| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:00 FindingPride wrote: we've had senators involved with the KKK. i dont see how this is worse Then go make a topic about them, lol. We're here talking about the supposed Tea Party momentum leading up to November. | ||
|
[NyC]HoBbes
United States803 Posts
| ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
On September 17 2010 12:46 Sadist wrote: http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/09/14/how-republicans-party/ ![[image loading]](http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nfrw-main.jpg) Somewhat related rofl ;D Thank you, so much, for this gem. Wonderful. | ||
|
Number41
United States130 Posts
Pro-Government Health Care: stupid policy If you are conservative or independent, you can ignore one of those stupid policies but not the other. "I know this tea party woman can't put my **** back in my pants; but I know what Nancy Pelosi DID to my health insurance rates." It's all in the mindset, and the lesser of two evils. | ||
|
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
| ||
|
_Darwin_
United States2374 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:13 Number41 wrote: Anti-Masturbation: stupid policy Pro-Government Health Care: stupid policy If you are conservative or independent, you can ignore one of those stupid policies but not the other. "I know this tea party woman can't put my **** back in my pants; but I know what Nancy Pelosi DID to my health insurance rates." It's all in the mindset, and the lesser of two evils. Yeah mandating health insurance for 32 million people is just like saying you will burn in hell for eternity if you touch your no-no parts. Lesser of two evils for sure!!! | ||
|
IamRick
2 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:04 [NyC]HoBbes wrote: I love when people this absolutely unqualified and stupid get nominated for races. It's fun to watch their campaigns crumble miserably under waves of sheer incompetence, and then to see them get ROFLstomped in general elections by any candidate who can prove he has the intelligence to chew gum and walk at the same time So, how does one become qualified to become a senator? A governor? A president? Is there a school I can go to that teaches these things? To me it sounds like you want a ruling class and not a government by the people, for the people. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 17 2010 12:26 Musoeun wrote: To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff. (Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.) Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff. Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image). Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist. Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon. | ||
|
azureskie
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
Jenbu
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
Number41
United States130 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:16 _Darwin_ wrote: Yeah mandating health insurance for 32 million people is just like saying you will burn in hell for eternity if you touch your no-no parts. Lesser of two evils for sure!!! Exactly, I've touched my parts since she said that am I am better off. But putting me 2k behind in insurance adjustments sucks. Who do I dislike more? | ||
|
IamRick
2 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame. This. I'm having a hard time understanding where the distaste of the Tea Party comes from. If the Tea Party was strongly against one side or another then I would understand. Seeing as the Tea Party has overthrown plenty of R's... I'm not getting it. Is it a misunderstanding of what a libertarian is or are people typically against freedoms? | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
She did not grow up as a strict Catholic, but rather came to a turning point during college after she found herself drinking excessively and engaging in sexual relationships with men whom she lacked a strong emotional connection to.[4] (She would later say of this period, "I know what it's like to live a life without principle."[13]) She became increasingly interested in both politics and religion.[9] She became an evangelical Christian, began preaching sexual abstinence and joined the College Republicans.[4] It seems her views on what the general public should do might just be an extreme reaction to her own, personal lifestyle of which she rebelled against during the years many of us manifest our idea of the world. | ||
|
azureskie
United States17 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame. Agreed. I don't have much of a problem w/ the libertarians, but the social conservatives scare the sh#t out of me. $20 says she was in favor of the whole Qur'an burning thing too. | ||
|
Xog2
United States97 Posts
| ||
|
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
hahahahahahahahahahaha also: | ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:20 HunterX11 wrote: Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon. This is the most accurate statement. Policies enacted under Nixon include and are not limited to: Withdrawing from Vietnam (hippie!) Increase of Social Security and Medicare from 6.8% to 8.9% (socialist!) The Economic Stabiliziation Act, allowing the government to freeze and control any and ALL prices (socialist!) Elimination of the Gold Standard (fascist!) National Environmental Policy Act (hippe!) Clean Air Act (hippie!) OSHA (socialist hippie!) Equal Rights Amendment (uber hippie!) On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income. WOAH WHAT A MARXIST! Well-done Right Wingers! You have made it impossible for Obama to ever be as the flaming Nazi-fascist-socialist-Marxist that Nixon was! | ||
|
godzillathrilla
Nauru75 Posts
LOL | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
edit: rofl part 2 is pretty funny too | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
RotterdaM Event
Korean StarCraft League
GSL
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Weekly
Afreeca Starleague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
