Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

*** marriages for everyone! Follow

#27 Feb 13 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Nilatai wrote:
However, this isn't America.
That's irrelevant, what happens in his little bubble is the truth in the entire world.

Frog, well, etc etc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Feb 13 2013 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
Nilatai wrote:
However, this isn't America.


Yet...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#29 Feb 13 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
However, this isn't America.


Yet...

Smiley: sly

Give it 40 years and everywhere will be China anyway.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#30 Feb 13 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
I see them more as the sit at home and demand tribute type. War is expensive, and then you have to manage your new territories. Better return on investment if you just loan your enemies money. Let them deal with all the problems of governing themselves while you sit around cashing checks all day.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Feb 13 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Yeah I think that's where the Empire fell down. Rebranding was the best idea we ever had. I mean, everyone knows "Commonwealth" is just a PC term for Empire, right? Smiley: tongue
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#32 Feb 13 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
Kinda suspected as much. Surprised you didn't demand more tribute though, but it still must be nice they spend a lot of time telling you you're awesome and all. Smart move dumping India and the mideast when you did though; those places seem like nothing but trouble. Don't know why we bought them from you... Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Feb 13 2013 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Yeah they were more trouble than they're worth. Still kind of sore about giving Hong Kong back, though!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#34 Feb 14 2013 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sort of back to the OP, the Illinois state senate is expected to pass a SSM bill today and send it to the governor's desk who has already committed to signing it. Happy Valentine's Day, homosexuals!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Feb 14 2013 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Guess they better hope they have enough ammo to get it to the desk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Feb 14 2013 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Ha ha, Gbaji's an idiot" jokes aside, the last two elections have been losses for the state GOP even while they grabbed majorities in all sorts of other states. At this point, the state Democratic party has supermajorities in both Assembly chambers and the governor's seat. I dunno how the state GOP can be so God awful at winning elections but it's good for the state same-*** community I suppose.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Feb 14 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
I still contend it's strategy to set themselves up better for the next election cycle. Lose a fight win a war sort of deal.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Feb 14 2013 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I contend it's because they're idiots and most of the GOP-held state legislature seats are held by Tea Party numbskulls which makes the bench for state executive seats (governor, attorney general, treasurer, etc) extremely sparse for general elections. I'm still a bit surprised the Democratic governor managed to win a second term but that's what happens when your opponent is a far-righty in a left-leaning state.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Feb 14 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Good job, I'll Annoy. Beating Wisconsin to the punch yet again....reminds me of a song from my youth...


Oh you say you don't like Illinois, try to keep us where we are
But we're really such a friendly state, so we hop into our car
And we drive across the border, pick up women big and heavy
And see those men with big foreheads like bumpers on a Chevy.

Hey there polka boy, go home and suck a beer!
Ho there bratwurst-head, go drive your old John Deere
Ya Hey Keep your women away, their smell will make us cry I I.
Hey there, ho there, ya hey hey stay in Milwaukee and DIE
____________________________
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.

#40 Feb 14 2013 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: clap
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Feb 14 2013 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
RI is trying to push a SSM bill through the Senate, but who knows how that'll turn out. We're the only state in New England to not allow SSM, though we do recognize marriages performed out-of-state, and you can just go to MA to get married. Honestly, it's stupid to not pass it, especially for a state that, as one friend pointed out, most people forget even exists.
____________________________
Banh
#42 Feb 14 2013 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Honestly, it's stupid to not pass it, especially for a state that, as one friend pointed out, most people forget even exists.

Our friend lives in Providence. We went to visit and they lit the river on fire. Hannah cried and said "let us never return to this godforsaken place" We all agreed.
____________________________
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.

#43 Feb 14 2013 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Honestly, it's stupid to not pass it, especially for a state that, as one friend pointed out, most people forget even exists.

Our friend lives in Providence. We went to visit and they lit the river on fire. Hannah cried and said "let us never return to this godforsaken place" We all agreed.
Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#44 Feb 14 2013 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I still contend it's strategy to set themselves up better for the next election cycle. Lose a fight win a war sort of deal.


I'm not sure how much this is "strategy", but making a more clear differentiation between Democrats and GOP can play into the GOPs favor, especially at the state level. In a lot of state elections it's hard to see a difference between one party or the other, so people tend to just vote their party. Performance isn't as much of a factor in this case. But if things are going poorly and there's a clear difference in platform between one candidate and another, voters are more likely to switch. In this specific case though, this requires putting less well known names out there, which will result in losses initially (especially, as Joph pointed out, in higher profile executive seats). But it does make the choice more stark and as name recognition grows and people see a more clear choice instead of "left leaning Democrat versus left leaning Republican", they'll act on that option.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Feb 14 2013 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But it does make the choice more stark and as name recognition grows and people see a more clear choice instead of "left leaning Democrat versus left leaning Republican", they'll act on that option.

Right. Super-majorities in both chambers of the legislature and a governor with approval ratings in the 30s winning re-election.

Thanks for offering the clear choice, Republicans! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Feb 14 2013 at 5:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
gbaji wrote:
In this specific case though, this requires putting less well known names out there, which will result in losses initially (especially, as Joph pointed out, in higher profile executive seats). But it does make the choice more stark and as name recognition grows and people see a more clear choice instead of "left leaning Democrat versus left leaning Republican", they'll act on that option.


Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But it does make the choice more stark and as name recognition grows and people see a more clear choice instead of "left leaning Democrat versus left leaning Republican", they'll act on that option.

Right. Super-majorities in both chambers of the legislature and a governor with approval ratings in the 30s winning re-election.


Who was the GOP candidate again? Now go re-read what I wrote.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Feb 14 2013 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Are you trying to imply that Brady wasn't known or wasn't a clear departure from left-leaning policies?

I just want to know the reason I'm laughing at you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Feb 14 2013 at 6:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Are you trying to imply that Brady wasn't known or wasn't a clear departure from left-leaning policies?


You tell me. While I don't remember your comments on this specific election, the sheer number of times you've made the whole "GOP nominating Tea Party candidates hands us the win" argument just kinda blends together. Was this the case here as well? What qualities then did you think his primary opponent had that might have allowed him to win the election instead of Brady? And isn't that exactly what I just wrote above?

Assuming this was one of those cases, of course. But your whole "they nominated a far-righty in a left leaning state" comment indicates it was. So had they nominated a more moderate republican, he might have won, right? But they'd have nominated a republican who wasn't a clear departure from the democrats and would likely have continued the same liberal policies. As I stated earlier, the GOP will lose some races because of this, but over time they create a more clear choice for voters.

For conservatives, it's not about the name of the party next to the guy who wins, but what that persons politics are. While some degree of party politics is par for the course, the whole reason behind the tea party movement is that the GOP has allowed itself to be dragged too far left and some members of the party are more or less indistinguishable from their opponents. Doesn't do a whole lot of good for your party to win an election if the guy representing your party is just as liberal as the guy he beat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Feb 14 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
As I stated earlier, the GOP will lose some races because of this, but over time they create a more clear choice for voters.

There was a clear choice. An anti-abortion, anti-SSM, pro-concealed carry, pro-death penalty, pro-Creationism-as-science guy who wanted to cut state minimum wage, cut insurance, disband the state board of education and indiscriminately slash the state budget by 10% versus an exceptionally shitty Democratic governor with approval ratings in the toilet.

Guess who won?

Man, if only the people saw a clear choice...

Edit: Heh, I just looked and Quinn's approval ratings at the 2010 election was 32%. Thirty-friggin'-two percent. The GOP should have been able to run a dead cat and have it win purely on the basis of "Fuck this guy, get rid of him." Instead they ran someone who embodies conservative virtues through and through and that guy managed to lose. Against a guy with 32% approval. I'm pretty sure the voters saw the "clear choice" there and said "Well, shit... I guess I'll stick with the crappy 32% guy rather than let those policies into office."

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 6:46pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Feb 14 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As I stated earlier, the GOP will lose some races because of this, but over time they create a more clear choice for voters.

There was a clear choice. An anti-abortion, anti-SSM, pro-concealed carry, pro-death penalty, pro-Creationism-as-science guy who wanted to cut state minimum wage, cut insurance, disband the state board of education and indiscriminately slash the state budget by 10% versus an exceptionally shitty Democratic governor with approval ratings in the toilet.

Guess who won?


Sure. Which is what I just said. It's like there's an echo in here. It takes time for that "clear choice" to gel in the minds of voters, and for those who advocate new and different positions (hopefully absent the "let school districts mandate school prayer" bits) to rise to the top of the movement and gain sufficient recognition to win more elections. Until then, it will cost some.

Quote:
Man, if only the people saw a clear choice...


It's not a matter of seeing it on a surface level, but being exposed to the ideas that choice represents sufficiently enough for it to resonate with voters.

Quote:
Edit: Heh, I just looked and Quinn's approval ratings at the 2010 election was 32%. Thirty-friggin'-two percent. The GOP should have been able to run a dead cat and have it win purely on the basis of "Fuck this guy, get rid of him." Instead they ran someone who embodies conservative virtues through and through and that guy managed to lose. Against a guy with 32% approval. I'm pretty sure the voters saw the "clear choice" there and said "Well, shit... I guess I'll stick with the crappy 32% guy rather than let those policies into office."


Yeah. Devil you know. That's exactly what I was saying. But as people become more familiar with the platform, they'll be less prone to vote for the other guy just because his positions and politics are familiar and understood. The biggest point of the tea party movement isn't about this specific position or that one, but about creating a dialog about how we view those positions in the first place. Many of the concepts being talked about are things that most people have simply never been exposed to, or if they did, it was always in a "there's this crazy idea..." kind of way. You start talking about what individual liberty and individual responsibility really means and it will start to sink in. You keep talking about small government and fiscal responsibility and it will start to resonate with people. You do this long enough and when a politician steps onto a stage and starts talking about those things, instead of getting a lot of "wtf is he saying?" responses, you'll get more "that sounds like a great idea" responses.


That's the point. It's about pushing the GOP platform into a more classical conservative direction. It's a direct attempt to make a clear distinction between the left and the right on many issues. And yes, along the way this means there will be some stinker politicians who don't express those things well, or go off on unrelated tangents that cost the GOP elections. But the overall process down the road is more positive. It gives the GOP a set of positions on issues that they can run on instead of what's been viewed (fairly or not) as just a watered down version of what the Dems want. Why do you suppose the left continually talked about Romneycare being just like Obamacare? Was it to say that Romney was someone that liberals should like and perhaps vote for? No. It was to tell moderates and conservatives that Romney wasn't really conservative enough or different enough from Democrats.

That's telling, isn't it? When your best tactic against Republican politicians is to convince people that they're not very conservative, what do you think Republicans should do? Be more moderate? You're own rhetoric shows that what you're most worried about politically is a strong conservative. Because even if a moderate Republican wins, it's almost a half win for you anyway (especially at the state and local levels). The nightmare candidate for the left to oppose is a conservative who embodies the fiscal and liberty aspects, but without the stereotypical religious positions (which btw, the tea party does not have anything to do with). Unfortunately, right now, there are too many "right wing" politicians who think that to be conservative means to be ultra-religious. But that's not part of the tea party ideology at all and as that ideology spreads and we see more politicians come up with those ideals and positions, we'll see more of those candidates who have that right combination of positions and ideals to win lots of elections without having to sacrifice their principles.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Feb 14 2013 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
So... Once I've been exposed to the idea of creationism taught in science class, no more abortions ever, same *** marriages are icky, and women deserve to be paid less than men because they'll just have babies and take a bunch of time off anyway I will start voting republican?

Yeah, no. I lived in Tennessee. I've seen all that ****.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (46)