·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Not Obstructionist At All!
Not Obstructionist At All!Follow
Always good to see the education level of our esteemed history teachers. 
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
It's only your opinion that they're bogus. They're well within their right to present their argument.
No, the critter said he'd do it just to hinder the administration. That's pretty much the definition of bogus
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
It's the seriousness of the allegation not the sincerity of the messenger that counts right?
It's the seriousness of the allegation not the sincerity of the messenger that counts right?
It's having an actual allegation in the first place
varusword75 wrote:
Elinda,
It's only your opinion that they're bogus. They're well within their right to present their argument.
It's only your opinion that they're bogus. They're well within their right to present their argument.
Lol, apparently they've not been convincing enough with the argument they've presented. So now they have to go outside the rules of the game to 'obstruct' the process. Frickin cheaters. Why do you support cheaters Varus?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I double-posted.
...I've made my wish.
Edited, Aug 11th 2011 6:35pm by Elinda
...I've made my wish.
Edited, Aug 11th 2011 6:35pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
Why don't you educate yourself on why 30seals were sent into a hot zone with a slow outdated helicopter when newer faster ones were available.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
While we wait for you to come up with a conspiracy theory on that, the answer was "all of them."
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
Not seals you moron. Maybe the rank and file but not the elite of the elite. Do you know how much it costs the govn to train seals?
ITT: Varus is fine with sending under-equipped soldiers into hot zones because they cost less.
Jesus man, I know you have a pathological need to support Republican military decisions, but that's pretty messed up.
Edited, Aug 11th 2011 1:08pm by LockeColeMA
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
Not seals you moron.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
The answer was "M4a1 Carbine and IOTV," if you're furiously googling for it.
Edited, Aug 11th 2011 1:53pm by lolgaxe
Edited, Aug 11th 2011 1:53pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
They're not quite as blatantly insane as the wingers have been lately, but they're all gaming the system.
Yes, you saw a video. Gratz.
So you did watch it?
The point stands. What's the point of continuing to argue about this, while the country falls apart around us? Why not start taking to task the actual problems?
That would involve work.
varusword75 wrote:
Kachi,
Well you're an idiot. And one can expect nothing less than idiotic statements from such as you.
Quote:
. I don't think that there can never be too many taxes
Well you're an idiot. And one can expect nothing less than idiotic statements from such as you.
Are you at least smart enough to understand why that doesn't have even the least little bit of sting coming from you?
ElneClare wrote:
I just feel it very funny that gbaji automatically assumes I meant only Democrat when I mention voter education.The LWV always has gone out of it's way to educate voters about all sides of issues.
Huh? This is the exact exchange, with my response:
gbaji wrote:
ElneClare wrote:
First you need to educate the Voters and make sure they can get to the polls. This is something supported by people who tend to be Liberals, while conservatives will actively work against groups that seek to educate voters (ACORN), that oppose their campaign rhetoric of how they will make America great again, while opposing social programs that benefit the poor.
The problem is that voter "education" is often really voter "indoctrination". When your education consists of "Vote Democrat or <insert some scary thing here> will happen to you!", you're not really educating people, are you? You're just scaring them into voting the way you want. And when you take federal dollars conveniently handed to you by the very party you're "educating" people to vote for, I'd call that corruption.
You spoke of voter education. Then you said that this is something supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives, using ACORN as an example. And you think it's funny that I assume you meant only Democrat (I assume you mean "education which favors Democrats") when you mention voter education? It should be reasonably apparent that if a given example of voter education is supported by one ideology and opposed by another that said example is likely not so much about educating voters as it is about influencing voters. That's *why* the other "side" opposes it.
Your comments about the league of women's voters also mentioned that conservatives haven't opposed it. Didn't it occur to you that this might be because it's *not* as blatantly about influence as groups like ACORN? Conservatives are not opposed to "voter education". We're opposed to voter indoctrination, doubly so when public funds are involved. And IMO there's nothing wrong with that at all.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't think that obstructing a harmful agenda is a bad idea.
And I have a right to it, don't I? What's the alternative? You get to decide what is actually harmful and what isn't and make it illegal to oppose things you don't think are harmful? That seems a bit overboard, right? So how about accepting that it's perfectly legitimate for those who oppose given political actions to... well... oppose them.
Quote:
The president is our elected leader. You don't see any problem with another law-maker making bogus impeachment attempts to, admittedly, hinder our governmental process?
Did he make an "impeachment attempt"? I thought that what happened was a random person in a crowd asked him about whether or not it would slow down the Obama agenda if we impeached him, and the congressman said "yeah, it would tie up his agenda" (or something like that). Get back to me when he files articles of impeachment and calls for a vote or something. Absent that, this is just him answering a question, not some broad statement of intent.
Quote:
That's pretty cheesy, even for politicians.
What was he supposed to do? Fall over himself insisting to one of his constituents that it would be wrong to impeach the president because there isn't sufficient cause and it would be inappropriate to do so just to slow down his agenda? Or should he just kinda go with the question, get some laughs from the crowd, and move on? This is only even a deal at all because there's a liberal movement out there that apparently does nothing at all but scan every blog, news story, and event to try to find something which can be twisted around in a negative way against Republicans and/or Conservatives.
It's literally much ado about nothing.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
indoctrination
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
indoctrination
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Did Gibaji learn to be more concise or did they implement a character limit on posts in the last year and a half that I have been gone?
Recent Visitors: 460
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (460)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Not Obstructionist At All!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC