Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Congratulations to Obama and his supportersFollow

#127 Nov 08 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,182 posts
^ Case in point.
____________________________
- No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
#128 Nov 08 2012 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
allenjj wrote:
I love how everyone is able to imply that all Republicans want to take away women's rights, deport everyone who isn't blond, wage endless war, etc.


Universal statements are always wrong. Smiley: clown

It isn't that all that all Republicans are nutty, it's about how do you keep the nutty ones from scaring away swing voters. I'm sure you can put ultra-evangelicals and gun nuts in the same category as environmental doomsday prophets, socialists, etc.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#129 Nov 08 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,182 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
allenjj wrote:
I love how everyone is able to imply that all Republicans want to take away women's rights, deport everyone who isn't blond, wage endless war, etc.


Universal statements are always wrong. Smiley: clown

It isn't that all that all Republicans are nutty, it's about how do you keep the nutty ones from scaring away swing voters. I'm sure you can put ultra-evangelicals and gun nuts in the same category as environmental doomsday prophets, socialists, etc.


I couldn't agree more. The majority of both parties is moderate; if they weren't, we would have had a second Civil War by now. The problems exacerbate when the extreme edges of both parties gain so much publicity that moderate members of the parties start to think that's how they should act.
____________________________
- No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
#130 Nov 08 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I think the point people are trying to make is that the image of the GOP is rules by the super (socially) conservative, religious, white crowd. The image of the left is generally as a more diverse group. They've done a much better job of keeping the crazy from being what people see.

Of course, they've had help. The most extreme radicals on the left quite often stop identifying as democrats entirely. Occupy, for instance, isn't all that radical a movement, and its only been loosely linked to the Democratic Party at all.

nd I imagine part of that is that once you identify as a socialist, you arent going to be happy with the Democrats. Because they're really not any less capitalistic than the right, they just think what is necessary for a happy and healthy capitalistic market/ population is different.

That doesn't happen with the GOP. They get the Tea Party.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#131 Nov 08 2012 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
allenjj wrote:
I love how everyone is able to imply that all Republicans want to take away women's rights, deport everyone who isn't blond, wage endless war, etc. Believe it or not, there are smart, articulate, passionate, caring people on both sides of the aisle.

The problem isn't "all" Republicans. The problem is when you elect Republicans to a national stage whose best immigration idea is "Make them so miserable, they flee the country", who say "The scary black man is taking away work requirements for welfare", who say we don't need abortion because women don't get pregnant from legitimate rape and, besides, with today's medicine there's never a time her life would be in danger from a pregnancy. Republicans who call for anti-Muslim witch hunts and congressional investigations into how dangerous Muslims are. Republicans who cheer and laugh when prominent radio hosts call a woman a **** and a ***** for testifying about contraception. Republicans who fight tooth and nail to stop same *** marriage.

And not just those people but also the people in the party who fight for them, nominate them to represent them, put them into office and defend their actions. You don't need "all" Republicans to make the party look bad but it's not just some tiny lunatic fringe that elects these people in a primary and again in a general election knowing full well what they represent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Nov 08 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Joph's all fired up.
#133 Nov 08 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah! Let's have another one of them there election thingies!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Nov 08 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,182 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Republicans who cheer and laugh when prominent radio hosts call a woman a **** and a ***** for testifying about contraception.


If Republicans have to claim Rush, you have to claim Bill Maher.
____________________________
- No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
#135 Nov 08 2012 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
If Republicans have to claim Rush, you have to claim Bill Maher.

Bill Maher is a comedian.
John Stewart s a comedian.
Rush Limbauh is an opinion leader in the GOP, and taken quite seriously by a large majority of GOP voters.

See the difference?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#136 Nov 08 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
It's more like Bill Maher and Dennis Miller. Coincidentally, neither very good comedians.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#137 Nov 08 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Dammit, now I want to see the infamous Hitler meltdown scene subtitled to Romney losing the election.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#138 Nov 08 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW3bLs5ortQ
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#139 Nov 08 2012 at 9:55 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,182 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If Republicans have to claim Rush, you have to claim Bill Maher.

Bill Maher is a comedian.
John Stewart s a comedian.
Rush Limbauh is an opinion leader in the GOP, and taken quite seriously by a large majority of GOP voters.

See the difference?


So everything Rush Limbaugh (who I can honestly say I've never listened to) says must be automatically synonymous with the Republican party? This would be a direct reference to my earlier comment about extreme fringes of the party not defining the party.

In all fairness I'm less Republican as I am Independent, but defining an entire party based on the statements of one person (even the President), or implying that every member of a party follows rank-and-file behind the statements of the extreme fringe is disingenuous at best.
____________________________
- No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
#140 Nov 08 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts



YES
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#141 Nov 08 2012 at 10:09 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
So everything Rush Limbaugh (who I can honestly say I've never listened to) says must be automatically synonymous with the Republican party?

Must be? Of course not. Happens to be? Yes.

This would be a direct reference to my earlier comment about extreme fringes of the party not defining the party.

Limbaugh isn't the fringe, though. He's the mainstream of the Republican Party. There really isn't an equivalent on the Left, because there's much more of a fragmented coalition. Not everyone who thinks *** people should be able to marry is also an atheist. Not everyone who thinks social safety nets are a good idea is also an advocate for ending the war in Afghanistan. It's far rarer for 2nd amendment advocates to be pro choice, etc.

In all fairness I'm less Republican as I am Independent, but defining an entire party based on the statements of one person (even the President), or implying that every member of a party follows rank-and-file behind the statements of the extreme fringe is disingenuous at best.

In that abstract that's probably true. In the case of Limbaugh, he's part of an established media wing of the Republic Party. He parrots talking points that become part of the party platform. Does he create them? I have no idea. Doesn't seem particularly relevant. Obviously he doesn't own the Republican Party (the Koch family owns the Republican Party).

As for the "I'm an independent" ********* I'm sure it sounds intelligent to you and gives you a warm feeling of self reliance, but it makes you a fucking fool in a two party system. There are valid reasons to support either party given your political philosophy or social views. There is no valid reason to not be sure which one appeals to you.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#142 Nov 08 2012 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
allenjj wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
If Republicans have to claim Rush, you have to claim Bill Maher.

Bill Maher is a comedian.
John Stewart s a comedian.
Rush Limbauh is an opinion leader in the GOP, and taken quite seriously by a large majority of GOP voters.

See the difference?


So everything Rush Limbaugh (who I can honestly say I've never listened to) says must be automatically synonymous with the Republican party? This would be a direct reference to my earlier comment about extreme fringes of the party not defining the party.

In all fairness I'm less Republican as I am Independent, but defining an entire party based on the statements of one person (even the President), or implying that every member of a party follows rank-and-file behind the statements of the extreme fringe is disingenuous at best.


What is with you assuming everything we say about the party is meant to be applicable to every member of said party? They aren't, because we aren't idiots who believe in the division fallacy.

The GOP definitely has key opinions, many of most of wish Rush Limbaugh purports. That obviously doesn't mean it's true of every member of the GOP. But because they all organize under that banner and actively support the institution pushing for those causes, it ends up being much the same. Republicans who don't support the apparent majority feeling of the GOP aren't doing much to change it, because the GOP keeps offering up essentially the same candidates over and over and over again.

So either the majority of Republicans support them, or they're ******* idiots.

And because they are actively supporting the institution of the GOP, even if they don't personally agree with all its stances, they remain blameworthy for all those stances.

I voted for Obama. I don't agree with all his positions. But I knowingly supported his bid for presidency aware that he would be doing things I don't agree with. I don't get to just cherry pick responsibility. I helped put him in office, for good and for bad.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#143 Nov 08 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
***
1,182 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
As for the "I'm an independent" bullsh*t, I'm sure it sounds intelligent to you and gives you a warm feeling of self reliance, but it makes you a fucking fool in a two party system. There are valid reasons to support either party given your political philosophy or social views. There is no valid reason to not be sure which one appeals to you.


It's foolish to see merits and flaws in both parties? It's not that I am unsure as to which party appeals to my political philosophy and social views, it's that I'm willing to accept that neither party absolutely personifies my beliefs.

I vote for whichever candidate will push the issues I believe are important. For example, I support Obama's plan to draw down military spending after the withdrawl from Afghanistan in 2014. I also support Romney's desire to increase and strengthen relations with Israel. Although I support both candidates for those individual ideas, I based my vote on which candidate would push the issues I assess to be most important to America's future success.

Blindly following a party line regardless of policy is foolish.
____________________________
- No animals were harmed in the making of this post.
#144 Nov 08 2012 at 10:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
It's foolish to see merits and flaws in both parties? It's not that I am unsure as to which party appeals to my political philosophy and social views, it's that I'm willing to accept that neither party absolutely personifies my beliefs.

Tell us your beliefs. Perhaps you are that magical special snowflake who can't find a home.


I vote for whichever candidate will push the issues I believe are important. For example, I support Obama's plan to draw down military spending after the withdrawl from Afghanistan in 2014.


This one's easy: That's a lie. There won't be a draw down in military spending.


I also support Romney's desire to increase and strengthen relations with Israel.

Also easy, also a lie. There is no way to "strengthen" relations with Israel. Why it would seem like a good idea to do so is equally mystifying.


Although I support both candidates for those individual ideas, I based my vote on which candidate would push the issues I assess to be most important to America's future success.


Just state what you think that is. It's not so hard.

I believe:

Government's job is to provide safety nets for it's citizens to provide basic human needs when misfortune or bad judgement would otherwise put them at risk. These needs include food, housing, health care, education, infrastructure etc.

Done.

Rational conservatives believe:

Government lacks the ability to provide these things efficiently and it's attempts to do so hamper free market actions that would more efficiently provide similar services, reducing waste and increasing the standard of living for all.

I disagree, but it's simple to state the position.

Pick one.


Blindly following a party line regardless of policy is foolish.


Wrong. It's wise. Structural power in this country resides in the individual parties. When you vote for someone who puts the D or the R before his or her name on the ballot, you're voting for the *structure*, not the individual. Why do you think party leadership exists? Mr. Smith isn't running in your district, trust me on this.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#145 Nov 08 2012 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
The ruling American belief that the executive branch of our government rules it seriously disturbs me, and is proof that we REALLY need to increase civics in our schools.

End of the day, president doesn't have much power. Unless you can actually get a third party in the seat, you ARE voting for that party. How often do you see a president vetoing bills supported by their party's side? Almost never.

Now, if we had a larger independent representation in the government, this would be a different story. As it stands, all you're really doing is picking which party gets a stronger position in Washington.

Also, how much stronger can our ties with Israel even get? Making them a state?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#146 Nov 08 2012 at 11:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
allenjj wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Republicans who cheer and laugh when prominent radio hosts call a woman a **** and a ***** for testifying about contraception.
If Republicans have to claim Rush, you have to claim Bill Maher.

If trying to play tit-for-tat is your defense, you've already completely missed the point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 Nov 09 2012 at 1:36 AM Rating: Excellent
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And I imagine part of that is that once you identify as a socialist, you arent going to be happy with the Democrats. Because they're really not any less capitalistic than the right, they just think what is necessary for a happy and healthy capitalistic market/ population is different.


As someone who identifies as socialist, I'm not what I would call "happy" with the Democrats. They're not nearly liberal enough for me, and it amuses me when I tell conservative friends of mine this, and watch their eyes pop out of their head. But, what other choice do I have? None. I'm a registered Democrat, because my state has closed primaries, and I do my best to vote in people who are more left leaning. I laugh when people talk about how our country is turning into Socialist France. Seriously, I wish.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 100 Priest
Thelesis, 91 Mage
Necralita, 90 DK
Digits, 87 Shaman
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#148 Nov 09 2012 at 6:53 AM Rating: Default
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,160 posts
"Government's job is to provide safety nets for it's citizens to provide basic human needs when misfortune or bad judgement would otherwise put them at risk. These needs include food, housing, health care, education, infrastructure etc." --Smasharoo

I have no problem with this-- up to a point. When misfortune is the result of determined and intentional bad judgement and bad judgement is no longer an isolated occurance, but a willful lifestyle, then no, government's role is not to step in, but to allow nature to take its' course.

As John Smith so famously said (based from 2 Thes 3:10), "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Everyone needs a hand (or handout) once in a while. However, as his quote implies, even in dire circumstances, such as famine in the face of a struggling colony, there were thouse who either thought themselves too good to labor or were too lazy to join in the group effort towards success.

And so it is with today's welfare recipients. There should be three choices after a reasonable amount of time: you should either become gainfully employed, do community service work to pay your debt to society, or go off the dole.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#149 Nov 09 2012 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Totem wrote:
"Government's job is to provide safety nets for it's citizens to provide basic human needs when misfortune or bad judgement would otherwise put them at risk. These needs include food, housing, health care, education, infrastructure etc." --Smasharoo

I have no problem with this-- up to a point. When misfortune is the result of determined and intentional bad judgement and bad judgement is no longer an isolated occurance, but a willful lifestyle, then no, government's role is not to step in, but to allow nature to take its' course.

As John Smith so famously said (based from 2 Thes 3:10), "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Everyone needs a hand (or handout) once in a while. However, as his quote implies, even in dire circumstances, such as famine in the face of a struggling colony, there were thouse who either thought themselves too good to labor or were too lazy to join in the group effort towards success.

And so it is with today's welfare recipients. There should be three choices after a reasonable amount of time: you should either become gainfully employed, do community service work to pay your debt to society, or go off the dole.

Totem

It would be nice if our societal choices could be boiled down to three options. Unfortunately things have gotten a bit more complicated.

The reality is, there will be peoples and families that are always dependent on the system - in fact, we all are to some extent. Fortunately our country is advanced enough and our humanity evolved to the point where we will never have to knowingly allow someone to simply starve on the street - regardless of how lazy you think they are. However, simply because someone is on food stamps indefinitely or is being treated for a chronic illness that is paid for by medicaid, doesn't mean they're not contributing to society. Nor can you even factually state that any particular indigent person is costing the federal government more to support that it pays to support you or I (gainfully employed peoples).

Further our welfare system has steadily moved towards one in which the goal is self-sufficiency. Note how welfare is called Temporary Aid for Needy Families now versus Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Healthcare (medicaid/medicare) is the money sink now. A single-payer system or socialized medicine would go a long way in reducing the amount of money we pay via our federal/state taxes, in our workplace premiums, and straight out our pockets.

edit - When will be the new signature unveiling ceremony?



Edited, Nov 9th 2012 3:59pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#150 Nov 09 2012 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Totem wrote:
"Government's job is to provide safety nets for it's citizens to provide basic human needs when misfortune or bad judgement would otherwise put them at risk. These needs include food, housing, health care, education, infrastructure etc." --Smasharoo

I have no problem with this-- up to a point. When misfortune is the result of determined and intentional bad judgement and bad judgement is no longer an isolated occurance, but a willful lifestyle, then no, government's role is not to step in, but to allow nature to take its' course.

As John Smith so famously said (based from 2 Thes 3:10), "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Everyone needs a hand (or handout) once in a while. However, as his quote implies, even in dire circumstances, such as famine in the face of a struggling colony, there were thouse who either thought themselves too good to labor or were too lazy to join in the group effort towards success.

And so it is with today's welfare recipients. There should be three choices after a reasonable amount of time: you should either become gainfully employed, do community service work to pay your debt to society, or go off the dole.

Totem


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#151 Nov 09 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Deuteronomy 22:11 wrote:
You shall not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 77 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (77)