various isms have a lot to do with the state of things in the US.

If there was no racism in the US, no sexism, no xenophobia, no homophobia, no sectarianism, etc. it's hard to see the right-wing having nearly as much power. Without those, it's a lot harder to divide and conquer.

[Stephen Maturin]

World Net Daily, birferism profiteer and paragon of journalistic integrity, advises that Obama and the Democrats are violating the Constitution by having Inauguration Day on January 21 instead of the January 20 date mandated by the Twentieth Amendment. This has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE other than the six previous times on which the specified date fell on a Sunday.

However, the reason for changing the date this time around lies in the fact that 1/21 is Martin Luther King Day. Thus, if Romney wins, the jungle blood of those out-of-control coloreds will commence to boilin' and there will be riots. That, of course, is exactly what Obama and the Democrats are after.

True story.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by erimir

We?

Anyway, I think various isms have a lot to do with the state of things in the US.

If there was no racism in the US, no sexism, no xenophobia, no homophobia, no sectarianism, etc. it's hard to see the right-wing having nearly as much power. Without those, it's a lot harder to divide and conquer.

[Ensign Steve]

I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

[Kashmir]

A couple of ideas I've had related to increasing politicians' honesty:


First idea:

Treat the position more like employment. They are, after all, supposed to be public servants. We hire them for the job of representing our interests, because when this republic got started direct democracy wasn't tenable. Thanks to the internet it's conceivable that direct democracies could happen on the scale of a nation-state, but also thanks to the internet we can see what a disaster it would be. We need brighter-than-average people making the important decisions.

Can't employers sue employees for breach of contract? When politicians don't conduct themselves fairly closely to how they presented themselves to get elected (the job interview, if you will), they're open to being sued for fraud. Fraud? Yes, fraud. We're paying them lots of money to do a job they're not doing like they said they would. Politicians should be like contracted workers.

Second idea:

Random grilling while strapped to a polygraph machine. They're not perfect, but they're very, very good, and they're getting better all the time.

Some possible questions:

Are you taking bribes under the table to vote a certain way?

Do you think poor people are just as good as rich people?

Do you have a conscience?

Hypothetically, would you murder someone for ____ if it was certain you wouldn't pay for your crime?