^^^Thats just so many kinds of atrocious. Worst poster I've seen...ever.

11/6/2009 11:29:08 AM

Quote :

"When you have and allow people that display this at one of your little rallies how can you expect anyone to take you serious."

well, you can't. these people are nuts.

11/6/2009 12:49:14 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33706656#33706656
At 2:40 even the American flag is tired of the incessant spewing of stupid.

11/6/2009 7:11:26 PM

Quote :

"This morning, the House began consideration of the rule for debate of the House health care bill. As the Democratic Women’s Caucus took to the microphone on the House floor to offer their arguments for how the bill would benefit women, House Republicans — led by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — repeatedly talked over, screamed, and shouted objections. “I object, I object, I object, I object, I object,” Price interjected as Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) tried to hold the floor. In an effort to delay and derail the proceedings, the Republicans continually talked over the Democratic women for half an hour. They sought to prevent the debate by calling for unnecessary “parliamentary inquiries” and requests for “expanding the debate” by an hour. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4&feature=player_embedded#

They're acting like children on the floor of the house.

11/8/2009 12:10:22 PM

ha

[Edited on November 8, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason : i guess they dont think elections have consequences]

11/8/2009 12:12:22 PM

I would have to ask to what he was objecting.

but, I would certainly object to some blowhard bitch getting up there talking about how the bill will benefit women. Congress should be passing bills that benefit Americans, not just some beholden political interest. But, then again, who am I kidding, lol

11/8/2009 2:59:08 PM

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/11/conservative-republican-group-shuns-partybacked-senate-candidate-in-florida.html

A conservative group bucks the republican party for a senate seat in Florida

It looks like the republican party is starting to faction, which is only good news for the democrats. I'm glad the right is finally discovering nuance, but hopefully this can push the mainstream republicans further towards a socially progressive stance, and true fiscal responsibility that they've always claimed to represent.

11/9/2009 10:27:32 AM

Quote :

"She cited the same enemies when racy photos of her later emerged: one showing her dressed in just panties with her back to the camera, another showing her with her breasts exposed. ... In the book, Prejean talks about her Christian beliefs and condemns the ubiquity of pornography. Young women should resist the pressures of popular culture, of sex, she said, writing, “Our bodies are temples of the Lord. We should earn respect and admiration for our hearts, not for showing skin to look sexy.” Vieira said that Prejean has been accused of hypocrisy for that statement in light of the racy photos and the video she made. ... Prejean said. “I think that there is a liberal bias in the media, and it’s unfortunate that conservative women are attacked for their beliefs. It’s unacceptable and it shouldn’t happen. So many Americans are frustrated. So many Americans believe that their beliefs are under attack, and they should be silent and free speech doesn’t exist.” "

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33823079/ns/today-today_people

haha she's like a more effeminate version of hooksaw

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2009 1:46:04 PM

She was just polishing the temple while her boyfriend watched.

11/10/2009 1:51:34 PM

11/10/2009 4:10:11 PM

Quote :

"we can almost say that this is Obama’s fault, because this guy said that he believed that Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama hasn’t done it, and that’s one of the reasons why the guy cracked."

-Rush Limbaugh

You can almost say it!

11/10/2009 5:16:05 PM

^^ lol

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM. Reason : ^ Rush owns]

11/10/2009 5:19:06 PM

Ha!

"Republicans are racist!"
- RNC Chair

11/10/2009 5:32:25 PM

Looks like REpublican naivete about tax cuts are biting them really badly in Arizona:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14816534&fsrc=rss

Quote :

"EARLIER this year Republicans seemed to be in the ascendant in Arizona, the state of Barry Goldwater, even as they struggled in much of the country. Not only had they retained control in both houses of the state legislature, but a fluke turned a Democratic governor into a Republican one when Janet Napolitano, who became Barack Obama’s homeland-security secretary, vacated the office for Janice Brewer, who was secretary of state at the time. But Arizona’s Republicans instead descended into a bitter feud that is bankrupting their state and amusing not even Democrats. Arizona is among the states worst hit by the recession, and years of tax cuts combined with more spending under Ms Napolitano had left its budget out of balance when Mrs Brewer took over. “By her tenth day in office, she had cut more than any Arizona governor in history,” boasts her spokesman. In March Mrs Brewer went before the legislature to ask for a temporary one-cent increase in the state sales tax alongside yet more cuts. The Republicans balked."

11/10/2009 5:44:54 PM

Carrie Prejean threatens to walk off Larry King, but instead sits there without a mic on. Probably b/c she is a retard. (Video)

http://www.pimpmywry.com/2009/11/carrie-prejean-threatens-to-walk-off-larry-king.html

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2009 11:03:29 PM

11/11/2009 11:27:25 PM

November 11, 2009
Republicans Edge Ahead of Democrats in 2010 Vote
Registered voters prefer Republicans for the House, 48% to 44%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124226/republicans-edge-ahead-democrats-2010-vote.aspx

The margin of error is +/-4 percentage points, but still, the Republicans are trending upward. Of course, a year is a long time in politics.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 8:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/12/2009 8:25:50 AM

A year is a long time, and the Dems haven't exactly been making a good show of themselves. To be fair, with the exception of the bad behavior of a few, the Republican majority has been slowly backing into the shadows lately. They've been keeping themselves unseen and letting the few wingnuts do the real yelling.

That's helping them, my opinion of the ones that AREN'T talking is much higher than my opinion of the ones that are.

11/12/2009 8:29:36 AM

^ As if the Republicans are the only party with "wingnut" problems.

MoveOn Attacks Dems Who Voted Against Health Care
November 09, 2009

Quote :

"MoveOn.org is launching a round of TV ads this week targeting Democratic House members who voted against the health care bill over the weekend. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill, though MoveOn is starting by targeting only six fiscally conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats: Rep. Mike Ross, R-Ala.; Rep. Jason Atlmire, D-Pa.; Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va.; Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; Rep. Larry Kissell, D-N.C..; and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. All but Ross and Boucher are either in their first or second terms in the House. A spokesman for the group said MoveOn plans to spend $500,000 on the ads, which come as liberals seek to pressure moderate Democrats in the Senate to support President Obama in his quest for health care reform."

http://tinyurl.com/yjahssd

11/12/2009 8:39:51 AM

Actually, I was referring to elected officials within the Republican party, not 3d party groups acting of their own accord.

But go ahead and assume the two are the same thing, it just makes the argument against Fox News that much more valid.

11/12/2009 9:01:32 AM

MoveOn.org is just encouraging moderate Democrats to do what mainstream Democrats have already done, which is support this bill. To the Democrats, people that don't want to force everyone to buy health insurance are the wingnuts. Moderate Democrats need to get in line, obey their overlords, and discard any silly notions they have about "balanced budgets" or "massive debt."

11/12/2009 9:06:13 AM

^^ I assume nothing. So MoveOn and Democrats are mutually exclusive?

^ So mainstream Democrats aren't moderate?

11/12/2009 9:28:32 AM

Not at all. I think they're very extreme, in fact. Of course, that's coming from the viewpoint that we should follow the constitution. That is probably considered "fringe" in today's political climate.

11/12/2009 9:31:29 AM

Damn extremists and their majority parties...

11/12/2009 10:26:52 AM

Both parties are extremists, in the way I'm talking about it. Without constitutional protections, you can make any law. If the majority wants to make a law that says "the minority has to give us their money," you can. And the majority often has. The founders knew that could happen, and designed the constitution in a way that would prevent that from happening.

11/12/2009 10:38:34 AM

^yeah and how's that working out?

11/12/2009 11:31:37 AM

Well, people started ignoring the constitution, so its protections don't mean anything now. I suppose they could have added a clause that said "Oh yeah, you can't start shitting on this document when it becomes politically expedient to do so." I mean, if you are elected to office, you have to take an oath to uphold the constitution. Most elected officials have willfully neglected that oath.

In general, I think most liberals (or even "conservatives") would like it if we just got rid of the old constitution, and made a new one. One that allowed unlimited expansion of government power, with no real limits on what the federal government is allowed to do.

11/12/2009 11:38:42 AM

^"conservatives" don't feel that way. Some (most ) Republicans probably do though.

11/12/2009 12:49:46 PM

^^ I might could get on board with drafting a new Constitution, simply because the one we have is now pretty much useless. Nothing against our Constitution--I think it's wonderful--but maybe if we made a new one, we might abide by it for a little while. Even a less restrictive Constitution would be better than one that we completely ignore.


^ I had a discussion last night with my roommate, and said something like "Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is allowed to do that?" His response? "Where does it say that it CAN'T do that?"

After a "facepalm" moment, because it was apparent that his statement wasn't grounded in some tortured interpretation of the law, but in utter ignorance of the most basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution, I replied "In the 10th Amendment, combined with the Enumerated Powers in Article 1."

His eyes got kinda big, and he replied "Uhhhh, well, I'm not gonna pretend to really know anything about the Constitution...but I still don't agree with you.

This exchange, coupled with his complete lack of understand of the benefits of free markets as opposed to corporate welfare, protectionism, etc, makes me wonder what exactly makes him identify as a Republican. He's not socially conservative, either.

11/12/2009 1:48:04 PM

Quote :

"One that allowed unlimited expansion of government power, with no real limits on what the federal government is allowed to do."

This would be great. Fuck red tape.

11/12/2009 2:05:01 PM

^^ We don't need a new Constitution--we simply need to follow the one we have. And do you honestly want today's "leaders" crafting a new document to replace the one that this very country was founded on when they can't even follow the one we have?

The mere thought of such a thing is frightening. Absolutely terrifying, in fact.



[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ^ Troll. ]

11/12/2009 2:05:17 PM

Quote :

"the one we have is now pretty much useless"

Give me a break.

11/12/2009 2:13:37 PM

Quote :

"we simply need to follow the one we have"

Agreed, but it's not going to happen.

11/12/2009 2:30:04 PM

The Constitution sucks. It's like 200 years old man.

11/12/2009 2:31:13 PM

Quote :

"Dede Scozzafava, the Republican congressional nominee who dropped out of New York’s special election last week to endorse Democrat Bill Owens, said Wednesday night that the GOP is “really not based on any sort of substance.” Speaking with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Scozzafava warned Republicans that “you have ideology that’s really not based on any sort of substance that can move an agenda forward, that can really help people in this country.” . . . Explaining her decision to stay in a party that has widely shunned her, Scozzafava said: “You know, the original Republican Party was all about less government interference in the lives of individuals. It was about promoting self-sufficiency versus government dependency.”"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29443.html

11/12/2009 2:54:23 PM

You people are acting as if there was only one legitimate way to interpret the Constitution. You're like a Southern Baptist knitting circle; just swap "Constitution" for "Bible" and "Liberals" for "Catholics."

Quote :

"Where does it say that it CAN'T do that?"

Look, I've argued this ad nauseum, and you all just continue like nothing's been said. Article I isn't vague by accident, and the necessary and proper clause wasn't added because the authors wanted to save paper.

There are loose and strict interpretations of the Constitution. There have been since the moment it was written. At that time the people you're deriding were called Federalists. Washington was one, for all practical purposes. They were not any more "wrong" than liberals are today.


One thing you all keep getting hung up over is that you believe a loose interpretation of the Constitution makes the document worthless. Much like your knitting circle counterparts believe anything but a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible makes it worthless, as well. A loose interpretation of the Constitution doesn't make it worthless. In fact, the loose v. strict argument applies only to Article I, Section 8. No other part of the Constitution contained an elastic clause, so no other part is loosely interpreted by "them liberals." This explains the supposed discrepancy between our strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but our loose interpretation of the powers of government.


The only real leg your high horse has to stand on is the 10th Amendment, and that's problematic for a number of reasons. First, if reserved powers are powers not held by the federal government, and it's up for debate which powers are held by the federal government, then we can't be as certain as you all would like when we're putting our fingers on these powers.

Second, the intent of the 10th Amendment was to protect state sovereignty. States have been more than complicit in abdicating their power to the federal government. I personally believe that the boundary's been crossed in a number of areas, but I hardly think it's a constitutional crisis when the states are the last people complaining about it (save for the secessionist over in Texas).

11/12/2009 6:14:30 PM

Quote :

"States have been more than complicit in abdicating their power to the federal government."

Bullshit. The Southern states tried to stand up for their power but were crushed during the Civil War. Then the Northern States shat all over any notion of the Constitution by forcing the Southern states at gunpoint to ratify amendments that addressed issues at the heart of the conflict

11/12/2009 10:12:13 PM

Standing up for their power? Like the power to own the life of another human being?

11/12/2009 10:14:05 PM

We then enacted constitutional amendments to override the South's concerns. Primarily the 14th.

Sucks for you guys, but if it's an amendment, it's objectively constitutional.

11/12/2009 10:16:23 PM

^^ I see you've bought in to the lie that the Civil War was only about slavery.

^ Yes, we enacted amendments. By unConstitutional means, namely forcing states to ratify them.

11/12/2009 10:29:04 PM

^ Nope, I'm just pointing out that was one of their reasons for doing so. But thanks for thinking that you're putting words in my mouth.

11/12/2009 10:30:45 PM

the statement you made is hardly "just pointing out one reason." It's practically saying that was the only reason. And you know it. That's why you said it.

11/12/2009 10:31:49 PM

Okay, look, just because I didn't feel like formatting it to exactly match your preferred debate specifications doesn't mean that I posted what you THINK I posted. You took it the wrong way. Accept that and move on.

11/12/2009 10:33:34 PM

How was it unconstitutional?

Or, "where in the Constitution" would I find that?

You guys were free to be red-headed stepchild territories for as long as you wanted. You didn't have to sign crap.

Quote :

"I see you've bought in to the lie that the Civil War was only about slavery."

I see you're choosing to ignore the fact that it didn't completely revolve around the institution of slavery.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : TARIFFS LOL]

11/12/2009 10:33:38 PM

so, we can hold a gun to someone's head and force him to sign a confession to something? He's free to stay in jail as long as he likes, right?

It was unConstitutional because rights were TAKEN AWAY from the states until the ratified amendments. There is NOWHERE in the Constitution that allows for that.

As I said before, I'm glad to see that you've bought in to the lie that it was all about slavery.

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 10:35:38 PM

Quote :

"It was unConstitutional because rights were TAKEN AWAY from the states until the ratified amendments. There is NOWHERE in the Constitution that allows for that."

What states of the Union are you referring to?

I thought we were talking about the Confederate States of America?

11/12/2009 10:39:30 PM

you wanna keep harping on the slavery thing, fine. slavery was a pretty important reason for the south, and there's really no point in trying to downplay that by acting like it wasn't. and you know what? sometimes the winners get to decide what happens next. that's called winning a war.

11/12/2009 10:39:53 PM

yes. Ratification didn't officially take place until after the Southern states ratified them. Think about what that means, buddy.

^ haha. winning is everything, so fuck the Constitution. i love it

[Edited on November 12, 2009 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2009 10:40:36 PM

Don't even give him that.

Sometimes the winners get to decide which foreign territories get to reenter the Union, and under what circumstances.

11/12/2009 10:40:56 PM

if they were foreign territories, then why even ask them to ratify it? There was no need. if they were foreign territories, then why didn't they go through the process for entry in to the union, since that is clearly defined in the Constitution?

You seem to be forgetting history, Boone, which is sad, since aren't you a history teacher? Everyone knows that Lincoln never considered the southern states to have actually been separated from the union.

11/12/2009 10:43:40 PM