Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol? by chrisisall

America loves a winner!

You have it 180 degrees backwards, son. It's the Alliance who is now in control.

Those who favored smaller Gov'ts and more freedom are now on the outside, looking in.

It's like when Oprah said...we're no longer Red or Blue, but THE COLOR PURPLE !!!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:05 PM

I pledge to remain absolutely against any form of conciliatory gesture from the right, and I will continue to demonize and verbally humiliate at every possible turn anyone who is pro war.

I also pledge to detest pro lifers and pay no attention to thier arguments as if they are dead. And I will have homicidal thoughts towards those against gay marriage and continue to consider them to be the human garbage I always thought they were.

Prettymuchbusinessasusualisall

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:16 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We can hear the screams of "Socialism" from all the righties here, like cat calls from so many impotent beach boys...personally, it's not gonna get me angry like the nonsense used to. My heart bleeds for all those that love blowin' s**t up, but right now we all have important matters to attend to.
I'm wonderin' if these boards will stay so heated, now that the Bushites will only have the "see, he's picking Clinton guys" smoke to blow out their posteriors.
The Alliance has had a thorn stuck in their paw, and that tickles me a bit. I fear that it also lets me view peeps that cheer for the Puppet Theatre with a bit more pity.

Opinions?

TheomnipresentChrisisall

Not seeing your point Chris,

the causes of your present war(s) find its origins with Clinton as much as it did Bush, and Bush1 and Regan, etc

Its nice there is such high hopes for Obama, but I doubt there will be much REAL change in the US foreign policy or its ambitions beyond possibly a change of tactics.

Your still the Alliance, " Verse wakes up a spell. Won't be long 'fore she rolls over and falls back asleep "

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:33 PM

America loves a winner!

Let's see

Give war a chance.

HUMAN rights for HUMAN beings

and what was the third thing ?

Ooh yeah. Gays have no " rights " to marry, what so ever.

Guess I know where stand in someone's 'verse

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: Give war a chance.

You are funny, I like the John Lennon version of that song.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: HUMAN rights for HUMAN beings and what was the third thing ? Ooh yeah. Gays have no " rights " to marry, what so ever.

For now.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Guess I know where stand in someone's 'verse
I think you're swell. You have your views, they're predictable yet simple. And you're mean spirirted with a lack pretense. There are people that agree with me that I like less than you. America needs people like you so somebody likes Palin.

I kinda feel sorry for you, the only victory you had during the election was oppressing gays. Right now Republiconservatarians are an island. How insignificant the mighty have become

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 7:54 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Those who favored smaller Gov'ts and more freedom are now on the outside, looking in.

So who, exactly, were the ones who favored smaller government, and how'd that work out for them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 9:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The sins of the past are legion. The sins of the future have yet to manifest. I will not judge before I see what develops.

But as for potential to be as 'evil' as the last administration, and invoke the same levels of vitriol?

It's there. Our President Elect voted to protect people guilty of violating civil rights. He may be better, but he's not perfect. If he makes similar concessions to the dark side in the future I'll have some ire to share with you all.

Though, hopefully I'll do it politely.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:29 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Raise your hand if the last eight years have been really good to you. Come on...get them up there.

Now let's hear how the last 2 years have been controlled by the Dems. Uh huh. Now let's blame Obama for the gun laws being repealed and for the deaths of all babies, and, while we're at it, for the mess in Iraq.

FEAR, we were being sold a bill of goods ladies and gentlemen. The Patriot Act - a great document limiting the freedoms we were promised in the Constitution. So go ahead and tell me how great the republicans were, and, in particular the Decider - Mr. Bush.

Now how did that go again? Big Government BAAAD! Too much control. Little government good, no regulations, "free enterprise" - Hello mortgage crisis. Huge Deficits. Unemployment, High Gas Prices (isn't that why we went to Iraq). Hurry, hurry, hurry $700 Billion Give-Away come get your handouts. Socialism?....Nah! Only poor people collect Welfare. Now we have the Auto Industry holding out their hands. A government handout is a government handout!

Only an amendment to the Constitution can change the "right to bear arms". Does anyone know what it takes to ratify an amendment to the Constitution?

Allow me:

1) The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today).
2) Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

The first method of amendment is the only one used to date.

For those of you who think that one person, even the President of the United States, can take away your rights to bear arms, there is your answer.
Just in case - that's a BIG NO. But No - no one man can change the Constitution. That's the beauty of the document. Of the people, by the people...you know the rest.

Checks and balances folks, checks and balances.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Words on paper.

And paper makes lousy armor.

Tell me, do those words do you any good when you're being pepper sprayed and beaten down by a jackbooted thug armored up against weapons far more powerful than you'll ever be "allowed" to have ?

Tell me, do those words do you any good when your privacy is invaded with a warrantless search, and then perhaps your property stolen from you under "asset forfeiture" without YOU even being charged with, much less even accused of, a crime ?

Tell me, do those words do you any good when there is nothing but ink and paper supporting them ?

No.

And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't mean guns, they're a tool, an inanimate object with no will or motivation of their own, as much and as little as a hammer or screwdriver, mere THINGS are not what enforces that documents protection.

People are.

See, Anthony promised to be nice about it, you'll note that I did not, and will not do so - I have no intention of being nice, it's far too late for nice, and see where it's gotten us in eight years ? fuck that.

I do NOT believe in the "They can't do that!" or "No one would dare!" defense, it was bullshit when Madison spouted it at the conventions, and it's bullshit now, you will ALWAYS find someone who *will* dare, who *will* do that, and if they're LUCKY, the victims might find resolution in court, at great pain and expense to themselves, long after the fact and the damage has been done, in a tiny slap on the wrist to the offenders.

Folks, that ain't good enough, not by half - and all it takes for the shit to get worse is for folks to keep on laying down and takin it, believing in a myth that was bullshit even then, and everyone knew it, why else would even Madison, who shovelled it in the first place, feel the need to go back and state that should those "unthinkable" events occur, that the people in the person of the *armed* militia - would be the force, the will, and the arm of that discontent.

We don't have to cooperate with our own victimisation and I wish to bloody hell that folks would quit doing so and then hiding behind the lame "they can't do that!" excuse, I mean, goddamn it, you've seen with your own eyes, although secondhand - direct evidence that "they" can, will and DO, in the actions of Texas against the FLDS, and the only thing that stopped them was people ramming the force of State and Federal law down the throats of the people supposed to be enforcing it, much less obeying it, on a pike of threat and blackmail.

Would that someone had made such a stand at Waco, but, oh, yeah "They can't do that" - but they fucking DID, didn't they ?

And no matter how you punish the peons with a teensy little wrist slapping, those kids are still dead, ain't they ?

So please, for the love of good common sense, do NOT utter those words in the face of immense hard evidence, great and small, in every corner of this nation however tiny, that they are, and always have been, untrue.

They only thing that makes the Government obey and respect that document is US, we the people, particularly the ones willing to act to enforce it often at great personal risk, which is barely mitigated by the fact that they just MIGHT be able to defend themselves - something which, if removed, restrained or limited to a point of uselessnes, will result in a domino effect on the rest of those ennumerated rights, which are also NOT supposed to be the only ones the Government respects, if you know your history, but that's how it turned out in spite of all the "no one would dare", didn't it ?

They WILL dare, They CAN do that - if no one is willing or able to stand up and act against it, and the first thing to go, that "they" always want gone is the ABILITY, cause the will quickly follows.

How the hell else do you think south africa wound up in the position it is ?

No, it ain't about the guns, it's about the PEOPLE - but if you remove the ability of people to defend themselves when they DO stand up for their rights and have to face the jackboot horde (and all so often in the name of "officer safety, yes ? no officer aiding and abetting tyranny SHOULD be safe!) then in the end, you're just not going to find anyone with the will either.

Those ennumerated rights are there as a tripwire - so that every single american will INSTANTLY know that the Gov is treading where they should not, and thus...

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do the fuckers not understand ?

WE are the check and balance that enforces it, and without the significant threat to DO it, the potential ability to do it, which has faded year by year in the face of a militarised police force to eliminate that little peon resistance problem - then there isn't one.

It's not folk "clinging to their guns"... it's folk "clinging to hope", for so long as the barrier of civilian weapon ownership exists, there is that one tiny stumbling block keeping the powers that be from steamrollering us.

But it's just a tool, in the end the real weapon is us, the people, and our will - the tool, like any good tool, simply multiplies it's force when it is engaged.

Might not be as clear and articulate as I would have liked, but it's been a long night and I felt the need to spike the damn fool idea that words on paper are some kind of magical force that would actually stop anyone.

That's idiotic.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 12:01 AM

FREMDFIRMA

And now, as for Chris's question...

Long as you got folk, you'll have vitriol, find a person, you'll have an argument, find two people, you'll have a fight - find three and two will find a way to victimise another, that's the philosophy, right ?

Lemme take it further - find four, and the fourth will offer to protect them from each other, if they just kindly hand over their sovereignity.. "for their own good"...

Uh huh, I'll take the vitriol, thanks.

I have noted a few disappearances, and even in one case a rather ham handed and inefficient attempt to remove any evidence that they were ever here, very badly done and missed a lot, but points for tryin, I guess.

And to be honest, I am kinda pissed about it, cause Conservatism in and of itself isn't wicked although it's been used as of late as a cover for much wickedness - and instead of being adults and trying to put the brakes on a situation or at least offer their input, they've either chosen to take their ball and go home, or throw a nonstop tantrum, like nasty little children.

I have concerns too, but hiding under a rock or throwing a damn tantrum isn't going to do one damn whit of good to their resolution, where coordinated action just might have some effect, even if only to mitigate them some...

Only, if there's no one left adult enough to coordinate WITH, well, that's not an uncommon position to be in - but I don't have to be happy about it.

It does, sadly, show the "true colors" I've been pointing out all along, mind you.

We can fix this mess, I do believe we can - but WE have to fix it, if we sit back on our asses expecting some white knight to come and save us from our own pathetic moral cowardice in not standing up to it hard enough in the first place...

Well that's a long wait for a train that ain't gonna come.

Ain't no one gonna save us, but US.

Me, I want a lot of things, but you know what I really want, have wanted for near seven years now ?

I want those fucking towers back up.

It's such a small thing, in the grand scheme of all that's wrong in the world and our country right now, and no, it won't do shit for the economy or get us out of the mire in the middle east or close gitmo... sure, a small, little thing...

But for seven years the powers that be chose to leave that great, gaping, festering wound in the spirit of our nation so that they could poke at it for political gain, left us hurting to make us easier to bend, and folks... ENOUGH.

It's time to cleanse that wound and heal it - put them damn towers back up, higher, stronger, with a flagpole on top of each one capped with an eagle screaming our defiance at those who think we can be made to hurt, to be afraid, just by knocking down a pair of office buildings.

That might kill some of us, but it should NEVER be able to kill our spirit, our will to be who we are, the belief, seldom held to but there all the same, in the very essence of all of us under every disagreement of race, politics, religion, culture, or what have you - underneath it all, is that we are AMERICANS, proud, stubborn, and at the very root of each and all, standing on iron knees incapable of bending to any form of tyranny.

Fuck bailing out wall street - you want to regain the will, confidence and hope of the american people ?

Put the towers back up, NOW.

Sure, we don't really have too good a history of meeting that ideal, but people, we TRY, and that's better than a lot of folks can say.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 12:51 AM

SIMONWHO

Chances are the towers would be back up if it was clear how many disasterous events happened on 9/11/01.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 1:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I think you're swell. You have your views, they're predictable yet simple. And you're mean spirirted with a lack pretense. There are people that agree with me that I like less than you. America needs people like you so somebody likes Palin.

I kinda feel sorry for you, the only victory you had during the election was oppressing gays. Right now Republiconservatarians are an island. How insignificant the mighty have become

I'm " mean spirited " because I agree that marriage is defined as 1 man + 1 woman, or that at some point, we all have a right to life? Wow. I got news for you, this so called island you speak of? Has routinely voted for the definition of marriage, across the nation. Doesn't in the least mean we're oppressing anyone. Hard for gays to compare themselves w/ the black civil rights crowd when they have every right anyone else has, and when blacks vote 70-80 % with Republicans on this one.

We're no more 'mean spirited' to Gays than we are to polygamist or those who wish to marry another species.

Get over it, move on. There's nothing to gain here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 1:24 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Those who favored smaller Gov'ts and more freedom are now on the outside, looking in.

So who, exactly, were the ones who favored smaller government, and how'd that work out for them?

Not too good, as Bush tried to play nice, and still got his hand bit off. He was stupid to try, to think his brand of politics, which worked well in Texas, could serve him well in D.C.

Bush was and remains naive about a great many things when it comes to politics.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 2:43 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

...And I will have homicidal thoughts towards those against gay marriage and continue to consider them to be the human garbage I always thought they were.

For your own 'protection' , we've informed the Secret Service just how much you're liking the new President-elect...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 2:55 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

We're no more 'mean spirited' to Gays than we are to polygamist or those who wish to marry another species.

Wow... so now gays are "another species", eh?

I know that's not what you meant, but that really could have been worded better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 3:00 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

Not too good, as Bush tried to play nice, and still got his hand bit off. He was stupid to try, to think his brand of politics, which worked well in Texas, could serve him well in D.C.

[u[Bush was and remains naive about a great many things when it comes to politics.

As do you, my friend... as do you.

You really might want to look into the "power" of the Texas Governor some time, to see what kind of impact Bush actually had here in Texas.

And pray tell, when exactly did Bush try to "play nice", and when exactly did he "get his hand bit off"? For the vast majority of his time in office as President, he's had an amazingly compliant Congress. That's why they were so often referred to as a "Rubber Stamp" Congress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 3:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

"Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out..."

Are you sure?

Pres-elect Obama plans to expand the military by 100,000 troops, increase forces in Afghanistan quite a bit, and hunt down and kill Bin Laden (never any mention of a trial

). His Iraq disengagement plan isn't much different from the one already on the table.

Not seeing that much change from the current 'expensive militaristic fascism'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 3:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?

Bah.... I'll believe that when I see it.

I might even be impressed when they say that diminished millitary funding is going to give medical care to children and they quit raging war on me and my smoking brothers and sisters.

We know that won't happen though....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 4:02 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Bah.... I'll believe that when I see it.

The truth is nobody can be certain exactly what Obama will do.

He plans to cut the military budget but increase its size. He plans to withdraw from Iraq, but not right away. His economic and domestic programs have completely disappeared from sight.

We can be certain of several things. He will raise taxes on everyone. He will not produce more energy. He will seek strict regulation of business and energy. He will limit gun ownership, provide Federal funding for abortion and stem cell research. He will seek accomodation with nations like Iran and Venezuela. He will buy a puppy.

But his detailed plans are gone and his record so lacking that he could concievably move towards outright socialism...or...be Bush's third term.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 4:09 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

After almost 20 years of being completely disinterested in who's running (let alone politics), of seeing no significant difference between either "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!" I finally voted, finally felt a reason to get involved.
And he better not let me down. I will hold Obama more accountable than W. because he has more of a chance of getting things right. I'm only worried now about his softness, his desire to make everyone happy. His initial press conference... C+. But he's learning how to be president so I will give him room.
Snarking seems like part of the debate process around here - not going away. Some of the HYPERBOLE - that would be nice to see go away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Not seeing your point Chris,

the causes of your present war(s) find its origins with Clinton as much as it did Bush, and Bush1 and Regan, etc

Don't misunderstand me, Gino. It's been one long Alliance nightmare. Just wakin' up even a little will help.

@ AURaptor: you just keep countin' sheep, Snow White, maybe Sarah Palin will kiss you awake in '09, when she plans to run for President.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The truth is nobody can be certain exactly what Obama will do.

uh well dance all
night and whirl your
hair
make the night cats
stop and stare
dance all night go to work
do the move with quirky jerk
just shake it up, oo-oo
shake it up, oo yeah
shake it up, that's right
shake it up

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Not seeing that much change from the current 'expensive militaristic fascism'.

I doubt that he'll pre-emptively invade another country on a wing & a prayer, if that means anything to ya.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 5:27 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The truth is nobody can be certain exactly what Obama will do.

True

Quote:
He plans to cut the military budget but increase its size. He plans to withdraw from Iraq, but not right away. His economic and domestic programs have completely disappeared from sight.

All hearsay, but I don't contend those accusations at all....

Quote:
We can be certain of several things.

He will raise taxes on everyone.

Can't be certain of that yet, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Quote:
He will not produce more energy.

Ditto

Quote:
He will seek strict regulation of business and energy.

A politician's wet dream. Why wouldn't he if he had the ability?

Quote:
He will limit gun ownership, provide Federal funding for abortion and stem cell research.

I can almost guaranty those, but only one of those I'm really in disagreement with. I'll let my past posts here decide that one for you.

Quote:
He will seek accomodation with nations like Iran and Venezuela.

Sure he will. He will just keep up the tradition of selling us out to foreign "global" interests like Bush and Clinton did. Yes... Bush did it too. Only to different foreign interests and with a different spin to keep up the illusion that any Bush is really any different than any Obama.

Quote:
He will buy a puppy.

I know... sick, isn't it? Peru was willing to give the Obama family a free, purebread, non-allergenic puppy for free and he feels the need to buy a "mutt" when we're all scraping the bottom of the barrel for some algae to feed on...

Quote:
But his detailed plans are gone and his record so lacking that he could concievably move towards outright socialism...or...be Bush's third term.

Socialism or Bush's third term... Interesting. They both seemed to me to be the same thing. I don't see any other way it could go.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 5:43 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We can hear the screams of "Socialism" from all the righties here, like cat calls from so many impotent beach boys...

Uh..."impotent beach boys"?

Actually, I do know a couple of priapic oil execs who aren't gonna be pleased for a while, no matter what...

It was like that when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 6:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm " mean spirited " because I agree that marriage is defined as 1 man + 1 woman, or that at some point, we all have a right to life?

Rapo, I for one don't think you're mean spirited.

Just very frightened and immorally stupid.

You've handed your brain over to some cynical peeps so they can do your thinking for you.

Quote:
Not too good, as Bush tried to play nice,

Okay, give me five specific examples and I'll concede that you have a point.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 6:19 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I know... sick, isn't it? Peru was willing to give the Obama family a free, purebread, non-allergenic puppy for free and he feels the need to buy a "mutt" when we're all scraping the bottom of the barrel for some algae to feed on...

That Peruvian dog had no hair. Dogs should have hair...and I foster puppies for a local NFP Animal Rescue group. I'm sure that somewhere out there is just the right puppy that they can rescue. Some kind of 'oodle' mix would be fine. I'd suggest a matched pair of rescued Malti-poos, rescued from a puppy mill of course, so they can highlight the horrible practices those places have.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:

Uh..."impotent beach boys"?

Never saw Diamonds Are Forever, eh?
It was a term Blofeld used for ineffective peeps or governments.
Double D'ohisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 6:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

You've handed your brain over to some cynical peeps so they can do your thinking for you.

*Channeling AU*
Wrong, try again.
We have a roaring economy- it's just stuttering right now.
We've won the day in Iraq- Mission Accomplished.
We'll find those WMD- count on it!
Ronald Reagan was the presence of the Allmighty on our world. Even though I am a Godless heathen.
Deregulation works- see: The Eighties.
Blah blah woof woof.
*Breaks painful channeling session*

huh...not doin' THAT again....
*rubs temples*

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 6:44 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:

Uh..."impotent beach boys"?

Never saw Diamonds Are Forever, eh?
It was a term Blofeld used for ineffective peeps or governments.
Double D'ohisall

Sorry, man - I have never been quite the gonzo Bond fan that I should be. I have seen DAF but it's been a long ol' time. I read "beach boys" and all I could think of was...well, The Beach Boys. Heard and read a lot about them, but couldn't recall specific charges of impotence.

It was like that when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 6:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I doubt that he'll pre-emptively invade another country on a wing & a prayer, if that means anything to ya.

But he'll go anywhere to catch and kill Bin Laden - even into other countries - even without permission. Lots of military adventurism can be done without an actual invasion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:02 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Fremmy, you are absolutely right about the piece of paper - it is only as strong as the people who are WILLING to fight for the ideals behind it.
________________________________________________
They only thing that makes the Government obey and respect that document is US, we the people, particularly the ones willing to act to enforce it often at great personal risk, which is barely mitigated by the fact that they just MIGHT be able to defend themselves
________________________________________________

The people have to see what's going on and be able to determine for themselves the reality of the situation. What I was referring to was those that blindly believe what they are told without looking long and hard at the facts of a situation. Education, and I don't mean schooling, but getting to the truth of the matter is key. What good does it do to have a gun to defend that which you have no clue about.

Yes, that did "dare", those who became known as Neocons used FEAR to steer and guide public opinion without firing a single shot, and we got what is known as the Patriot Act. We had American soldiers eavesdropping in on telephone conversations of American Soldiers stationed overseas, all in the name of stemming the tide of terrorism. But what good does it do to listen in on, what amounted to, phone-sex calls to girlfriends and lovers.

Some 5% of the calls that were intercepted actually led to terrorist counterintelligence. The jackboot horde have already creeped into our daily lives and have taken over, with our ignorance and with our help.

But here's a statement you made that makes me think that I probably was not clear in my little soapbox rant.
_______________________________________________
But it's just a tool, in the end the real weapon is us, the people, and our will - the tool, like any good tool, simply multiplies it's force when it is engaged.
________________________________________________

This is exactly what I was driving at. That We, as a people, must put the feet to the fire of the "leaders" of this country to keep them in check regarding the basic freedoms in the Constitution.

(I'm a little groggy, I'm going to take a break).

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:I'm " mean spirited " because I agree that marriage is defined as 1 man + 1 woman, or that at some point

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: we all have a right to life?

Fetus's in the first trimester don't have a right to life, only if Mom says so. The Supreme court agrees. Save your murdered suffering babies poppycock drama for idiots without enough IQ to see through it.

Do gay babies have a right to life? That means they're humans then, all other humans get to marry? You think being gay is wrong AURaptor don't you?, this has nothing to do with marriage, it's about denying gays human rights because you don't approve of gays, your a victim of your own lack of self awareness, shame on you

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Wow. I got news for you, this so called island you speak of? Has routinely voted for the definition of marriage, across the nation. Doesn't in the least mean we're oppressing anyone. Hard for gays to compare themselves w/ the black civil rights crowd when they have every right anyone else has, and when blacks vote 70-80 % with Republicans on this one.

Thats Bill O'Reilly's and the stump speech of Conservative media's argument, We won't be diverted into an undeserved conflict with blacks. the difference between blacks voting for prop 8 is that unlike polygamist filthy bigoted Mormons, blacks didn't contribute 20 million dollars and campaign resources to Prop 8 while ripping off taxpayers with thier tax exemption and violation of 2 of the IRS criteria that must be adhered to for tax exempt status.

Tax-Exempt Status
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
■
the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes,
■
net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
■
no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
■
the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
■
the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: We're no more 'mean spirited' to Gays than we are to polygamist or those who wish to marry another species. Get over it, move on. There's nothing to gain here.

Hope that denial works for you. You'll really need it after a few more years.

The last human rights oppression ballot measure passed by 22 points. Prop 8 passed by only 4 points. Gay marriage is being accepted more and more worldwide. In less that ten years gays will have a full set of human rights everywhere. Most likely after some genetic breakthrough proves how moronic people who think gay is a "choice" are.

AURaptor...you're analogous to the bigot that didn't want blacks to get married to whites in the 60's. They said they were preserving marriage. Filthy bigots apparently don't realize when they are one. Thats another reason I forgive you. You're just on the wrong side of progress. They'll make inspirational movies in the future and guys like you will be the bad guys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Filthy bigots apparently don't realize when they are one.

Wow, MBIL, you really suffer self-righteous dweebs badly, don't you?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:46 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I know... sick, isn't it? Peru was willing to give the Obama family a free, purebread, non-allergenic puppy for free and he feels the need to buy a "mutt" when we're all scraping the bottom of the barrel for some algae to feed on...

That Peruvian dog had no hair. Dogs should have hair...and I foster puppies for a local NFP Animal Rescue group. I'm sure that somewhere out there is just the right puppy that they can rescue. Some kind of 'oodle' mix would be fine. I'd suggest a matched pair of rescued Malti-poos, rescued from a puppy mill of course, so they can highlight the horrible practices those places have.

H

Oh... come on now. I actually say some things that I know make sense to you and you only comment on my dog joke?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wow, MBIL, you really suffer self-righteous dweebs badly, don't you?

I'm actualy holding back 90% of what I want to say and 40% of what I'd like to do. But there is this whole law and order thing, and forum rules too. I have gay relatives, it's my kryptonite, So...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:50 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Somebody tell me where this says 1 man + 1 woman?

Marriage Law
2
B. Marriage as a State Concern.
Marriage in the United States is defined by the laws of each of the 50 states. It is wellestablished
that "there is no federal law of domestic relations, which is primarily a matter of
state concern."9
Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do
with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always
been subject to the control of the legislature. . . .10
States enjoy exclusive authority over family law . . . because of the fundamental
role of localism in the federal design. The theory of localism presented here
rests on the view that the law of domestic relations necessarily promotes a
shared moral vision of the good family life . . . . Legal decision-makers confront
fundamental questions concerning the meaning of parenthood, the best custodial
placements for children, the rights and obligations of marriage, the financial
terms of divorce, and the standards governing foster care and adoption. In
answering such questions, state legislatures and courts draw upon community
values and norms on the meaning of the good life for families and children.11
C. Marriage as a Fundamental Right, Constitutional Protection.
While states may impose marriage regulations, because marriage is a fundamental
right,12 these regulations are subject to constitutional limitations and those regulations that
significantly interfere with the exercise of marriage are subject to strict scrutiny.
By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not
mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the
incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with
decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed
(citation omitted).
. . . .
When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently
important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those
interests.13
D. Marriage as a Public Contract.
From the state's perspective, marriage is a contractual relationship between two
parties that vests the parties with a new legal status. Unlike other contracts, however, the
new status created by the marriage contract cannot be terminated at will by the parties, but
only as provided by the law of the state, thereby making the state a third party to any
marriage.
9 De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 580 (1956).
10 Maynard at 205.
11 Anne C. Dailey, Federalism and Families, 143 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1787, 1790 (1995).
12 See Loving at 12, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 495-96, 499 (1965), and Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S.
678, 685 (1977).
13 Zablocki at 386-88.
Marriage Law
3
It is also to be observed that, while marriage is often termed by text writers and in
decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be
founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious
ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The
consent of the parties is of course essential to its existence, but when the
contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is
created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted,
enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with
marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to
various obligations and liabilities.14

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
For your own 'protection' , we've informed the Secret Service just how much you're liking the new President-elect..

Obama is not against gays though. 90% of the people against gay marriage hate gays, they've been told to say it's about tradition but it's not. Those are the people I would love to send away to see the bad man in the corn field. (see Billy Mumy, Twilight Zone)

Not Obama.

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
90% of the people against gay marriage hate gays

Wait a minute there, peeps that want others to live the way they want them to deserve to have the freedom of choice to hold that belief....

er...

I believe there is a flaw in that statement....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wait a minute there, peeps that want others to live the way they want them to deserve to have the freedom of choice to hold that belief....

er...

I believe there is a flaw in that statement....

I agree. And I pulled that 90% figure right out of my butt with a boquet of roses. They have the right to attempt oppression, and if they get enough votes, legalize his oppression.

What does it matter I ask? AURaptor won't look at the IRS requirements for tax exemption and realize the Mormon church has already admitted on the record to enough to invite a lawsuit. No, he'll come up with some regurgitated O'Reilly or Rush distraction that says gays caused global warming and being gay is a bad choice. Thats because growing up gay is so advantageous. And finding a job gay is so advantageous...I can see exactly why they'd make that bad choice.

That's why I genuinly don't hate AURaptor, because there is no "AU on gay". Just pieced together apple bits and Conservative bigotry du jur.

He though up zero, nada, not a bit of it.

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 9:28 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Quote:

We can be certain of several things. He will raise taxes on everyone. He will not produce more energy. He will seek strict regulation of business and energy. He will limit gun ownership, provide Federal funding for abortion and stem cell research. He will seek accomodation with nations like Iran and Venezuela. He will buy a puppy.

You can't be CERTAIN of a single one of those things. You can think them, you can believe them, but you can't be certain of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 9:35 AM

ELVISCHRIST

Quote:
...and hunt down and kill Bin Laden (never any mention of a trial ).

Was there a plan by the Bush administration to put him on trial? I never heard about that. I remember things like "dead or alive" being said, and people disappearing into Gitmo with no charges, no trials, and no right to even ask why they were there, but I don't remember BushCo ever actually stating that they wanted a trial for Bin Laden.

Quote:
His Iraq disengagement plan isn't much different from the one already on the table.

You mean the one on the table NOW isn't much different from what Obama proposed over a year ago. As usual, the current administration is following Obama's lead, and claiming he's not experienced enough...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 9:45 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

"We can be certain of several things. He will raise taxes on everyone."

The sky is falling!

"He will not produce more energy."

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ yeeee ha!

"He will seek strict regulation of business and energy."

By all means, please do.

"He will limit gun ownership"

to nonfreaks with a full set of teeth - great idea.

"provide Federal funding for abortion and stem cell research."

I really hope he doesn't even touch these for the first 3 years

"He will seek accomodation with nations like Iran and Venezuela."

I believe you spelled it wrong - "communications" not "accomodation"

"He will buy a puppy."

buying new puppies is for fools. Leasing is the way to go.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 10:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
...I don't remember BushCo ever actually stating that they wanted a trial for Bin Laden.

True. But the fact that both the Bush administration and the Obama administratioin want Bin Laden dead or alive, and will go anywhere necessary to get him, doesn't seem to support Chris's claim that 'expensive militaristic fascism' is on the way out.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 10:33 AM

WHODIED

Here's the Sinfest take on militaristic change: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994

Even though, back in 2000, I voted against W., I still gave him my support when he won, unfailingly.

Of course, it was somewhat failingly by 9/11/01, and the D-sider was staring into space. He made me have to respect Giuliani some that day--insult to injury.

By March, 2003? FAIL.

I plan to extend the same courtesy to Obama, with the hopes that if crazy comes to town again, our new president wont start looting like our last one did.

As for the vitriol, I think that a roughly 50/50 split is essential to ALL news services, otherwise the see won't saw, so...

SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL ROCKS!!! WOO HOO!!!

Fremdfirma, having lurked here some few years, I have to say that, in my opinion, your town is lucky to have you. Sometimes you remind me of Woodrow Wilson Smith, while other times you seem a lot like Corporal Ted Bronson.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Kill us both, Spock! Ha ha!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 10:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You know where San Dimas is ? You must be in So Cal (or you watch Bill and Ted's ... a lot.) Did they score a victory against Glendora recently ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 10:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... and will go anywhere necessary to get him, doesn't seem to support Chris's claim that 'expensive militaristic fascism' is on the way out."

Maybe 'expensive militaristic fascism' of the Iraq kind, which seriously has cost the US far, far more than Afghanistan ever did.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 17, 2008 11:00 AM