Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: General Stuff
Topic: The Republican Party
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 12 2012,08:26

< They need to go farther right... >

Insanity.

The Republicans need to get back to the middle.

The Dems went father left, and are still winning thanks to the fact that they can ride social issues to victory. After all, they just want people to be happy, while the Republicans are talking about raping people...

Personally, I think it's simple:
1. Smaller government
2. Get the fuck out of my life

What else is there?

Do the Republicans have a chance of righting the ship?

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 12 2012,08:37

The article agrees with you

QUOTE

In other words, in Virginia and elsewhere, the moderate Republicans lost this election. The far right lost even harder. The path forward for the Republican Party lies in a return to the centre, not further regression.

Republicans don't have much of a chance, too much of their base is religious right.

I think I would win 2016, based on views/politics alone.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,09:08

I still think it is "free candy." So many people are now out of work and counting on government food stamps and welfare and whatever that they are not willing to vote for anybody that wants to cut off the flow of free candy, even if it would be better in the long run.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,09:08

QUOTE

The Republicans need to get back to the middle.

They'd probably describe themselves as centrist. Every time an election rolls around, I'm reminded how fucking far off they've gotten. They seem to be in a race with the jack-asses for who wants my vote the least.

QUOTE

Personally, I think it's simple:
~~1. Smaller government~~
2. Get the fuck out of my life

What else is there?

Too long. Fixed. How does that one South Park episode go, "It's not enough to just disagree with someone. You also have to be a dick to them." They need to publicly disown all the insane right-wing psychos who view gov't as something made to impose moral standards on society. Murder isn't outlawed because it's fundamentally "evil." It's outlawed because random, wanton killing does nothing for the stability of society. The article Leish mentioned referenced a < Virgina sonogram bill >.

QUOTE

In a statement Wednesday, [Republican Governor Bob] McDonnell reiterated his support for the bill, which he argues will provide additional information that "can help the mother make a fully informed decision" about having an abortion.

"This bill does not legally alter a woman's ability to make a choice regarding her pregnancy," the statement said. "It does, however, put Virginia in line with 23 other states that have some type of requirement that a woman be offered a view of an ultrasound before an abortion can be performed."

Fuck you. Fuck you up the ass with your bill and the pen you used to sign it. You are the posterboy for why I don't vote Republican, you fucking asshole. Stop trying to defend your bullshit ethics with, "It technically doesn't prevent them from doing anything." Fuck you. Every time you drink a beer, you're required to go to AA, just to get a view of the alcoholism you might develop if you take a sip and succumb to the daemon temptations beyond your control. Fuckwad.

QUOTE

Do the Republicans have a chance of righting the ship?

Not currently. The Republicans are, as of right now, plain fucking hopeless and clueless. Both parties are run by incompetent thieves, but at least one's figured out how to win. They have to lose quite a few more seats before they accurately assess just how far they have their heads up their ass.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,10:01

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,11:08)

QUOTE

Bullshit.

Romney lost because he spent too much time trying to appeal to the insanely assholish Christian right. Far too many people held their nose and voted Obama because they felt it was the only choice.

The main people responsible for Obama's second term are Republicans. They ran that election like a bunch of retarded monkeys.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,10:08

(TPRJones @ Nov. 12 2012,12:01)

QUOTE

They ran that election like a bunch of retarded monkeys.

Retarded fish-frogs.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,10:19

The thing is I really do think most people vote based not on the chance of their own personal gain but because of what they think is best for the country. Most people here know what is best for the country is limited government and mostly unlimited personal freedoms. But some people are stupid and think trying to legislate the bible is what is best for the country. And others are too concerned with saving whales and is it hot in here to you. They aren't trying to destroy America, it's just a side effect of their stupidity. And both political parties are catering to the stupid, failing to realize that more and more people are less stupid then ever before, and campaigning to the centrist smart would be a nice change of pace.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,10:39

QUOTE

The thing is I really do think most people vote based not on the chance of their own personal gain but because of what they think is best for the country.

People often think that what's good for them must be good for other people.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,10:45

Indeed. That's why I've never gotten a decent birthday or Christmas present from my mother.

On the bright side, pantyhose can be almost as useful as duct tape for household jury-rigged fixes.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,10:54

The lack of adhesive would be an issue, I think.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,11:47

I have lots of relatives who loath republicans, and it has nothing to do with religion.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,12:17

Is it because of their political stances? If so, which ones? I'd wager long odds that if they are stereotypical "evil Republican" stances then either they are strawman lies set up by Democrats or if they are indeed factual they are rooted in biblical regressivism.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,12:28

First of all, the ones I have in mind are all women.

2 of the 3 are very religious.

My sister writes long facebook posts about how much she loves jesus, and how jesus helps out her family so much, and that republicans do not have her family's best interests at heart because, obviously, jesus would be a democrat.

The other religious one is my aunt, and she is very pro-union. I think that's all it takes for her to hate republicans.

My other aunt is a True Believer. She isn't religious, except that she is in that she will ignore evidence I present suggesting that obama may not be the second coming, and immediately turn it around on me with "people believe what they want to believe" and then decide she won the argument.

They all believe in the "republican war on women."

They all believe that there is free candy, and poor people need free candy and the only reason that the "rich" should not be supplying the poor with free candy is because you are straight-up a bad person. They project that shit on to me and that's when I stopped caring, let it burn.

Can't stop it. Too many people are wanting their free candy. Too many people think they deserve their free candy. Add that to the very successful propaganda campaign I mentioned in some other thread, and you also get them believing in things like THE WAR ON WOMEN and peeps start hoarding tampons in case romney is elected and bans them.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,12:30

Oh yeah, and I forgot my step sister, who I actually really liked, in spite of her very obvious political bent. On election night when I finally decided to share my opinion with her, she told me to shut up.

That's sort of when my moment of clarity came... these people who are supposed to like me don't actually care what I think. Changed my entire world view.

Posted by thibodeaux on Nov. 12 2012,12:33

Of course, Jesus ALSO didn't say, "feed people by getting government to do it." He did it his own self.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 12 2012,12:48

Yeah, but I don't think Jesus scaled well.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,12:58

QUOTE

2 of the 3 are very religious.

How do they skirt about the pro-choice thing and the gay marriage thing?

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,12:58

(Malcolm @ Nov. 12 2012,15:58)

QUOTE

2 of the 3 are very religious.

How do they skirt about the pro-choice thing and the gay marriage thing?

I believe they don't ever think about it. Free candy is more important.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,13:11

It sounds to me like they sincerely want what is best for the country. They're just way too stupid to know why what they've been told is best is so hopeless and harmful. They aren't greedily into "free candy".

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

EDIT: Sadly I can't really disagree with their characterization of Republicans. I know not all Republicans are like that. Very probably not even most Republicans are like that. But enough of the leadership and politicians are like that to make it way too true. Time to abandon party.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,14:20

Unions = free candy for those lucky enough to get in. Everyone not in a union pays the higher costs.

Obamacare = free candy. Someone else is paying for it.

2 years of unemployment (or however long it was extended) = free candy.

Food stamps = free candy.

Welfare = free candy.

Free phones = free candy.

Free underwater home refinancing = free candy.

In what way is "free candy" not a valid argument for why people voted democrat?

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,14:31

I didn't even hint that it wasn't. That's exactly why many of them are voting Democrat.

But it's not because they are greedily slurping up free candy, and to characterize it so is no better than the way they sneer at Republicans. They really do think it is best for the country. They're just too stupid to realize that someone has to pay the tab, and stealing it from the rich is no real answer.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,14:33

So, I am correct, you just think I attribute it incorrectly?

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 12 2012,15:41

< Advice from a Lonely College Republican >

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,16:07

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,16:33)

QUOTE

So, I am correct, you just think I attribute it incorrectly?

Exactly. You seem to be attributing it to malice. Just like Democrats have been doing to Republicans of late. That's the part I find unlikely.

Sure there are going to be some that are just greedy. But the vast majority are very likely to be quite earnest in their mistake.

EDITed to add: Yes, I know, that's exactly what they've been doing to you. But you're supposed to be better than that.

From the article Catt linked:

QUOTE

Republicans truly are the party of a less intrusive ruling class.

Bullshit. That all died over 20 years ago. Republicans are just as eager to tell everyone how to live, they just want to do it in the bedrooms and churches and etc. Used to be you could at least say they didn't want to spend so much on government, but that's not true anymore either of most of the political leadership in Congress. This guy thinks he's working with the Libertarians or something.

Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 12 2012,16:30

It was a woman.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,16:36

(TheCatt @ Nov. 12 2012,18:30)

QUOTE

It was a woman.

While that setup has so many potential finishes, I'll take the high road and go with, "fuckin' pipe dreams."

Until the Republican leadership changes or a splinter party snaps off (with new leadership), the current old white dumbass honkies in charge are going to ride this Titanic all the way to the iceberg. They aren't stopping until they hit the ocean floor or they just, in a poetic fashion, die off like their old commie rivals started doing a couple decades ago, clinging to outmoded ideals like leaden life preservers.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,16:56

(TPRJones @ Nov. 12 2012,19:07)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,16:33)

QUOTE

So, I am correct, you just think I attribute it incorrectly?

Exactly. You seem to be attributing it to malice. Just like Democrats have been doing to Republicans of late. That's the part I find unlikely.

You're telling me that 95% of black people, and 70%(?) of Mexicans vote democrat because of love of country and wanting to make it a better place?

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,17:08

Most of them, yes. They've been told all their lives that government can make everything better. That makes them wrong, not greedy.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,17:10

I see.

Not sure if I agree with that in this "Free Obama-phones!" culture.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,17:26

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,18:56)

QUOTE

You're telling me that 95% of black people, and 70%(?) of Mexicans vote democrat because of love of country and wanting to make it a better place?

People do not knowingly vote to make it shittier where they live.

EDIT: < Required reading for G, or anyone else who wants to lie effectively >.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,17:44

Well like I said before: "Free Candy" is not a viable economic model.

I'm saying it doesn't matter any more, we have reached a tipping point and "free candy" is always going to win from now on.

TPR is agreeing with me but still saying I am wrong because I believe it for the wrong reason.

I think that about summarizes the conversation thus far.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,17:56

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,19:44)

QUOTE

I'm saying it doesn't matter any more, we have reached a tipping point and "free candy" is always going to win from now on.

Without a big jolt from something, be it internal or external, it usually does and has since the dawn of caveman government. They just used to give the candy to the dudes with the biggest castles or the biggest armies or the king's brother or some shit. One of those books I linked to dissects this phenomenon.

Jolts used to be way more prevalent and frequent.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,17:59

(Malcolm @ Nov. 12 2012,20:56)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,19:44)

QUOTE

I'm saying it doesn't matter any more, we have reached a tipping point and "free candy" is always going to win from now on.

And thus, my "if you can't beat them, join them" turn, and my embrace of every liberal policy, even though I believe it will cause a lot more problems... because the quicker everything burns, the sooner we can start getting back to something stable and viable.

When a tree falls on a house, sometimes the only thing you can do is bulldoze it all and build it over again. I think the tree has fallen on the house.

edit - And hey... maybe I am wrong, and liberal policies will bring about an age of plenty, for all. But one thing is for sure... no use wasting energy trying to stop it.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,18:17

Wasting energy never helps. Utilizing it in new, creative, clever, effective ways might.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,18:17

(Malcolm @ Nov. 12 2012,21:17)

QUOTE

Wasting energy never helps. Utilizing it in new, creative, clever, effective ways might.

Sure. If someone comes up with something better, I am all ears.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2012,18:21

(GORDON @ Nov. 12 2012,20:17)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Nov. 12 2012,21:17)

QUOTE

Wasting energy never helps. Utilizing it in new, creative, clever, effective ways might.

Sure. If someone comes up with something better, I am all ears.

How about getting the sane elephants to split off from the rest of the diseased herd? Or better yet, get them to exile the senile senior class along with their psycho supporters. They might become something beyond a joke. Hell, they'll probably need a name change at any rate.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 12 2012,18:23

This guy agrees with me. I get to be smug since I was saying it about 5 days ago.

< http://www.zerohedge.com/news....elected >

QUOTE

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 12 2012,19:57

There's where I disagree. Very few of those voting for the free candy likely did so because they wanted free candy. They did it because their friends and neighbors need help, and good old Uncle Sam should help them. Nevermind that they themselves are also getting free candy, for most of them that doesn't enter into it.

The effect is the same, but to ascribe them with personal greed as a motivation is likely to be wrong in most cases. It's like someone saying Republicans want to lower taxes and have less government because they are greedy and hate poor people.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Nov. 13 2012,11:04

I think there is a HUGE number of people voting for free candy because they are getting free candy. A HUGE number. Very few is an insanely small estimate. Then there are the people voting for the black guy.

As long as the liberals are allowed to buy the vote of the poor with rich people's money, they will win.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 13 2012,11:20

"If I vote for this, I get free shit, and most of the people I know do, too. I like getting free shit, so does everybody else I know."

It's the double whammey of "I win and mostly everyone else I know does, too."

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 13 2012,11:39

"I have a goose laying golden eggs. If I kill the goose and cut it open, I will get lots of eggs at once."

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 13 2012,12:10

Something along those lines.

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 15 2012,04:39

Romney said Obama won because he gave out so much free candy, heh.

< http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012....t=hp_t3 >

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 15 2012,10:03

Recently posted on a lefty forum, which I just love reading.

QUOTE

Jesus christ you farking rednecks are so retarded all you vote for is guns and god? Get with the times you rights don't matter anymore fuck off!

Haha, we're flooding your states with minorities and immigrants they will hate you and never vote with you since we give them free stuff.

Have fun being a minority loser, your days are fucking over. Hope you like paying taxes because you didn't build that you were just born lucky, plenty of people work hard too so now they need your money and special priveleges. By the way, we just won even against a landslide of you people since our plan to dilute your vote worked flawlessly.

Not sure if serious.

Posted by Troy on Nov. 15 2012,13:01

Not that there aren't people out there like that, but that looks like a grade A troll on most of the forums I frequent.

Or an immediate ban, either way.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 15 2012,15:01

The "you didn't build that" line makes me believe in the troll theory.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,10:25

< Paul Ryan: We refuse to learn from our past mistakes >. Rick "I should be in a sanitarium" Santorum also chimes in like a jackass...

QUOTE

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) on Monday dismissed the notion that the party would ever embrace same-sex marriage, and insisted that "it would be suicidal if it did."

Only things that are living have to worry about suicide. Your party is fucking dead.

Posted by Leisher on Apr. 12 2013,10:41

The Republicans are fucking TERRIFIED of losing their base. They're so ignorant. Their base will NEVER vote Democrat, so change policy all you want to pick up votes from people who will vote Dem.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,10:42

"Would never vote republican" also applies to... oh.... about 47% of democrats, too.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,10:43

I really think it's going to take at least solid 10 elections of them just getting their asses beat in the White House and Congress before they learn. All the old, insane party members should be dead by then. Hopefully, they aren't replaced with new insane ones, although Paul's not inspiring confidence.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,10:50

Know why Romney was a terrible candidate? Because the media says he was. On paper he was a better person and leader than Obama in every way, except for not being democrat.

So no, there is no hope for anyone not democrat, for the foreseeable future. The media won't let there be hope, and they are not being held accountable.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,10:58

QUOTE

Know why Romney was a terrible candidate? Because the media says he was.

He did a decent job of burying himself.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,11:04

(Malcolm @ Apr. 12 2013,13:58)

QUOTE

Know why Romney was a terrible candidate? Because the media says he was.

He did a decent job of burying himself.

Yeah, I remember how his correct "47%" statement was completely ignored by the media, and his "binders full of women" comment was taken out of context and completely ignored by the media, and how the media is always investigating every bullshit statistic the Obama white house puts out.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 12 2013,11:21

I didn't need the media to tell me Romney was an atrocious candidate not fit to be President of the Home Owner's Association, much less POTUS. Unfortunately the two even partially qualified candidates in the primaries/general (Ron Paul & Gary Johnson) were pretty much completely ignored by every media outlet except Sourcefed/PDS.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,11:26

QUOTE

I didn't need the media to tell me Romney was an atrocious candidate not fit to be President of the Home Owner's Association, much less POTUS.

Seconded.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,11:27

(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2013,13:50)

QUOTE

On paper [Romney] was a better person and leader than Obama in every way, except for not being democrat.

(TPRJones @ Apr. 12 2013,14:21)

QUOTE

I didn't need the media to tell me Romney was an atrocious candidate not fit to be President of the Home Owner's Association, much less POTUS.

Not seeing anything contradictory, here.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,11:33

Are you shitting me? Just off the top of my head, I can recall Mitt thinking the Patriot Act is still a good idea.

QUOTE

In 2011, he signed a pledge promising to seek passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Yep, totally the most important thing going on in the country at the time.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,11:34

Are you missing my point?

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 12 2013,11:40

(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2013,13:27)

QUOTE

Not seeing anything contradictory, here.

Me, neither. Obama's an awful President - worse then Romney would have been - but so what?

1 < 2 doesn't imply that 2 >= 100.

But it doesn't matter. No under the age of 50 pays any attention to old media. And everyone over 50 votes whatever gives them the best Social Security and Medicare. Media has become irrelevant.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,11:42

Original point was that the media will play up a republican's weaknesses and ignore a democrat's weaknesses, and even report them as strengths, and that republicans have no chance to win anything important in the foreseeable future.

That and "free candy."

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,11:44

The media isn't as big a problem for the pachyderms as the pachyderms themselves.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,11:45

(TPRJones @ Apr. 12 2013,14:40)

QUOTE

But it doesn't matter. No under the age of 50 pays any attention to old media. And everyone over 50 votes whatever gives them the best Social Security and Medicare. Media has become irrelevant.

People vote for whoever they are told to vote for. Media is the constant background noise, and "new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,11:52

QUOTE

"new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.

I'm fairly certain the Republicans think the same thing, which might be why the media fucking hates them.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,11:57

(Malcolm @ Apr. 12 2013,14:52)

QUOTE

I'm fairly certain the Republicans think the same thing, which might be why the media fucking hates them.

I dont want their opinions, i want the news.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,12:08

QUOTE

I dont want their opinions, i want the news.

News doesn't sell as well as mass hysteria. Joe Pulitzer and Billy Randy Hearst figured that out years ago. Objectivity simply won't turn a profit.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 12 2013,12:10

(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2013,13:42)

QUOTE

Oh. Okay, sure, I guess I can see that. My crazy hippie aunt does the same thing.

Well, as long as you make an exception for Fox news, who do the same things in the other direction. Like the rest of my family.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 12 2013,12:12

(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2013,13:45)

QUOTE

..."new media" is owned by the youth... who have been told all their lives that republicans are evil and bush is hitler, and anyone who tries to argue is either a racist, a moron, or paid by the republican party to repeat the talking points.

Well, clearly you haven't been watching much "new media", Grandpa.

The ones with the vast majority of viewers claim to think that both Democrats and Republicans are nearly equally full of shit and that they're just going to stop voting until a viable third party comes along.

QUOTE

I dont want their opinions, i want the news.

You are watching the wrong thing, then, they don't do journalism anymore and haven't for a very long time. There are plenty of other good sources for news that don't involve your television, go try them.

But whining about how they don't do news on TV anymore is not going to get you anywhere.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,12:41

YOU PEOPLE keep confusing things I say for my own feelings on the matter. All I am talking about is why republicans aren't going to win any more.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 12 2013,12:47

Oh. Yeah, they're going to have a rough time, although not for any reasons you've mentioned yet.

They're big problems are they are pretty much completely opposed to everything that blacks and hispanics care about, and that whole gay marriage thing pretty much ensures they can't get any young people interested except for the really extreme Christian youth. Their stances on most issues are locking them into an aging and dying demographic who are increasingly unable to understand modern issues due to technological ignorance.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,12:50

QUOTE

Their stances on most issues are locking them into an aging and dying demographic who are increasingly unable to understand modern issues due to technological ignorance.

Technology is only one of the things they don't understand.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,12:54

(TPRJones @ Apr. 12 2013,15:47)

QUOTE

And I am saying that a candidate could come along that supports EVERYTHING blacks and hispanics want, and everything else that your typical liberal wants, but if he is a republican, and trying to reform the republican party, the media will never report a thing that would help him get elected.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2013,13:10

Who the fuck is trying to reform the Republican party? I've seen nothing but them going backwards ever since their Messiah, Reagan, left office. If a reformer ever comes along and gets that party's nomination, let me know.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 12 2013,13:42

Nobody, nothing, never mind. Media is awesome and/or old and irrelevant.

Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 12 2013,14:02

(GORDON @ Apr. 12 2013,14:54)

QUOTE

Possibly. Although the odds of something that crazy happening are right up there with the odds of getting honest reporting out of the old media. So as long as we are in fantasy-land, I could also see it being properly reported as a possibility.

But yeah, I generally agree with you. I just see it as being less relevant than you do.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2013,10:16

< Chris Christie getting surgery >. Why?

QUOTE

Observers said that whatever his motivation, losing weight could help Christie overcome what has been seen as one of the most significant barriers to a run for the presidency - the health concerns associated with obesity.

Of all the concerns I have about who runs the White House, "body weight" has to be somewhere towards the bottom near "have they ever broken the speed limit?" Then again, it's no coincidence JFK started trouncing Nixon in the polls after the first televised debate.

Posted by TheCatt on May 07 2013,10:23

People care. Whether they say it or not.

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2013,10:25

I don't care. I'd love to see a big fat dude in office. With a massive beard.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2013,10:27

(TheCatt @ May 07 2013,12:23)

QUOTE

People care. Whether they say it or not.

I know they do. But better looking pachyderms than Chris have been destroyed in elections. You have to look good and be able to lie smoothly at the drop of a hat.

Posted by TPRJones on May 07 2013,10:51

Bullshit, no one cares about "health" as in "we need to be sure not to elect someone that might die in office". They care about how thin and fuckable someone is, and whether they have nice hair and a gleaming smile.

For example, Dwight Eisenhower wouldn't be able to win today just because he was bald. Yet as far as I know being bald is not a danger to "health".

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2013,13:52

(TPRJones @ May 07 2013,13:51)

QUOTE

Or he has the same color of skin.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2013,14:02

(GORDON @ May 07 2013,15:52)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ May 07 2013,13:51)

QUOTE

Or he has the same color of skin.

What black votes did Obama take away that the Republican party already hadn't pissed away? I'm trying to figure out how many votes Mitt lost by running against a black* Democrat as opposed to any other donkey. The count keeps coming back 0.

* = half

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2013,14:11

None. What Obama did was get their asses out the door to vote for the brother, when they would not have voted otherwise.

Posted by TheCatt on May 07 2013,15:55

On the other hand... if fatties wanted a fatty president, I mean... shoe-in, right? That's like 60% of the electorate.

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2013,16:05

Are fatties self-loathing?

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2013,16:09

(GORDON @ May 07 2013,18:05)

QUOTE

Are fatties self-loathing?

...

...

...

Oh shit, that's not rhetorical?

Posted by GORDON on May 07 2013,16:14

So a fattie candidate is not the sure-thing a black democrat is.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2013,16:19

[insert minority here] Democrat would have achieved the same impact.

Posted by TPRJones on May 07 2013,16:56

QUOTE

What black votes did Obama take away that the Republican party already hadn't pissed away?

With Mitt, probably none, because he was hopeless. But exit polling during the 2008 election did show that something like 94% of black Republicans voted for Obama, and McCain wasn't quite that awful, even with Palin strapped around his neck like an albatross. I lost a handful of Livejournal "friends" for daring to suggest that those particular voters might have been swayed by the color of his skin.

Posted by TheCatt on May 07 2013,17:11

The only black Republican I know voted for Obama in 08.

Posted by Malcolm on May 07 2013,19:15

QUOTE

But exit polling during the 2008 election did show that something like 94% of black Republicans voted for Obama, and McCain wasn't quite that awful, even with Palin strapped around his neck like an albatross.

I still say any minority would score that well in their own demographic.

Posted by TPRJones on May 07 2013,20:45

Sure, and I don't really hold it against them. Everyone likes to get swept up into a historical first if it feels personal to them.

Still, no matter how they want to try to spin it some people clearly did vote for him only because of the color of his skin.

Posted by GORDON on May 08 2013,05:11

(TPRJones @ May 07 2013,23:45)

QUOTE

Still, no matter how they want to try to spin it some people clearly did vote for him only because of the color of his skin.

And more did so in his favor than against.

Posted by Malcolm on May 08 2013,11:50

< Public hates pachyderm Congressmen > slightly less than Democrats.

QUOTE

And Congress' approval ratings continue to track with various diseases and horrible life events. Fewer than a third of Americans think Congressional Democrats are doing good work; only about one-in-five feel the same way about Republicans.

Posted by GORDON on May 09 2013,06:13

(GORDON @ May 07 2013,17:11)

QUOTE

None. What Obama did was get their asses out the door to vote for the brother, when they would not have voted otherwise.

< http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013....t=hp_t2 >

Posted by Malcolm on May 09 2013,07:08

Sorry that all the honkies are so lazy and apathetic.

QUOTE

This the first time since 1968 that blacks turned out at a higher rate the whites.

As you'll remember, that was the last time there was a black candidate ... oh, wait a sec, no he wasn't.

Posted by GORDON on May 09 2013,07:13

I am not sure what you are arguing with me about any more.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2013,11:48

< More idiocy >.

QUOTE

Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has said that he believes Obama is “getting perilously close” to impeachment as well.

Dumb-ass.

Except for this dude.

QUOTE

So far Louisana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been the only Republican to openly call on those in his party to stop talking about impeachment, telling David Gregory on Meet the Press that he “reject[s] that kind of talk.”

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 26 2014,10:28

Preview of < new losing strategy > to be employed in 2016.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 09 2014,11:20

< Rand Paul predicts > death of pachyderms in ten years.

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 14 2014,12:12

< Rand Paul > prophesies.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 01 2014,10:33

Double-barreled news blast:

< Rand Paul shows a glimmer > of intelligence.

QUOTE

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that Republicans need to show Hispanic voters that they are not “just the party of deportation.”

Yeah, you're also the party of running the worst fucking prez campaigns in the last decade. You're the party that's become a joke, even compared to your major opposition, which is also a joke.

< Paul Ryan > introduces newest budget bill that will get defeated.

QUOTE

"Because of a stubborn unwillingness to cut the deficit in a balanced way by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and well connected, the House Republican Budget would slow the economy, stack the deck against the middle class, and threaten the guaranteed benefits seniors have paid for and earned," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.

Let's hear it for bipartisanship.

Democratic response: < Wave arms and chant "Koch." >

Posted by Malcolm on May 03 2014,10:05

< Boner continues > to beat the dead horse that is Benghazi. Yep, instead of giving a fuck about USSR II or any of the other more important shit going on...

Posted by Leisher on May 03 2014,12:25

It's amazing that Benghazi is a dead horse.

The evidence has always been there that the morons in charge ignored a threat and did nothing to help the people there.

Put Republicans in charge and there would be headlines about how they murdered those people. However, with B Rock and his cronies in charge, nobody in the media thinks the deaths of four Americans because of the admin's incompetence is a big deal.

Posted by Malcolm on May 03 2014,17:36

The failure of combos of administrations and intelligence orgs in this country has been a staple since the Cold War ended.

Posted by GORDON on May 03 2014,19:22

(Leisher @ May 03 2014,15:25)

QUOTE

None of America's problems are Obama's fault because of the previous administration.

Of course, 9/11 was Bush's failure even though it happened within the first 2 years of his presidency. I saw a whole movie about it. It won awards. I've never heard it hinted that Clinton's policies were to blame.

I had that thought, today.

Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2014,10:18

< Shut the fuck up >. Someone needs to tone down the stupid.

Posted by TPRJones on May 20 2014,10:25

What is the deal with these idiots? Are they really so enamored with the allure of the cock that they think it must be easy to "make someone gay"?

I can't imagine someone being able to change my sexual orientation with anything less than a long and carefully calculated program of torture and brainwashing. It would be easier to move a mountain. Why do these people see sexuality as being so ... easily adjustable?

Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2014,10:28

I can only think of the one Metalocalypse where Murderface explains that he's never eaten a hot dog because it looks too much like a dick.

Posted by Vince on May 20 2014,10:28

The anti-common core argument is getting a lot of attention and folks are opting their kids out which means companies that contribute to our campaigns are losing money! Quick! Find someone saying something stupid about common core so we can get out the broad brushes to paint them all with!

Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2014,10:35

(Vince @ May 20 2014,12:28)

QUOTE

You can't argue on one hand the media is unforgiving and then put out the, "Well, it's just one crazy out of many argument." One crazy makes the rest look bad.

Posted by TPRJones on May 20 2014,11:23

(Malcolm @ May 20 2014,12:28)

QUOTE

I can only think of the one Metalocalypse where Murderface explains that he's never eaten a hot dog because it looks too much like a dick.

Well, for the record I said my sexuality was unchanging, but didn't specify exactly what it is.

Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2014,11:29

QUOTE

Why do these people see sexuality as being so ... easily adjustable?

Because it scares the ever-loving fuck out of them. Why? Who knows. Sex is major hangup for many people.

Posted by Vince on May 21 2014,03:53

(Malcolm @ May 20 2014,12:35)

QUOTE

You can't argue on one hand the media is unforgiving and then put out the, "Well, it's just one crazy out of many argument." One crazy makes the rest look bad.

I really don't understand what you're saying there. There is at least one crazy in an group of more than about 5 or so people. Using your argument, every group looks bad because they all have at least one crazy.

Posted by Leisher on May 21 2014,05:53

(Malcolm @ May 20 2014,13:18)

QUOTE

< Shut the fuck up >. Someone needs to tone down the stupid.

Well, common core is so new that he might turn out to be right

But seriously, common core is absolute shit.

As for the gay argument, I heard a great one yesterday. "So you think being gay is a choice? Because you dream about cocks all day, but choose not to suck them?"

Posted by Malcolm on May 21 2014,07:51

(Vince @ May 21 2014,05:53)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ May 20 2014,12:35)

QUOTE

You can't argue on one hand the media is unforgiving and then put out the, "Well, it's just one crazy out of many argument." One crazy makes the rest look bad.

Yeah, but this isn't some random fucker. This is an elected official who's supposed to have an IQ greater than a retarded chihuahua. He's adding to the pathetic caricature his party has become. His statements about the common core encouraging t3h g4y are beyond stupid. They should warrant removal from office or at least a kick to the head.

Posted by Vince on May 21 2014,08:24

(Malcolm @ May 21 2014,09:51)

QUOTE

No greater stupid than Harry Reed saying the Koch Bros are THE leading cause, "not one of the causes... THE leading cause" of global warming. And that's a US senator, not a local state rep.

Posted by Malcolm on May 21 2014,08:35

(Vince @ May 21 2014,10:24)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ May 21 2014,09:51)

QUOTE

No greater stupid than Harry Reed saying the Koch Bros are THE leading cause, "not one of the causes... THE leading cause" of global warming. And that's a US senator, not a local state rep.

Fine. They can both be dumbshits. One's party has more of a PR handicap.

EDIT: Actually, wait a fucking second. People with money who might influence others with their cash is at least a thing that has happened at some point, whether or not Koch and Co. do it notwithstanding. I know of no precedent in history where education curriculum changed a heterosexual to a homo. That's as fucking idiotic as saying that too much gourmet cooking makes you French or too much rap music makes you violent.

Posted by TPRJones on May 21 2014,08:57

...too much NASCAR makes you fill your lawn with broken kitchen appliances?

Posted by TPRJones on May 21 2014,09:04

...eating too much fettuccine makesa you joina the Mafia?

Posted by Vince on May 21 2014,09:09

(Malcolm @ May 21 2014,10:35)

QUOTE

People with money who might influence others with their cash is at least a thing that has happened at some point, whether or not Koch and Co. do it notwithstanding. I know of no precedent in history where education curriculum changed a heterosexual to a homo.

And I know of no precedent in history where buying off politicians caused the earth to warm, either. And an ass stupid local politician in Florida has exactly dick to do with me or how I live my life. They can pass all the stupid ass laws they want in Florida and I care not a wit. I just won't live there and if the laws are bad enough won't visit there either. Harry Reid directly impacts my life with ass stupid laws he passes. And the man apparently has some sort of mental disorder.

Remember when he said that "someone" told him that Mitt Romney hadn't paid his income taxes in 10 years. And that he needed to respond to that. Not because he had any evidence, but because the accusation was out there?

Bat shit insane.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 11 2014,12:24

< Majority leader > gets smoked.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 12 2014,10:18

< No student loan refi for you >.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 13 2014,06:56

(Malcolm @ Jun. 12 2014,13:18)

QUOTE

< No student loan refi for you >.

Total political stunt.

"Look at the Republicans protecting their rich masters!"

Meanwhile, they know their base won't care that they're blatantly trying to take money from a specific group of people to freely give it to another.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 13 2014,07:23

Considering how much the gov't has contributed to inflating college costs, I say thought ought to allow the refi and the losses can get taken out of Congressional and White House paychecks for the next few decades.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 13 2014,19:24

This looks like huge evidence that there is a major coverup happening. A crashed computer will not cause emails to be lost from an email server.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....to-2011 >

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 13 2014,22:18

(GORDON @ Jun. 13 2014,21:24)

QUOTE

This looks like huge evidence that there is a major coverup happening. A crashed computer will not cause emails to be lost from an email server.

< http://www.foxnews.com/politic....to-2011 >

Maybe someone still uses POP3.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 14 2014,12:25

they don't do backups?

Posted by Vince on Jun. 14 2014,12:27

I find it ironic that federal regulations require companies to retain their emails for however many years, but they supposedly lost theirs because her PC crashed.

Way too many tech savvy people now to try to pull that one off.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 15 2014,13:21

(Leisher @ Jun. 14 2014,14:25)

QUOTE

they don't do backups?

Maybe the internet was down so they couldn't get to carbonite.com.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 25 2014,13:44

< Boner > plans to sue B. Rock. For something.

QUOTE

But Boehner didn’t say which action he attended to challenge. In a memo to House colleagues, Boehner wrote that ‘On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce - at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.’

Boner doesn't even remember who they people of this country are. I'm sure he knows all the rich dudes in his district really well, though.

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 14 2014,11:02

< McCain versus every other pachyderm >.

QUOTE

Speaking to reporters last week, CIA Director John Brennan said that the question of whether that information could have been obtained without brutal interrogation sessions was "unknowable."

Fucking Rumsfeld, Jr., ladies and gentlemen.

QUOTE

The top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, cited the case of Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi Arabian citizen and al Qaeda operative who was captured in Pakistan in March, 2002. He was one of the three detainees the CIA says it subjected to waterboarding. Chambliss said that 766 actionable intelligence reports were written off of the information he provided during interrogation sessions.

So we got this one dude saying that brutality is perfectly ok so long as the benefits are sufficient. Total days spent as a POW: 0.

QUOTE

If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so!

- Nice Guy Eddie Cabot

QUOTE

McCain, who was tortured after being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War, has opposed the use of torture on American detainees. He said the practices "fly in the face of everything that America values and stands for."

Whoa. You mean that if your values mutate and transform in the face of pressure, then they ultimately don't mean shit? If you need a separate set of fundamental precepts for war time versus peace time, enemies versus friends, then you're a tool? Ah, who to believe ... what a conundrum.

QUOTE

Altogether, McCain was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was released on March 14, 1973. His wartime injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.

What a conundrum. Good job, Republicans.

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 14 2014,11:07

< Angry old man with shotgun responds >. Total days spent as a POW: 0. Tied with Saxby Chambliss.

Posted by Leisher on Dec. 14 2014,11:35

I don't think the majority of Americans give a rat's ass about the torture stuff.

Posted by Vince on Dec. 14 2014,18:37

I agree. Hell, sometimes I don't think they care what's happening to US citizens, much less foreign captured POWs.

Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 14 2014,19:10

I think there's a sizeable minority that do care, but only because it's related to the things they already hate about the NSA and the FCC.

Posted by unkbill on Dec. 19 2014,15:50

Hell they gave me 1,000 dollars, a better job a pat on the head and a dozen Hostess Ding Dongs. All just for turning all your asses in to the government.
What do you mean most Americans don't give a shit.

LOL

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 18 2015,11:06

< Someone needs to > tell Scott Walker to shut the fuck up, or at least hire a better PR firm.

QUOTE

"I think God created the earth. I think science and my faith aren't incompatible."

There's at least one word in that sentence he doesn't understand.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2015,10:42

< Ben Carson >, expert on human psychology and sexuality:

QUOTE

The Baltimore neurosurgeon made the outlandish claims to television host Chris Cuomo on a segment of CNN’s morning show “New Day” after the anchor asked if he thought people had control over their sexual orientation, during a discussion about same-sex marriage.

“Absolutely,” Carson began his bizarre argument. “Because a lot of people who go into prison — go into prison straight, and when they come out they’re gay. So did something happen while they were in there?”

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 04 2015,11:05

In his defense, my gerbils became homosexual when separated by gender.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 04 2015,11:27

I think I am at the point where my disdain for Democrats is not enough to keep me voting for Republicans.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2015,11:39

(GORDON @ Mar. 04 2015,13:27)

QUOTE

I think I am at the point where my disdain for Democrats is not enough to keep me voting for Republicans.

Every single election is Kang v. Kodos.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 04 2015,11:46

I can't in good consciousness vote for either of those parties. Time to start wasting my vote on independents.

Or... can one un-register to vote? At least then no more jury duty summons.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2015,11:59

(GORDON @ Mar. 04 2015,13:46)

QUOTE

Or... can one un-register to vote? At least then no more jury duty summons.

I've looked into that. The short and long answers are "no, unless you give up citizenship or are otherwise ineligible." It's kind of like the mafia, the only way out is to die or make them want you to leave.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 04 2015,12:00

Wonder what happens if you have someone report you as dead to the local election board. Wonder how far it would spread before it caused you real problems.

Posted by Troy on Mar. 04 2015,12:03

Pick your favorite felony, I guess?

e: oh that's a state by state thing

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 04 2015,12:14

(GORDON @ Mar. 04 2015,14:00)

QUOTE

Wonder what happens if you have someone report you as dead to the local election board. Wonder how far it would spread before it caused you real problems.

That should immediately put you under suspicion because it shows you give a fuck about voting and think it matters.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 05 2015,10:50

(Malcolm @ Mar. 04 2015,12:42)

QUOTE

< Ben Carson >, expert on human psychology and sexuality:

QUOTE

< Ben Carson >: wait, I've got more.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 05 2015,10:58

QUOTE

“I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. For myself I remember very clearly how alluring I found the showers after gym class in high school, until the day I decided to follow Gods will and remain a heterosexual. I know that orientation is a choice because it is a choice I myself have made."

See, if they came out and said something like that I'd feel less hatred of them and more pity.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 05 2015,11:03

I'm trying to imagine what George Washington would have answered if someone asked him in 1785 (or whenever he was running for first President) his thoughts about homosexuality.

Not because I would have cared about his opinion, but because I like to think he would have just blinked at that person and asked him if he had anything more important to worry about, today.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 05 2015,11:11

QUOTE

For myself I remember very clearly how alluring I found the showers after gym class in high school, until the day I decided to ~~follow Gods will~~ completely suppress any exploration of my own sexuality for fear of being confused and ostracized and ~~remain~~ retreat back into the tiny corner of my psyche where the hard choices are already made for me, like the decision to be a heterosexual.

Fixed.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 05 2015,11:24

(GORDON @ Mar. 05 2015,14:03)

QUOTE

Not because I would have cared about his opinion, but because I like to think he would have just blinked at that person and asked him if he had anything more important to worry about, today.

I was just thinking that today as I saw people get in a huff over the waist of the live action Cinderella character.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2015,03:39

(GORDON @ Mar. 05 2015,13:03)

QUOTE

Absolutely. I felt that way with the evolution question with Scott Walker. About as relevant to the situations the next President will have to address as whether he thinks Jesus Christ was right or left handed.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 06 2015,07:47

QUOTE

About as relevant to the situations the next President will have to address as whether he thinks Jesus Christ was right or left handed.

One is a theory of science, the other is something completely trivial. I am actually concerned about the ability of a prez's mind to understand things in such a way. Otherwise, you get some of the idiotic theories espoused by the talking mummies that refuse to leave the GOP. Like the ever quotable twat who went on record saying that a woman's reproductive system is somehow aware of when it's being raped and maybe it takes the eggs to a safehouse or something so they aren't fertilized.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 07 2015,18:09

< Jeb Bush supports Common Core. >

This is one of the top trending topics on the internet right now, and not because people agree with him.

A guy named Bush didn't need another strike against him. He should just drop out now.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 07 2015,18:22

I really have no issue with CC, other than all the whining. God parents whine so fucking much.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 07 2015,20:36

I have a problem with CC because all the educators I know have problems with CC.

Also, why reinvent the wheel? If we need a new system, do what Japan does because they're curb stomping us.

Plus, our old system allowed people to separate themselves from the pack. (Good and bad)

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 08 2015,08:09

(TheCatt @ Mar. 07 2015,21:22)

QUOTE

I really have no issue with CC, other than all the whining. God parents whine so fucking much.

The reality of CC is, in spite of the school system telling us that normal academics would not be disrupted by the CC testing, it has completely been disrupted by the CC testing. The entire 3rd quarter of school has been completely devoted to daily CC practice testing, and then the testing itself. There have been very few things to get them their actual grade for this quarter. So few things that a recent homework assignment, a simple 7-word word search for reading class, had the same weight as a spelling test and counted for 7% of the entire grade. This became a problem since it wasn't marked in the assignment book as something to be turned in.

There's so much pressure being put on 9 year old kids that they come home crying, hating school, never wanting to go back. Good job, educators.

The school apparently gets money based on the overall results of this CC testing, and the teachers somehow get evaluated according to this CC testing. I don't know the specifics of it, but I have heard it often enough, here and there. Of course the children's actual education is going to get thrown aside for it, because there's money involved, here.

We've already decided to opt him out of it all, next year. School is going to be pissed since he would be one of the top scorers.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 08 2015,08:56

QUOTE

If we need a new system, do what Japan does because they're curb stomping us.

Japan's cultish devotion to tradition go hand in hand with its education system. It's starting to show some cracks after a couple thousand years. We can't emulate that system without that culture. We aren't them geographically or politically, either.

QUOTE

Also, why reinvent the wheel?

You're suggesting the current educational standards are nothing but elegant, simple, sublime successes? This ain't a wheel; it's a bloated Rube Goldberg machine spinning into the void.

QUOTE

The school apparently gets money based on the overall results of this CC testing, and the teachers somehow get evaluated according to this CC testing.

Now that's doubly bad and lazy. Standardized, fill-in-the-cirlce tests are the speedbumps of academic life. They should all be removed.

QUOTE

There's so much pressure being put on 9 year old kids that they come home crying, hating school, never wanting to go back. Good job, educators.

They've done their job. They've proven they suck at teaching. Consider it motivation for your kid to start learning things on his own instead of waiting for someone else to explain it. Figuring out at an early age that school is bullshit is a very important lesson.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 08 2015,09:06

(GORDON @ Mar. 08 2015,11:09)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Mar. 07 2015,21:22)

QUOTE

I really have no issue with CC, other than all the whining. God parents whine so fucking much.

Here's where you are completely wrong. The CC is not the test. The test is end of grade testing that is there regardless of the curriculum.

Rage against the test. Not the common core.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 08 2015,13:21

The school told us the test is brand new and based on what they are taught according to the CC curriculum. This PARCC testing was only introduced when the CC curriculum was. The school shouldn't be lying to us.

< http://www.parcconline.org/about-parcc >

QUOTE

PARCC is based on the core belief that assessment should work as a tool for enhancing teaching and learning. Because the assessments are aligned with the new, more rigorous Common Core State Standards (CCSS), they ensure that every child is on a path to college and career readiness by measuring what students should know at each grade level.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 08 2015,14:40

QUOTE

ou're suggesting the current educational standards are nothing but elegant, simple, sublime successes? This ain't a wheel; it's a bloated Rube Goldberg machine spinning into the void.

My point is that there are other countries doing much better than we are, so why are we trying to create something from scratch instead of adapting some of what they're doing?

QUOTE

What? It's good that his teachers have failed him? It's good they suck yet keep their jobs? Schools sucks? I don't follow your statement here. Are you implying we should just close all schools, fire all teachers, and kids can teach themselves?

Please clarify. (And understand, I get that you were pointing out the failure of our education system, but you lost me on the solution.)

QUOTE

Here's where you are completely wrong. The CC is not the test. The test is end of grade testing that is there regardless of the curriculum.

Rage against the test. Not the common core.

The CC is the test because this is all they teach towards. The entire curriculum is about the test. It's not about teaching skills. It's not about preparing our children for college or the real world. It's about getting them to do well on a test so the schools can get funding and politicians can use those tests score to pretend like they did something about education.

It's the "No Child Left Behind" act with a different name.

Who developed Common Core (the Bill Gates Foundation)? What are their credentials? Why are educators at all levels rejecting it and politicians embracing it? Why don't parents and educators get a say in what their children are learning or what they're teaching?

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 08 2015,16:02

(GORDON @ Mar. 08 2015,16:21)

QUOTE

There you go, the testing is BASED on the CC, and are not a PRODUCT of the CC.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 08 2015,16:04

(Leisher @ Mar. 08 2015,17:40)

QUOTE

Why are educators at all levels rejecting it and politicians embracing it? Why don't parents and educators get a say in what their children are learning or what they're teaching?

Don't know, are they retards who are afraid of and incapable of change?

QUOTE

Blame the testing, not the curriculum.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 08 2015,16:26

Well, I noticed this isn't in effect in NC, so you haven't actually had to deal with it.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 08 2015,16:45

(GORDON @ Mar. 08 2015,19:26)

QUOTE

Well, I noticed this isn't in effect in NC, so you haven't actually had to deal with it.

We have some kind of EOG testing that takes up weeks. I don't think it starts til 3rd grade though. So Thib would know more than me.

But we've had CC for 2 years now, I think.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 08 2015,19:48

QUOTE

I'm suggesting (I say this as someone who's been a student, TA, professor, knows a regent on the board of a Big Ten university, and has a drinking buddy who's been a college professor for a about three plus decades after winning the unofficial "top CS grad student" in the world award at the end of his schooling career):

1) The current educational system sucks. It stands to reason the teachers suck. One cannot change the oil from the shitty engine and expect results. One must rip out and replace the engine.

QUOTE

My point is that there are other countries doing much better than we are, so why are we trying to create something from scratch instead of adapting some of what they're doing?

2) Which ones? Do you just want to apply the standards from the top countries to our students? What's your plan when the fail rate's over 50%? The US is the tubby kid trying to climb the rope in the gym class of international education. Making him climb higher doesn't help. A successful education system in any country is a product of the demographics, geopolitics, and culture of the state. You want less stupid grads and more of them? Fix the latter two. < Stop making it acceptable and cool to be a fucking idiot >. One cannot simply toss the failing idiots out the door. They become problems when left to their own devices.

3) Invariably, without any inconsistency whatsoever, in every classroom I've ever observed or been a part of -- those who give a fuck and have a genuine incentive to learn will bury and outpace exponentially all other categories of student. There is no set of standards that will foster the desire to learn. It must come from elsewhere. If I had a kid coming home from grade school bitching about how unpleasant the testing is, the very first thing I'd make clear is that most teachers are only employed because parrots haven't learned how to read. The second thing I'd make clear is that he can be smarter than that teacher in a decade and command twice the salary. There's nothing wrong with being angry and pissed off unless you waste the energy on something non-constructive.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 09 2015,04:00

I suspect home schooling will make huge leaps until they decide college entrance exams will be tested off CC.

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 09 2015,05:52

QUOTE

My point is that there are other countries doing much better than we are, so why are we trying to create something from scratch instead of adapting some of what they're doing?

If you look around the world, our top students are as good as any other country. Our shitty students are the ones who bring us down. [Can't find the source for that, know I read it within the past 2 years]

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2015,05:55

I also think it has to do with parenting, not necessarily any particular teaching method.

My kid is going to get a good education in spite of what the local school system does to him. I think the Japanese, since that was the comparison, spend a lot of their time with their kids (or, at least riding their asses), after school working on the homework.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 09 2015,07:24

QUOTE

If you look around the world, our top students are as good as any other country.

Every country has an all-star team. No depth on our bench.

QUOTE

I suspect home schooling will make huge leaps until they decide college entrance exams will be tested off CC.

You want to talk about fucking things up ... I've never met a normal homeschooled person. Ever. They always had at least one major social deficiency. The ones who were only children were the absolute worst.

QUOTE

I also think it has to do with parenting...

QUOTE

Invariably, without any inconsistency whatsoever, in every classroom I've ever observed or been a part of -- those who give a fuck and have a genuine incentive to learn will bury and outpace exponentially all other categories of student. There is no set of standards that will foster the desire to learn. It must come from elsewhere.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2015,08:18

Actual news, not just speculation. Got on a conference call with the principal of the school and my wife. Wife has been pitching a fit with the teachers via email (always put it in writing) and she CCs the principal on everything. Asking why the word search was weighted so heavily, asking why my kid got punished for not filling in a PARCC practice test bubble correctly.... even though he got a 97% on the test otherwise. Asking why PARCC practice was taking up months of time before the actual test.

Principal came off vacation, and called us.

She is either a great actor, or she actually does care about her job. Over the years I have always been impressed with her, whenever we've interacted. She was the same, now. She expressed understanding with our issues, said we had legitimate grievances, and agreed that a lot of these things were not right. She also strongly implied that because of the state's requirements, and the teacher's union, she has very little control over her own school, and while she will look into these problems, there was very little she could do. The state is requiring the testing, and the teacher's union is telling the teachers to do what they are doing... stop at nothing to get good scores on the testing, because their raises depend on it.

So basically, we're fucked 3 ways. The state is dictating what to teach, the union is telling them how to teach it, and the principal (not in the union) has no authority to address parent concerns when things go off the rails.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 09 2015,08:34

QUOTE

...stop at nothing to get good scores on the testing, because their raises depend on it.

Parents ought to have their kids tank the test on purpose.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2015,08:38

Recently the science teacher told the kids there were X types of volcanoes. My kid said, "No, there are X+1." teacher disagrees, told my kid to be quiet. The next day my kid took in the National Geographic that he and I had read the week before, and cited his references. Teacher told him, "Well, we don't teach that one."

At least my kid didn't get kept inside from recess, again.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2015,08:43

Know what... now that I think about it, science teacher put my kid out in the hallway for disrupting class when he tried to make the teacher smarter. So yeah, he was punished.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 09 2015,08:43

QUOTE

Teacher told him, "Well, we don't teach that one."

Have your kid flip him off and make the excuse it's a nervous tick.

"No one ever taught me that gesture was obscene."

Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 09 2015,10:01

(GORDON @ Mar. 09 2015,11:38)

QUOTE

Experiences like this are what caused me to give up on public education. I expect that most of the education will be decent, anything else is up to parents.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 09 2015,10:07

(GORDON @ Mar. 09 2015,10:43)

QUOTE

Know what... now that I think about it, science teacher put my kid out in the hallway for disrupting class when he tried to make the teacher smarter. So yeah, he was punished.

Not a good education lesson, but a pretty realistic employer/employee lesson. Some bosses are open to being corrected. Some not so much.

Just tell your kid this went from being a science lesson to a sociology lesson.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 09 2015,11:17

Yeah, I have already told him that everyone is full of shit to some extent, and teachers are not exempt from that. I'm sure he does not fully grasp what I am saying yet, but it's there. He has a perfect memory as far as I can tell.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 09 2015,12:12

(Malcolm @ Mar. 09 2015,11:34)

QUOTE

...stop at nothing to get good scores on the testing, because their raises depend on it.

Parents ought to have their kids tank the test on purpose.

Now there's an idea. Maybe not tank it, but simply refuse to participate.

All you need is get a majority of parents/students in one school district to pledge that they will not show up for that final test that determines funding, and shit should hit the fan. Especially if other school districts start to copy cat that move, which they will.

It'd be fun watching a city and state threaten their taxpayers and their children, and thus, saying they have no right to an opinion in how their child is educated.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 15 2015,18:59

I've always said this shit was about money, and not any particular concern about giving kids an education. There wasn't enough money in teaching tired ol' reading, writing, and arithmetic.... they had to invent something completely different and sell a whole new set of textbooks.

Then they had to monitor social media to see what people were saying about it:

< http://tinyurl.com/p7e5jwg >

QUOTE

Pearson, the world’s largest education company, is monitoring social media during the administration of the new PARCC Common Core test to detect any security breaches, and a spokeswoman said that it was “obligated” to alert authorities when any problems were discovered.

....

Students in New Jersey are now taking the PARCC, a Common Core test created by the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, one of two multi-state consortia given $360 million in federal funds to design new standardized tests that align with the Common Core State Standards. PARCC testing is underway in several other states amid a growing opt-out movement by parents who are refusing to allow their children to take the test. Pearson has a contract of more than $100 million to administer the PARCC in New Jersey.

Moneymoneymoney Mon-AY..... MONEY!

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 15 2015,20:00

As I stated previously:

All standardized tests are bullshit. They are the essence of "fuck how you got the answer, just give it to me."

Posted by Vince on Mar. 16 2015,04:56

(GORDON @ Mar. 15 2015,20:59)

QUOTE

Moneymoneymoney Mon-AY..... MONEY!

Money or power. Most bad ideas are about one of those.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,10:44

< You would swear > Ted Cruz was paid off by the jack-asses. That's how stupid he sounds.

QUOTE

Apparently, the official presidential candidate of the Republican Party non-jokingly compared himself to the 17th century scientist Galileo Galilei. He proclaimed the comparison during an interview with the Texas Tribune while discussing climate change.

Ted, come the fuck on. You would have been one of the dudes yelling at the top of you lungs to burn GG alive.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,11:22

He's absolutely right. Al Gore was at the South by Southwest thingie saying

QUOTE

"We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore said...“And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics."

I thought at the time that these guys are becoming the same as the 16th century church burning folks at the figurative stake for heresy to their church.

I would suggest you stop reading articles that take snippets of what Ted Cruz says at least until you spend some time watching him unedited. They are in panic mode because he's starting to be heard in context and if you don't agree with him, that's fine. But he's a well reasoned speaker and his positions are very well thought out. He graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard. He won the top speaker award at the US National Debating championship and best speaker for the North American Debating championship. Princeton named one of their freakin debate awards after the man.

Seriously, if you read something where it sounds like he's talking like a lunatic take the time to hit youtube and find the source of the quote. Unseen I would bet money that they pulled something out of context. I watched a couple of interviews already with him and reporters are trying to spring "gotcha" questions on him and he answers with reason and facts and you can see in the reporter's eyes that they know they're outgunned, that they don't like him and that they've lost that round.

If he had a personality, he'd probably have already won this hands down. They've been trying to taint the well concerning him since he hit the scene because his arguments are very well presented. Like I said, you may not agree with him but you'll have a hard time faulting his logic.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,11:50

Ted Cruz won't be getting my support, vote, or approval ever. He is insane.

QUOTE

In 2014, Cruz spoke at an event held by the group In Defense of Christians (IDC). He was booed by the group after making statements considered pro-Israel. Cruz left the stage after telling the audience, "Those who hate Israel hate America...

You're shitting me.

His international policy seems to change as the suns sets and rises.

QUOTE

-In 2013, Cruz stated that America had no "dog in the fight" during the Syrian civil war and stated that America's armed forces should not serve as "al-Qaeda's air force".

-In 2014, Cruz criticized the Obama administration: "The president’s foreign policy team utterly missed the threat of ISIS, indeed, was working to arm Syrian rebels that were fighting side by side with ISIS", calling ISIS "the face of evil".

- Cruz has called for bombing ISIS, but is doubtful that the United States “can tell the good guys from the bad guys” in a plan to arm "moderate" rebels, and the plan to defeat ISIS should not be “laden with impractical contingencies, such as resolving the Syrian civil war.”

So, he goes from "Eh, fuck it, not our problem," to "Holy shit, how'd you miss these dudes, you blind fuckwit," to "Well, we could do something about it, but it's so unlikely to work we shouldn't even try."

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2015,12:00

It's almost like that is a complicated issue without any real black and white options.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,12:14

(GORDON @ Mar. 27 2015,14:00)

QUOTE

It's almost like that is a complicated issue without any real black and white options.

I'm getting more and more inclined to leave the Middle East alone to have its own decades-long melee so something can get settled. Ted seemed to have some black and white opinions when he was in Congress, as opposed to potentially running for prez. How convenient.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,12:25

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,13:50)

QUOTE

Ted Cruz won't be getting my support, vote, or approval ever. He is insane.

I'm almost afraid to ask who you WOULD support at this point.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,12:29

(Vince @ Mar. 27 2015,14:25)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,13:50)

QUOTE

Ted Cruz won't be getting my support, vote, or approval ever. He is insane.

I'm almost afraid to ask who you WOULD support at this point.

The last time I voted, I settled for the party that didn't have any platforms I disagreed with. After looking into them a bit more, I found several things that make me not want to vote for them again. All the people who run for public office seem to be the exact opposite of the folk I think ought to be there. There are literally no candidates that reflect my views. Even if I found one, there's barely above a 0% chance his party will ever have a realistic chance of being elected. Voting in this country's political games supports the illusion of freedom.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,12:51

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,13:50)

QUOTE

You're shitting me.

Only nation in the Middle East with anything approaching Western values. So I tend to agree with him on this.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,12:56

(Vince @ Mar. 27 2015,14:51)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,13:50)

QUOTE

You're shitting me.

Only nation in the Middle East with anything approaching Western values. So I tend to agree with him on this.

< Yeah >. < I see the similarities >. Both countries seem to have a problem owning up to their backdoor shit while claiming the moral high ground.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,13:03

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,13:50)

QUOTE

Don't disagree with him here either. Not getting into Syria to aid ISIS against Assad was the right move. Unfortunately, the media was so influenced by Muslim Brotherhood agents here that we couldn't really come out and support Assad (though that would have been the smart thing to do). Assad isn't a good guy, but he's a stabilizing force there. If there's anything we can learn from the last few years it's that leaving dictators in the middle east alone is generally better than toppling them. By the way, we eventually DID arm ISIS and that's what Stevens was doing in a safe house in Beghazi instead of the embassy.

Now, I think our best bet is to just try to contain what's happening over there before it turns into world war III if that's possible to avoid at this point.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2015,13:05

"The next world war isn't going to be the east versus the west, it's going to be the civilized world versus the middle east."

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,13:12

QUOTE

Now, I think our best bet is to just try to contain what's happening over there before it turns into world war III if that's possible to avoid at this point.

Decades too late. I'd argue centuries. I'd like to believe they're serious about living side by side in peace, but history suggests otherwise. Whenever they use that word, I mentally translate it as "buying time to build up our military forces until we have a decent reason to decisively annihilate the other side."

QUOTE

Assad isn't a good guy, but he's a stabilizing force there.

Bleh. I'm not going back to the previous US strategy of undermining the despotic assholes, unless they're our despotic assholes. < Fuck > < that > < noise >.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,13:47

(GORDON @ Mar. 27 2015,15:05)

QUOTE

"The next world war isn't going to be the east versus the west, it's going to be the civilized world versus the middle east."

I think that's true and it's going to make things very complicated. Russia is already trying to establish itself as the only nation willing to protect Christianity. Lots of propaganda coming from Putin to that effect. Mostly for the consumption of his own country, but also for Europe. Here, we're mostly ignoring it because if it's not involving the Kardashins or gay marriage, it doesn't matter.

Now ISIL has declared war on the armies of Rome. We can assume they're talking about Christians with that statement. I look to them going after western AND Christian icons. The ones they mentioned in their statement like the White House and Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower, but also things like the Vatican and Notre Dame Cathedral and things like that also.

So ISIL blows up a cathedral during High Mass and suddenly the Russians are looking like the only ones willing to call a spade a spade because he's already said he would stand up for the Christians and we in the West will still be stuck in PC gear and won't call them Muslim Extremists and that "Bubba Effect" that I was explaining in Unk's thread is going to kick in. While NATO is busy shifting forces away from Crimea to deal with whatever ISIL might be planning next in Europe, Russia will waltz on in and take Crimea and most of the world won't say a thing. Because Putin is protecting the Christians in a war our leaders won't even acknowledge.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,13:50

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,15:12)

QUOTE

Bleh. I'm not going back to the previous US strategy of undermining the despotic assholes, unless they're our despotic assholes. < Fuck > < that > < noise >.

I'm not suggesting we do. I'm suggesting we stay out of it. Which we didn't. Instead we armed ISIL and got an ambassador killed while trying to recork that genie.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,15:47

QUOTE

I look to them going after western AND Christian icons.

Hopefully they take out Congress during a full session. Course, that'd require those lazy fucks to show up for work.

QUOTE

If there's anything we can learn from the last few years it's that leaving dictators in the middle east alone is generally better than toppling them.

Not the heavy-handed way we do it. Targeted assassinations are awesome ways to set off regional conflicts. Keeping killing the brains until the most incompetent fuckwit takes power. Then let the revolution roll in. It'll take a few years, but effective leaders are the last thing I want over there. I want commanders that make Sgt. Schultz look good. That way, they'll never get anything accomplished.

EDIT: Think about it. Send in a wolf pack of drones. Take out the mark. Fly away. Self-destruct over the nearest friendly country or no man's land.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 27 2015,16:01

I kinda wonder if we should let ISIS take over everything, let them consolidate all their shit into nice piles, then blow the fuck out of the piles.

The mistake we have made in our recent nation building projects is that we haven't been nation building. We have been policing the streets while those stupid tribal chucklefucks are writing religion into their constitution. We haven't been putting Americans in charge of everything until competent, honest locals are ready to take charge. We have just been bombing the shit out of them and then telling them to unfuck themselves. Doesn't work because they don't know how to not put their religion in charge of everything.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 27 2015,16:13

Come on, man. What's the last nation we rebuilt that isn't a radioactive cum dumpster fire? I'm not counting Korea because it's still split. Shit, the last one was Japan. I think that only flew because they were a group of islands out in the middle of the ocean.

QUOTE

We haven't been putting Americans in charge of everything until competent, honest locals are ready to take charge.

What happens when that second category of guys never shows up? We have allies over there who think sharia law is mega, uber, sweet tits. We're helping Iran up north while we're trying to stop them down south. Apparently Iran is the only Muslim-led country with any balls over there. Where the fuck is Egypt? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Can't they all just pretend ISIS is Israel and converge on them at once? It's the same first two letters. That's 50%. Come the fuck on.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 27 2015,19:11

(Malcolm @ Mar. 27 2015,17:47)

QUOTE

The way I look at it now days is that revolutions? Not our business. "Death to America" threats? Our business. Though I am thinking on the whole "kill any effective leader over there".

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2015,09:22

QUOTE

The way I look at it now days is that revolutions? Not our business. "Death to America" threats? Our business.

I'm opposite. I don't give a fuck how many threats we receive. I care how the political turnover's going. If we keep putting enough coins in that slot machine, eventually we might hit the jackpot and some non-douchebags might take power. Until then, we have the following problem in nearly every Middle Eastern territory (I might expand this to African onees as well, although you have some insane "Christians" over there as well):

When the douches get to consolidate power, be it a state or extremist group, then they start figuring out ways to expand. Often, a way to expand is to attract new psychos to your side. Know a cheap way to attract new psychos? Advertising. Not just twitter, but anything that gets free news coverage. Like acts of terrorism. Suicide bombings, mass shootings, kidnappings, whatever. For every one dude that blows himself up, you recruit more than one. Until that last sentence is false, this shit won't stop. I don't see that happening until enough people in those regions just get fucking tired of the constant slaughter and rein in the psychos. Or all the psychos could cross-exterminate. In the meantime, let the wackos fight it out with the wackos, keep the churn rate for leadership going, cull the bright ones.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2015,17:05

QUOTE

If we keep putting enough coins in that slot machine, eventually we might hit the jackpot and some non-douchebags might take power.

I think the problem is that money wins elections, and nobody is going to give money to the non-douchebags who aren't going to make sure that money isn't well-spent.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2015,17:49

(GORDON @ Mar. 28 2015,19:05)

QUOTE

If we keep putting enough coins in that slot machine, eventually we might hit the jackpot and some non-douchebags might take power.

I think the problem is that money wins elections, and nobody is going to give money to the non-douchebags who aren't going to make sure that money isn't well-spent.

When the non-douchebags take over, they're the ones that foster economies and trading. All we have to do is not kill them. Over here, cash wins elections. Over in places like < Nigeria >, I don't know if there's enough cash to wave in front of everyone's faces to distract them from the raping, pillaging, and plundering going on.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2015,18:47

Oh, for a second I thought you meant how do we get non-douchebags over HERE winning electins.

Over there, one of their big problems is the concept of private property. When the government (or mafia, or thugs, or anyone) can take what it wants, when it wants, and frequently does, there is absolutely no incentive to invest in anything. If there's no reasonable assurance that what you build today won't be eminent domained and/or stolen tomorrow, you aren't going to invest in that economy.

Again, this could have been a problem solved by TELLING them what constitution they will follow (an original version of ours), and sticking around long enough to enforce things and get them off the ground. When people are secure in their private property, and when the economy gets off the ground, people are going to be less likely to cave to the thugs and more willing to trust the police.

IMO.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 29 2015,11:12

QUOTE

Oh, for a second I thought you meant how do we get non-douchebags over HERE winning electins.

Oh, that. I say we redefine politics so we can treat it more like what it actually is, a sport. Maybe everyone will pay more attention then.

Posted by Vince on Mar. 29 2015,15:36

(Malcolm @ Mar. 28 2015,11:22)

QUOTE

I'm opposite. I don't give a fuck how many threats we receive.

The reason it matters is because Bin Laden was saying for at least a couple of years that they were going to make the streets of New York flow with blood before the Sept 11th attacks. If we'd taken him at his word, we'd probably been better off.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 29 2015,15:47

On the other hand, do we Seal Team 6 every chucklefuck who gets mouthy?

Posted by Vince on Mar. 29 2015,18:27

Not at all. But I think they do warrant a look-see to determine if it's more than just mouthing off. I think our default should be taking them at their word unless we have evidence to the contrary. We certainly don't continue talks on nuclear capabilities while they've threatening to fly the flag of jihad over the white house.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 30 2015,12:42

With the number of threats bandied about, there's not enough money in the world to pay for the amount of effort it would require to follow up on them all.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,12:45

< Rand Paul calls out > GOP. Do I think he'll succeed? No. Do they need it? < Fuck, yes >.

QUOTE

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback on Tuesday signed into law the nation's first ban on an abortion procedure often considered the safest termination option for some pregnant women.

The new law, which takes effect on July 1, bans the dilation and evacuation (known as D and E) procedure commonly used during a pregnancy's second trimester, and thus effectively bans abortion as early as 14 weeks post-fertilization. According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, D and E is the safest means of performing an abortion after that time.

Thanks for encouraging underground, black market abortion industry that flourished fifty years ago, fuckwads. Eventually, unless there's a doctor right there in under five minutes after you finish, I just assume some more bullshit laws will get made up to do an end run around the Supreme Court.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,12:52

Took the kid to the art museum today. Asked the question, "But is this art?" to him, followed by "why" or "why not?" Had lots of good discussion.

Anyway, there was a picture of a girl sitting, face in her hands. She looks distraught. The title was, "The Morning After." Depending on who you are you are left to make your own decisions about what happened the night before, but being me, I figured she regretted a drunken hookup.

I figured another good title would be, "The Result of Making Poor Decisions."

The abortion topic makes me think of this.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,13:08

Do I want to encourage people to make decisions without thinking? Not exactly. Do I want their lives locked into raising a kid they didn't plan for and don't have the means or will to support? Even less. I'm not a fan of making them wait out the nine months and giving the kid up for adoption, either. You don't get to make a claim on their body's role as an incubation chamber for three-quarters of a year or put them at risk of complications during delivery.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,13:13

I don't think abortion should necessarily be illegal, but I do think people should be punished more for being stupid and making bad decisions. It's the only way they'll learn.

Even if it's just a big smack upside the head.

Posted by Vince on Apr. 07 2015,13:32

(GORDON @ Apr. 07 2015,14:52)

QUOTE

Took the kid to the art museum today. Asked the question, "But is this art?" to him, followed by "why" or "why not?" Had lots of good discussion.

I had that discussion with a coworker once as we walked downtown and looking at modern art. I decided if they dig up the complete piece 2,000 years from now, would they recognize it's art, or would they keep digging for the rest of whatever it is it goes to? If they keep looking for the rest of it, it's not art. It's crap.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,14:14

QUOTE

If they keep looking for the rest of it, it's not art. It's crap.

By the standards of the ruling dudes at the time when shit's dug up.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,14:16

My lesson to his was, "art can be anything that was created in order to illicit an emotional response." And, saying that something isn't art, but is bullshit, could be considered an emotional response.

I laid some deep knowledge on a 9 year old today.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 07 2015,14:16

I also taught and showed him that a lot of famous paintings are all about triangles.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 07 2015,14:18

Sometimes it's not just emotional. You are supposed to think.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 19 2015,10:26

< Rubio is a fucktard >. Hardly news.

QUOTE

"I don't believe same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right," Rubio added. "I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact...I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with."

Yep, neither's interracial marriage. Shit, I don't think heterosexual marriage is guaranteed.

QUOTE

States have always regulated marriage. And if a state wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate. I don't think courts should be making that decision.

"I'm not against gay marriage, but if some states are, I'll totally back them just because it's not explicitly guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution."

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 20 2015,15:37

Progressives in Wisconsin basically SWATing conservative supporters of Scott Walker.

Icing on the cake: judge issues gag order on victims so they can't talk about what's happening.

< http://www.nationalreview.com/article....-french >

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 20 2015,15:42

QUOTE

“I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.” They wouldn’t let her speak to a lawyer. She looked outside and saw a person who appeared to be a reporter. Someone had tipped him off.

Ah yeah, protecting and serving. While it's a douchebag move to do this, it's equally douchey of the cops to respond to it like this.

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 20 2015,15:44

Oops, meant to put that link in the Obama thread. Now the integrity of every thread is weakened.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 20 2015,15:53

That was way too much reading.

what's the tldr?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 20 2015,16:06

Progressives in the WI government are using the police force to intimidate conservative lawmakers and supporters of Scott Walker, up to and including gag orders and police threats against going public with the harassment.

Posted by TheCatt on Apr. 20 2015,16:21

Why? And how do we know it's progressives?

Posted by GORDON on Apr. 20 2015,16:35

Because the word "fascists" is too loaded a term.

They are targeting the people who supported Scott Walker's anti-union stuff. Who else?

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 22 2015,10:14

< Jeb Bush loves him some civil rights violations >.

QUOTE

"I would say the best part of the Obama administration would be his continuance of the protections of the homeland using, you know, the big metadata programs, the NSA being enhanced," Bush said on the Michael Medved radio show on Tuesday. "Even though he never defends it, even though he never openly admits it, there has been a continuation of a very important service, which is the first obligation I think of our national government is to keep us safe."

This is an alleged pachyderm front runner. If he's the best that party has, they ought to fold up their tents.

Posted by Malcolm on May 06 2015,10:06

< Huckabee >: still a retard.

Posted by Vince on May 06 2015,10:10

He's a big government GOP guy. Not interested.

Posted by Malcolm on May 06 2015,10:41

Let's check out the rest of the GOP "hopefuls." Note how many of them suddenly want federal laws and gov't to step in.

Ben Carson:

QUOTE

"I don't think this is something we really want for our society," Carson said. "You know, we're gradually just removing all the barriers to hedonistic activity. We're changing so rapidly to a different type of society, and nobody is getting a chance to discuss it because it's taboo."

We're not getting a chance to discuss it? Who the fuck is it taboo for? The old, frightened people who think bud is still grown in Satan's personal garden?

Lindsey Graham:

QUOTE

Graham says he’s opposed to legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes

At least he admits he more or less doesn't care.

Bobby Jindal:

QUOTE

While Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he’s open to a tightly controlled legal medical marijuana program in Louisiana, he remains opposed to recreational marijuana legalization.
...
“Yeah, look, I don’t think you can ignore federal law,” Jindal said. “Federal law is still the law of the land. It still needs to be enforced.”

Santorum:

QUOTE

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum does not support marijuana legalization and believes that states that have legalized are in violation of federal law.

Scott Walker:

QUOTE

I'm not, unlike the president, I still have difficulty visualizing marijuana and alcohol in the same vein.

Yeah, one kills people every day through ODs alone. The other has killed zero people in its entire recorded history.

Pataki, with one of the more sane viewpoints:

QUOTE

And if he were to win, Pataki would likely respect the rights of the states that have legalized marijuana -- especially for states that have done so via ballot initiative -- even though he personally opposes legalization.

Rick Goddamn Perry, with perhaps the most sane take on it, pretty much the same as George, but with this:

QUOTE

Perry has also been a proponent of reforming drug laws, especially for low-level nonviolent offenders.

OH MY FUCKING GOD. One of you isn't a complete financial fuckwit and has figured out tossing an endless stream of people in jail for fucking stupid possession charges isn't worth the cost. That appears to be one candidate from the entire field so far.

Rand Paul takes the Perry stance, the only difference is I believe 10x more when it coms from Rand.

John Kasich then brings us back to dumb-ass land:

QUOTE

I’m totally opposed to [legalizing drugs in Ohio], because it is a scourge in this country,

A scourge? You're shitting me.

Former psycho CEO of HP:

QUOTE

At CPAC in February, Fiorina restated her opposition to recreational legalization, but also told a personal story about rejecting medical marijuana.

Chris Christie, who turns into more of a tool every time he opens his mouth:

QUOTE

Of all the likely GOP contenders, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the most vocal opponent of marijuana legalization in any form.

Ted Cruz:

QUOTE

When it comes to a question of legalizing marijuana, I don’t support legalizing marijuana -- if it were on the ballot in the state of Texas, I would vote ‘no,’” Cruz said on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" in April. However, he went on to indicate that he wouldn't interfere with laws in those states that had passed recreational marijuana laws, including Colorado and Washington, which became the first two to do so in 2012.

So he doesn't like it, but he'd back off. Eh, 50/50.

Rubio, who provides possibly the shittiest answer on the planet:

QUOTE

Yes,” Rubio replied. “Yes, I think we need to enforce our federal laws. I don’t believe we should be in the business of legalizing additional intoxicants in this country for the primary reason that when you legalize something, what you’re sending a message to young people is it can’t be that bad, because if it was that bad, it wouldn’t be legal.”

But all the intoxicants that got grandfathered in, those are ok. Fucking moronic cunt.

And, finally, Bush the third:

QUOTE

Asked by Fox News’ Sean Hannity whether Colorado’s legalization of marijuana was a good idea, Bush said it was a “bad idea" and that he would have voted “no” were he living in the state at the time. But ultimately, he said, “states ought to have that right to do it.”

The Cruz line.

Posted by Malcolm on May 11 2015,10:36

< Chris Christie > spent $300K of the taxpayer's cash on food and booze at MetLife Stadium.

QUOTE

A Christie spokesman defended the expenses, including the concessions, which the report said did not come with any receipts, business reasons or names of individuals who benefited from the spending allowance.

Posted by Malcolm on May 12 2015,10:28

(Malcolm @ May 11 2015,12:36)

QUOTE

< Chris Christie > spent $300K of the taxpayer's cash on food and booze at MetLife Stadium.

QUOTE

< He here is > slamming someone else for their economic slights. He's also got a bridge to sell, I bet.

Posted by Malcolm on May 13 2015,10:29

< Bob Corker > tows the company line.

QUOTE

"I think there was an aha moment (Tuesday) for people on both sides of the aisle when we realized how little data is being collected," said Corker, R-Tenn. "It's beyond belief how little data is part of this program, especially if the goal is to uncover terrorists."

Wait, wait, wait. So, it's not a threat to the domestic citizens because of how little info is collected? Why the fuck does it get billions of dollars in funding every fucking year, then? To collect little to no data?

Posted by Vince on May 14 2015,02:52

Corker is a big government corporate lapdog. Horrible.

Posted by Malcolm on May 15 2015,10:15

< Pope Esse > not right-wing enough for right-wing nutters.

Posted by Malcolm on May 16 2015,09:34

(Malcolm @ May 15 2015,12:15)

QUOTE

< Pope Esse > not right-wing enough for right-wing nutters.

< It gets better >.

Posted by Malcolm on May 18 2015,10:15

(Malcolm @ May 12 2015,12:28)

QUOTE

(Malcolm @ May 11 2015,12:36)

QUOTE

< Chris Christie > spent $300K of the taxpayer's cash on food and booze at MetLife Stadium.

QUOTE

< He here is > slamming someone else for their economic slights. He's also got a bridge to sell, I bet.

He just can't stop < being wrong >.

QUOTE

Christie will say that Americans “shouldn’t listen to people like Edward Snowden, a criminal who hurt our country and now enjoys the hospitality of President Putin – while sending us messages about the dangers of authoritarian government.”

Fucking idiot. It should be worth noting that Jersey is one of the last places in the country doesn't trust you to < pump your own gas >, so his concept of what is and isn't safe might be a bit skewed.

QUOTE

In both states, advocates say gasoline could be several cents cheaper if stations weren’t required to pay staff to pump gas. But thousands of jobs are also at stake if the practice ends.

Short answer: the state gov't, let by el fucko up there, is corrupt.

Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2015,10:15

< Santorum hates on Fox News >.

Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2015,10:59

< Fellow Republican responds > to Chris Christie's idiocy.

QUOTE

I think Mr. Christie should be ashamed of himself for saying that we have to choose between the Fourth Amendment, and following the Fourth Amendment, and respecting the privacy of the American people on one hand, or a coffin on the other hand.

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,10:21

< How much ground has the right lost >?

QUOTE

It's been a long and slow crawl, but Americans have steadily become more liberal on social issues without much interruption -- except for a brief dip when President Obama first took office in 2009. Today, it's tied at 31 percent. Back in 1999, it was about two-to-one conservative over liberal.

Posted by GORDON on May 26 2015,10:27

What's amazing is that the only thing to which republicans are sticking to their guns is religious stuff, and that's the stuff that's getting really unpopular. They are as tax-and-spend as any true liberal.

I'm not sure if the anti-obama backlash will be enough to save them in 2016. Half of the so-called anti-Bush backlash in 2008 was actually 98% of black voters mobilizing to show they will vote for a black guy.

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,10:38

QUOTE

I'm not sure if the anti-obama backlash will be enough to save them in 2016.

Not even close.

Posted by Leisher on May 26 2015,10:54

The Republican party needs to sit down and have a "Come to Jesus" session about their core voters and the message they're sending everyone else.

They're REALLY keeping those core voters, but that group is constantly shrinking, would NEVER vote the other way, and everyone else thinks you and that group are assholes.

Maybe it's time to think about a new strategy?

Posted by Malcolm on May 26 2015,10:56

QUOTE

Maybe it's time to think about a new strategy?

The last time Republicans met to try and revamp their party, they attempted to come up with an image that could usher them into modern times. They picked, I shit you not, Ronald Reagan on a horse.

Posted by Leisher on May 26 2015,10:58

They should have picked John F. Kennedy since he'd be a Republican today. Hell, going around saying things like "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." might make him an extreme right wing tea bagger.

Posted by Vince on May 26 2015,14:07

JFK also lowered taxes quite a bit to spur economic growth. Or was in favor of it. Not sure if he succeeded.

Posted by Malcolm on May 27 2015,10:11

< I'm starting to like Rand a bit more >. He's pissing off all the right people.

QUOTE

He has been blasted by two candidates, first New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who clubbed him for being on the same side as Edward Snowden (“He’s a criminal and he’s hiding in Russia, and he’s lecturing to us about the evils of authoritarian government while he lives under the protective umbrella of Vladimir Putin? That’s who Mike Lee and Rand Paul are siding with? With Edward Snowden? Hey, come on.”) and now Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (“American weakness, not American strength, emboldens our enemies.

Posted by Malcolm on May 29 2015,10:13

< Hastert > proves what I've been saying for years -- that he's nothing but a corrupt, greedy douchebag.

Posted by TheCatt on May 29 2015,10:54

I've always thought he was Mr Boring.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but he's basically guilty of structuring, and should have all his assets seized, right? Isn't that what happened to the general store that was posted here somewhere a few weeks ago?

Posted by Malcolm on May 29 2015,10:58

Politicians are exempt from normal laws. We can't be throwing our white-collar leaders in jail and taking their shit. We save that for the real problem -- people without the cash to hire decent lawyers.

Posted by TheCatt on May 30 2015,13:25

< Touching boy students when he was a teacher, apparently. >

Posted by Vince on May 30 2015,20:23

I'm glad there's nothing within the last three decades (Clinton emails, IRS, etc) that the attorney general could be looking at instead. They must have a handle on everything else.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 03 2015,10:13

< Huckabee > opens his idiot mouth again.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 03 2015,10:18

(Malcolm @ Jun. 03 2015,13:13)

QUOTE

< Huckabee > opens his idiot mouth again.

With which part do you take issue?

QUOTE

“Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE [physical education],” Mr. Huckabee said at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Tenn., in February. “I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said: ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’

Because, hey, I think I'd have done the same thing.

QUOTE

Huckabee continued, “For those who do not think that we are under threat, simply recognize the fact that we are now, in city after city, watching ordinances say that your seven-year-old daughter, if she goes into the restroom, cannot be offended and you can’t be offended if she’s greeted there by a 42-year-old man who feels more like a woman than he does a man."

This has also recently been proven true.

< http://www.advocate.com/politic....er-room >

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 03 2015,10:24

QUOTE

This is about me and how I felt unsafe. I should feel safe in there.

Sing it with me now ... FEELINGS, nothing more than FEELINGS...

But really, let's examine this. What is she not feeling safe about? Did the transgender client try to :

1) talk to this woman?
2) make unwanted advances, sexual or otherwise, towards her?
3) surreptitiously take pictures of other women changing?
4) stare at her for extended periods of time?

Would she feel safe with lesbians in the locker room? If someone doesn't feel safe around blacks or Hispanics or whites, does the gym provide them separate locker rooms? I feel unsafe around creationists. I want them in their own room, too.

QUOTE

“I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said: ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’

That's about as likely as a gay guy waking up and saying, "Yeah, I'd like to fuck women today."

Posted by Vince on Jun. 03 2015,13:17

(GORDON @ Jun. 03 2015,12:18)

QUOTE

This has also recently been proven true.

< http://www.advocate.com/politic....er-room >

It's okay to offend straight people and make them uncomfortable. Even though they are over 95% of the population. The transgendered (which make up less than 1%) must not be allowed to feel uncomfortable at any time for any reason ever.

This will soon lead to hate speech legislation. The irony there is that this will also include Islam. Any mention of having a problem with Sharia will be a legal offense, and thus Sharia will be allowed which will clamp down HARD on the LGBT community.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 03 2015,13:33

QUOTE

This will soon lead to hate speech legislation. The irony there is that this will also include Islam. Any mention of having a problem with Sharia will be a legal offense, and thus Sharia will be allowed which will clamp down HARD on the LGBT community.

You just leaped forward about ten million assumptions.

I'm still waiting to hear which of these was going on:

QUOTE

1) talk to this woman?
2) make unwanted advances, sexual or otherwise, towards her?
3) surreptitiously take pictures of other women changing?
4) stare at her for extended periods of time?

And answers to these:

QUOTE

Would she feel safe with lesbians in the locker room? If someone doesn't feel safe around blacks or Hispanics or whites, does the gym provide them separate locker rooms? I feel unsafe around creationists. I want them in their own room, too.

Hell, I don't feel safe with old people driving on the road.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 03 2015,13:50

It seems like people are assuming that breaching the door that says, "Ladies Locker Room" isn't enough to be threatening. TFA plays it down, "He was just hanging up his coat." That's a bullshit deflection, and if he was just "hanging up his coat" then there was no reason to go into the ladies' locker room. Those women were in a locker room changing, possibly naked, and a dude in a dress walked in.

Some women are old fashioned and don't want random men seeing them undressed. I'm not quite ready to throw that convention out the window.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 03 2015,14:03

Like I've said forever, women want equality.*

Posted by Vince on Jun. 03 2015,16:36

It's insanity. An individual with junk in his shorts walks in on my wife and I'm going to transition his ass to the floor. End of discussion.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 03 2015,16:48

I guess that's fine as long as you are willing to pay the consequences for assault and battery.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 03 2015,17:00

(TPRJones @ Jun. 03 2015,19:48)

QUOTE

I guess that's fine as long as you are willing to pay the consequences for assault and battery.

For a lot of people that's just the way it's going to be. You don't erase a lifetime of... conditioning? tradition? not sure of the right word... just because suddenly people are expressing what we've determined is a disorder and they are feeling pretty today.

If I had a daughter, I'd have a seriously big problem with a penis getting whipped out next to her in a public locker room.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 03 2015,17:34

Is a vagina next to your son different?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 03 2015,17:36

Depends. What does she look like?

Posted by Vince on Jun. 03 2015,17:49

(TPRJones @ Jun. 03 2015,18:48)

QUOTE

I guess that's fine as long as you are willing to pay the consequences for assault and battery.

Stack that jury w/ fathers and husbands and I'll take those odds.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 03 2015,18:05

(Vince @ Jun. 03 2015,19:49)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Jun. 03 2015,18:48)

QUOTE

I guess that's fine as long as you are willing to pay the consequences for assault and battery.

Stack that jury w/ fathers and husbands and I'll take those odds.

You roll those dice. Let me know how much fun community service is. That's coming from someone who's been arrested more than once and has had pending court dates the past five years.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 03 2015,18:07

(Malcolm @ Jun. 03 2015,21:05)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Jun. 03 2015,19:49)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Jun. 03 2015,18:48)

QUOTE

I guess that's fine as long as you are willing to pay the consequences for assault and battery.

Stack that jury w/ fathers and husbands and I'll take those odds.

You roll those dice. Let me know how much fun community service is. That's coming from someone who's been arrested more than once and has had pending court dates the past five years.

I think even a lot of daughters on the jury would be pretty sympathetic.

Posted by Vince on Jun. 03 2015,18:20

Plus, I'm planning on moving to an area in the next couple of months where the guys more likely to get punched again by the deputy sheriff for admitting to intentionally being in the women's restroom than actually take his complaint.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2015,07:51

(Vince @ Jun. 03 2015,18:36)

QUOTE

It's insanity. An individual with junk in his shorts walks in on my wife and I'm going to transition his ass to the floor. End of discussion.

How very Christian of you. "Love thy enemy, unless he haveth a penis in an enclosed area with a woman."

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 04 2015,09:12

(Malcolm @ Jun. 04 2015,10:51)

QUOTE

(Vince @ Jun. 03 2015,18:36)

QUOTE

It's insanity. An individual with junk in his shorts walks in on my wife and I'm going to transition his ass to the floor. End of discussion.

How very Christian of you. "Love thy enemy, unless he haveth a penis in an enclosed area with a woman."

You've been making some weird arguments in this thread. Is that really what you think is the point of not allowing men into the ladies room? Lack of christian values?

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2015,10:00

That was merely a comment.

QUOTE

You don't erase a lifetime of... conditioning? tradition? not sure of the right word... just because suddenly people are expressing what we've determined is a disorder and they are feeling pretty today.

Traditions and the status quo exist to be tested and challenged. Furthermore, being a transgender individual isn't just "feeling pretty" and I wouldn't call it a disorder.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 04 2015,10:18

You must have missed the links in the other thread where doctors and scientists said it was absolutely a mental disorder.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2015,10:20

< Sounds like they're still debating that and haven't come to a conclusion >. Also sounds suspiciously like the same argument that was used to make homosexuality a mental disorder in most psych manuals until a few decades ago.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 04 2015,10:47

(GORDON @ Jun. 04 2015,13:18)

QUOTE

You must have missed the links in the other thread where doctors and scientists said it was absolutely a mental disorder.

Considering the # of things that are mental disorders these days ("< Oppositional defiance disorder >," for example), I'm not sure that calling something a mental disorder even has meaning.

Besides, you could always play the history card about homosexuality being a mental disorder, or women's behavior (hysteria), etc.

Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 04 2015,10:54

(GORDON @ Jun. 04 2015,12:18)

QUOTE

You must have missed the links in the other thread where doctors and scientists said it was absolutely a mental disorder.

That doesn't mean anything. I can find you some doctors and scientists that say being Republican is absolutely a mental disorder. Doesn't make it so.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2015,11:07

(TPRJones @ Jun. 04 2015,12:54)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jun. 04 2015,12:18)

QUOTE

You must have missed the links in the other thread where doctors and scientists said it was absolutely a mental disorder.

That doesn't mean anything. I can find you some doctors and scientists that say being Republican is absolutely a mental disorder. Doesn't make it so.

I'll give transgenderism the label of "mental illness" as soon as "unfounded belief in a higher power" is measured the same way.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 04 2015,11:56

I'm reminded of the story, "is there any amount of evidence that could convince you otherwise? No? Then I apologize for not being dressed for church."

At least my links were actual studies, not Wikipedia.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 04 2015,12:05

And I am not going to have the same debate in this thread. If anyone wishes to, find the other thread and get caught up. It was only about a month ago.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2015,12:06

(GORDON @ Jun. 04 2015,13:56)

QUOTE

There are over 40 links to studies at the bottom of that page.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 04 2015,12:08

(GORDON @ Jun. 04 2015,13:56)

QUOTE

Sure, plenty. Give me a brain scan of a "normal" person. Even defining that is a hell of a task. Then you can give me the scan of a transsexual's brain side by side and point out where, how, and why it's different.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,09:48

< Air Force and Army > overhaul transgender policy.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 05 2015,11:19

What does that have to do with the republican party thread?

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,11:22

The last page had a transgender motif.

Posted by Leisher on Jun. 05 2015,12:55

< Trump 2016? >

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,12:57

(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2015,14:55)

QUOTE

< Trump 2016? >

Because they aren't running enough candidates?

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 13 2015,11:21

< No shit >.

QUOTE

Republican Sen. Rand Paul called on his party Friday to widen its outreach to minority voters, whom he said will help propel the party to victories nationwide

That'll be the fucking day.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 16 2015,10:09

< Crazy old man in >.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 17 2015,10:19

(Malcolm @ Jun. 16 2015,12:09)

QUOTE

< Crazy old man in >.

< I swear to god >, Trump's running because the comedians of the country pooled their cash and convinced him.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2015,10:09

< Chris Christie > starts his Lying Bastard 2016 Campaign.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 14 2015,10:19

< Someone from the Republicans > has to take the time to shut Rick Santorum the fuck up, because every time he opens his mouth, he creates ten new Democratic voters.

QUOTE

Mr. Santorum said he’s talked about the breakdown of the family “for 20 years” and that he sees the issue of gay marriage “as really a continuation of the breakdown of marriage over a long period of time.”

Convenient how "family" is implicitly being linked with "marriage" in the next clause. I think I temporarily defect to the blue side whenever I hear about him.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,11:26

< Rand Paul >, ladies and gentlemen, just when you thought he might have an independent thought process.

QUOTE

“The recent revelation that this taxpayer-funded organization is selling body parts of the unborn further proves that this agency deserves our scorn not our tax dollars,” he said in a statement. “I plan to do whatever I can to stop them and will introduce an amendment to pending Senate legislation to immediately strip every dollar of Planned Parenthood funding.”

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 17 2015,16:53

If they kill Planned Parenthood, expect to see abortion rates spike upwards in the years following.

Also the rate of teenaged single mothers will rise as well. Which given all the talk about how people need to be raised better - and teenaged single mothers is not better parenting - then expect to see negative echo effects for a couple of generations.

Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 24 2015,12:18

< Shittiest > poll results in decades.

QUOTE

The current survey finds that positive views of the GOP among Republicans have declined 18 percentage points since January, from 86% to 68%. Independents also view the Republican Party less favorably; 29% today, compared with 37% six months ago.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 24 2015,13:36

Morons will blame Trump, not realizing their old school bullshit and members are the problem.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 07 2015,10:20

< First debate >.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 07 2015,11:32

I, for one, welcome our new Clinton overlord.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 07 2015,11:59

(TheCatt @ Aug. 07 2015,13:32)

QUOTE

I, for one, welcome our new Clinton overlord.

The best tweet:

QUOTE

The gig is up @foxnews, @megynkelly, & @gop hacks! Real conservatives are waking up: you're owned by the status quo!

Your entire party hasn't been doing much except kicking its own ass for the past three decades and committing PR suicide.

Wait a fucking minute ...

QUOTE

Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 07 2015,16:28

The Democrats had a good couple of decades of being total fuckups. It's just the Republicans turn is all.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 11 2015,06:40

< Rick Perry running out of cash. >

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 11 2015,07:23

(Leisher @ Aug. 11 2015,08:40)

QUOTE

< Rick Perry running out of cash. >

I'm sure Jesus will save him.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2015,10:27

Ah, Ben Carson. < HAHAH >.

QUOTE

Carson was among those hitting Planned Parenthood hard, lending his considerable medical heft as a renowned neurosurgeon to the debate. He told Fox News's Megyn Kelly that fetal tissue research was basically useless and the same things could be accomplished without it.

"And if you go back over the years, and look at the research that has been done and all the things that it was supposed to deliver, very little of that has been done, and there’s nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue," Carson said.

Fucking wow. You were a neurosurgeon?

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 13 2015,11:25

At this point, i think Bernie and Hillary could have gay sex orgies televised on national TV, and still beat the Republicans.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 13 2015,13:41

I am actually considering voting for Sanders if he makes it into the race. Maybe. But only because of some stuff about getting some of the money out of politics.

Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 13 2015,17:48

(TPRJones @ Aug. 13 2015,13:41)

QUOTE

I am actually considering voting for Sanders if he makes it into the race. Maybe. But only because of some stuff about getting some of the money out of politics.

I figured I wasn't the only one.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 24 2015,10:24

< RNC gives Trump props >. That party is fucking dead. They will lose the next fifty elections at this rate.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 24 2015,11:02

(TPRJones @ Aug. 13 2015,16:41)

QUOTE

I am actually considering voting for Sanders if he makes it into the race. Maybe. But only because of some stuff about getting some of the money out of politics.

I can't imagine Bernie and I agree on much of anything.

But at this rate, I want to run for president.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 24 2015,11:30

I do think Bernie is probably less corrupt than most. He may have dumb (i.e. Democrat) ideas, but I think he comes by them honestly.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 25 2015,05:47

< Jeb Bush tells Hispanics to chill out over "anchor babies", says it's really the Asians that are the problem. >

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 25 2015,07:22

(Leisher @ Aug. 25 2015,07:47)

QUOTE

< Jeb Bush tells Hispanics to chill out over "anchor babies", says it's really the Asians that are the problem. >

That's the dude who's supposed to be the non-Trump front runner? Is Don paying people to throw the primaries?

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 01 2015,10:23

< Chris Christie > threatens to hit up Taco Bell before debate.

QUOTE

The New Jersey governor and GOP presidential candidate threatened to go “nuclear” if he doesn’t get his fair share of questions during the network's Republican primary debate scheduled for Sept. 16 at the Reagan Library in California.

Posted by Alhazad on Sep. 01 2015,22:12

Fat, dumb kid picked last for softball, throws tantrum.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 06 2015,10:56

< Huckabee >: still insane and failing history.

QUOTE

"You obey it if it's right," Huckabee said on ABC's "This Week." "So I go back to my question. Is slavery the law of the land? Should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it."

Fucking wow.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 10 2015,10:13

< Bobby Jindal > admits no one in his party can currently beat an "unstable narcissist."

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 12 2015,17:48

< I know who I'm voting for for 2016 >

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 21 2015,10:13

< Ben Carson > digs an even deeper hole and buries himself.

QUOTE

Besides Carson's saying Sunday he would not support a Muslim as president, the GOP candidate also said Islam, as a religion, was inconsistent with the Constitution. Carson told NBC's "Meet the Press" he believed a president's faith should matter "depending on what that faith is."

The first bit, I don't care. You can support whomever you want for prez, even accounting for your prejudice. If Islam's incompatible with the Constitution, then Judaism and Christianity are on that list, too. The third comment indicates an IQ somewhere in the -10 to -20 realm. You're supposed to be a fucking brain surgeon, Ben.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 22 2015,10:25

< Keep burying yourselves >.

QUOTE

"If you look into Sharia law, you will not find any consistency with the U.S. Constitution," Rush Limbaugh told his listeners on Monday.

Dude, have you ever looked at all the bullshit rules in the Bible and Torah?

QUOTE

'Well, do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?' Well, Sharia law isn't."

If you can't tell those two things apart, then you're retarded.

In other news, < Walker >'s suspending/stopping his campaign.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 22 2015,19:23

< How do you know > when your weight's a problem? Chris Christie says, "Slim down."

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 23 2015,10:31

(Malcolm @ Sep. 21 2015,12:13)

QUOTE

< Ben Carson > digs an even deeper hole and buries himself.

QUOTE

< Someone > wondered the same thing I did.

QUOTE

In a 2012 speech put up this week by Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski, Carson says, "I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary," and reveals that he plans to write a book explaining how the organs of the human body refute evolutionary theory.

Wow.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 25 2015,10:17

< Boner stepping down >.

QUOTE

The wave of new GOP members that put Boehner in the speaker's chair had come to Washington with a different kind of mandate. They not only did not revere the old order -- they had contempt for it, and had campaigned on promises to shatter it.

Bob Dole would be considered a socialist by the present GOP.

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 28 2015,10:24

< Carly Fiorina > explains why she's a complete government tool and why you shouldn't vote for her.

QUOTE

Hayden told Yahoo he remembered telling Fiorina, then head of HP, “Carly, I need stuff and I need it now.” The NSA needed the servers to implement the controversial “Stellar Wind” warrantless wiretapping program.

“I felt it was my duty to help [obliterate citizens' rights] and so we did,” Fiorina said. “They were ramping up a whole set of programs and needed a lot of data crunching capability to try and monitor ~~a whole set of threats~~ illegally anyone they didn't like, including baseless domestic . …What I knew at the time was our nation had been attacked.”

The presidential hopeful also told Yahoo she would endorse some of the country’s most controversial intelligence tactics, including the CIA’s torture program.

As we all know, the truthfulness of a statement is directly proportional to the amount of shit you beat out of someone to get it.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 09 2015,08:10

The MSM seems to be trying to throw Ben Carson under the bus today because he said < The Holocaust might have been prevented if Jews were armed. >

Probably not the smartest thing to say, but people who totally condemn the statement are in a worse position logically because there is truth to it based on history. People able to defend themselves will ALWAYS be a tougher group to oppress than an unarmed group.

As some Russian general (or somebody, I forget who the quote was from) said, "The problem with a land invasion of the U.S. is their citizens are all armed. You'd be stuck fighting street by street." Or something to that effect.

So yeah, maybe the holocaust still occurs (probably), but there's less hiding in attics and more street to street defense of homes and families.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 09 2015,08:18

I think he was off base with the way he approached "rush the shooter" but on this one he's basically right. But some people just hate it when anyone non-Jewish uses the H-word for any reason.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 09 2015,10:36

It wouldn't have prevented shit because the Nazis would've dealt with them the same way they dealt with the old Weimar guard (who were quite armed).

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 09 2015,10:46

It would have meant more death up front, a few fewer nazis around, and fewer in the camps.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 09 2015,10:56

IIRC, at first it was just "relocation" so no one was overly panicked. By the time the Nazis were just shooting Jews in the streets of the ghetto 90% of it was done.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 09 2015,11:02

QUOTE

It would have meant more death up front, a few fewer nazis around, and fewer in the camps.

There were a few ghettos that staged rebellions. They got crushed because at the end of the day, the Germans had more machine guns and tanks.

QUOTE

at first it was just "relocation" so no one was overly panicked. By the time the Nazis were just shooting Jews in the streets of the ghetto 90% of it was done.

After the Nazis were convinced they could literally get away with murder, they went with that option instead of "run them off." That did take a few years, though, and it happened with support from the old republic and the local populace.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 13 2015,06:45

< Ben Carson telling intelligent or honest voters what they already know about welfare. >

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 13 2015,07:51

I'm surprised he stopped short of calling it the work of "the Adversary."

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 26 2015,08:31

< Rubio hates Senate >. You know, the place where his party is the majority.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 29 2015,05:40

< CNBC is getting blasted from all corners over their handling of the debate. >

Like CNN, they tried to turn the debate into a circus to make the Republicans attack one another rather than discuss the issues.

But there's media bias in this country...

By the way, Ted Cruz slamming the moderators and CNBC during the debate for this very thing apparently got a 98 with the focus group that was being measured while watching. That's the highest score in history. Funny how CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and their ilk are all getting destroyed in the ratings and yet they can't figure out why.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 30 2015,15:12

Word is the psycho pachyderm party has severed its official ties, agreements, blah blah blah, with a certain news station.

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,09:58

< Ben Carson >, shut the fuck up. You're killing, absolutely killing, any intellectual cred your party will have for decades to come. Your ideas are slaughtering more brain cells than all the huffing done by humanity to this point in time.

QUOTE

My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain

Even without the part in bold, that conjecture isn't defensible. Trying to tie in an old testament dude to it is either idiocy or pandering.

QUOTE

In his 1998 address, Carson said: “And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons.

“And various of scientists have said, ‘Well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how, you know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you’.”

I'll let that stand on its own.

QUOTE

And in fact, the more you know about God, and the deeper your relationship with God, I think the more intricate becomes your knowledge of the way things work, including the human body.

What the fuck? You're saying theology = physiology? How fucking dim are you?

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2015,10:09

< Bush the Greater > hates on Bush the Lesser's advisors, including Donald Palpatine

and the dude who was the model for the face from The Exorcist.

Posted by Leisher on Nov. 12 2015,09:42

< The MSM is very concerned about Carson's ties to a convicted felon. >

Funny how they didn't have those same concerns about the felons Obama surrounded himself with...

Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 18 2015,13:07

< Some chick named > Lindsey has a deep misunderstanding of how international borders work.

QUOTE

"No geographic limits are placed on American military or intelligence services in the fight against ISIL," reads the outline of the in-process legislation. "No expiration date. No prohibition on sending American forces on the ground to combat ISIL. No prohibitions on the ability of the United States to disrupt online terrorist recruitment activities, online terrorist propaganda, or terrorist communications."

Tool.

Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 07 2015,14:42

< Trump: Ban all Muslims >

Oh Dear God...

QUOTE

Donald Trump said Monday as president he would halt all Muslim immigration to the United States.

The Republican presidential frontrunner announced in a press release he wants a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This includes tourists planning to visit the United States.

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 07 2015,14:46

Can we ban all Trumps?

EDIT: And fuck that website's Flash.

Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 08 2015,07:44

< Trumps wants to shut down part of the Internet. >

Posted by Troy on Dec. 08 2015,08:04

He's going to accidentally make the other candidates look more moderate. Which you could turn into a conspiracy theory except that he's clearly bat shit crazy. Still supported by a good chunk of the Midwest though.

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 08 2015,08:12

(TheCatt @ Dec. 08 2015,09:44)

QUOTE

< Trumps wants to shut down part of the Internet. >

QUOTE

We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."

Congratulations, you've guaranteed the entirety of Silicon Valley will be contributing money to your opponent.

Posted by Leisher on Dec. 08 2015,08:14

(TheCatt @ Dec. 08 2015,10:44)

QUOTE

< Trumps wants to shut down part of the Internet. >

That reminds me of a cartoon my dad has taped to his monitor at home:

Posted by Troy on Dec. 08 2015,16:13

(Troy @ Dec. 08 2015,11:04)

QUOTE

Which you could turn into a conspiracy theory except that he's clearly bat shit crazy.

< Jeb Bush is with me on this one. >

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 21 2015,09:08

< Graham drops >. Like he mattered anyway.

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 27 2015,08:39

< Religious psychos > split from pachyderms. If I may turn a pun, thank god and jesus.

Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 28 2015,13:26

Hell, if the Republican party could dump all the Christian bullshit they've been loaded down with I might consider supporting them.

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 19 2016,11:45

< Just split off the god-folk > into their own party.

QUOTE

“You shouldn’t be worried about my faith influencing me,” he continued. “You should hope that my faith influences me.”

- Marco Rubio

QUOTE

“America does not make sense unless we believe in a creator,” Rubio told a crowd of about 250 near Iowa City, referencing the question.

WTF? Hmm, he may have a point. America's creator:

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 29 2016,11:50

< Trump-less > debate breakdown.

Posted by Leisher on Feb. 22 2016,10:10

Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2016,12:02

< Lindsey Graham > pulls a wtf.

QUOTE

"My party has gone bats*** crazy."
...
"The most dishonest person in America is a woman, who's about to become president. How could that be? My party has gone bats*** crazy," Graham said.
...
Reading from notes, Graham said, "I was asked the hardest question of my political life. Do you agree with Donald Trump that Ted Cruz is the biggest liar in politics? Too close to call."

"I know exactly when Ted's going to drop out of the race. March 12th. That's Canadian week at Myrtle Beach, when all of our Canadian friends get 10 percent off," he said.
...
Graham then pulled out a white baseball cap emblazoned with Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan and endorsed the New Yorker.

"I endorse Donald Trump and hope the Graham magic still exists," he said.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 01 2016,11:46

< Paul Ryan >:

QUOTE

"When I see something that runs counter to who we are as a party and as a country, I will speak up, so today I want to be very clear about something,” Ryan said. “If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals. This is the party of Lincoln.”

It ain't the even the party of Reagan anymore. If Ronnie came back from the dead today, he'd have to run as a donkey.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 01 2016,12:02

(Malcolm @ Feb. 26 2016,15:02)

QUOTE

< Lindsey Graham > pulls a wtf.

QUOTE

You've got to read the whole article, not just the quote.

It's pretty funny actually.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 17 2016,20:02

< Harry Reid > is one dumb motherfucker.

QUOTE

“When Trump calls immigrants rapists and murderers, he’s just doing what he’s learned from generations of conservatives,” Reid said. “The Republican Party has become the party of Trump.”
...
“This is precisely the kind of moral cowardice that gave rise to Donald Trump,” Reid said, calling on McConnell and Ryan to unequivocally repudiate Trump.

When I think of all the problems your dead in the fucking water party ... no that's not quite enough ... dead in the middle of the water of the Great Fucking Salt Lake party has, "morality" is somewhere near the bottom of the list. In fact, your party needs to get the fuck out of the morality biz altogether and play the Mr. Spock logic card. That touchy-feely hippie bullshit has been cornered by the other half.

Posted by GORDON on Mar. 18 2016,04:56

They're trying to be good at everything and in turn sucking at everything.

I agree with malcolm on this one.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 20 2016,10:41

< Slippy Toad > regresses back to the age of four and stomps his foot.

Posted by Alhazad on Mar. 20 2016,19:20

(Leisher @ Mar. 01 2016,12:02)

QUOTE

You've got to read the whole article, not just the quote.

It's pretty funny actually.

It's at least as funny as Obama's Muslim socialist joke, which is pretty much the current bar for funny politicians.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 23 2016,10:10

< Ted Cruz > is so fucking stupid that NYC cops are calling him out on it.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 24 2016,10:25

< Alabama governor >'s responses to fuck buddy allegations border on Clintonesque.

QUOTE

When a reporter asked if the governor was in love with the adviser he's rumored to have had an affair with, Bentley said this:

"I love many members of my staff, in fact, all the members of my staff. Do I love some more than others, absolutely."

Wow.

And when a reporter asked if that taped phone conversation was the only instance of wrong behavior, Bentley said: "No."

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2016,08:51

< Open carry at the RNC? >

You know what would be a nightmare for gun control people? If this happened and no shooting took place.

A bunch of responsible gun owners in a headed crowd and nobody gets shot?

Posted by Alhazad on Mar. 28 2016,09:49

(Leisher @ Mar. 28 2016,08:51)

QUOTE

Why will it be a nightmare? It won't even be a headline.

Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2016,10:04

(Alhazad @ Mar. 28 2016,12:49)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Mar. 28 2016,08:51)

QUOTE

Why will it be a nightmare? It won't even be a headline.

You have a point.

Like how all those armed folks went to Washington a few years back and the MSM focused on how dangerous it was, but nobody brought up that nobody got shot.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 30 2016,10:12

< Overture, curtains, lights >...

QUOTE

A long and winding road led to the moment last night when all three remaining Republican presidential candidates backed away from their previous pledge to support the party's eventual nominee.

While Donald Trump has been flirting with throwing out the pledge for some time now, he was joined by his fellow candidates during Tuesday night's CNN town hall. Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich both suggested that they would renege on the pledge if the real estate mogul ends up being the nominee.

Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 31 2016,10:41

< WHAT THE FUCK > is Ted Cruz smoking?

QUOTE

As tensions between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have been rising over the past few weeks, Cruz openly joked about running over his GOP rival during a Wednesday interview on "Jimmy Kimmel Live."

When asked if the billionaire was the person he disliked the most in America, Cruz replied, "If I were in my car getting ready to reverse and saw Donald in the backup camera, I'm not confident which pedal I'd push."

Holy fucking shit. You're running against the biggest douchebag that's had a realistic shot at a nomination in awhile. You aren't going to out-douche him. Stop trying.

Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 31 2016,11:37

I can't fault Cruz there. He's used to being the douchiest guy around. It's natural he'd be jealous.

Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 12 2016,10:14

< Kasich > going slightly mad.