Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
About as long as the president of Hong Kong.

Sizeist fuck.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Before we talk about my voting record, I'd like you all to meet Checkers . . .

(Okay, you have to be a certain minimum age to get this one . . .)

No, we don't.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by the Las Vegas Sun
A little-noticed provision cleared the House of Representatives last week that would prohibit local, state or federal authorities from requiring any institution or health care professional to provide abortions, pay for them, or make abortion-related referrals, even in cases of rape or medical emergency.

Guys? Anyone want to reconsider their bet on whether the rollback of Roe v. Wade means the issue devolves to the states? Because the GOP is so principled about the constitutional error of Roe and the federalization of abortion law?

As long as your fucking people have a legislative majority in Congress, federalism don't mean shit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Guys? Anyone want to reconsider their bet on whether the rollback of Roe v. Wade means the issue devolves to the states? Because the GOP is so principled about the constitutional error of Roe and the federalization of abortion law?

As long as your fucking people have a legislative majority in Congress, federalism don't mean shit.

and vice versa - see the marriage amendment

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
and vice versa - see the marriage amendment

Huh? You guys introduce a wedge issue, then the intellectuals in the party point fingers at the Dems who sold out because they have to get elected back home in Bumfuck and they can't face a 30 second spot about how they think people should be allowed to marry horses and dogs?

Once again, our fault. My bad. I'm sorry liberalism exists, because it made your reactionaries freak their shit and start going to law school straight outta Bible camp.

I'll apologize for Byrd, Miller and Nelson, if you apologize for the 45 Rs who wanted to bring S. J. Res. 40 to a vote. On second though, fuck Zell. You apologize to me about Zell. 46-2. Still think the parties are tied in the homophobia department?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Huh? You guys introduce a wedge issue, then the intellectuals in the party point fingers at the Dems who sold out because they have to get elected back home in Bumfuck and they can't face a 30 second spot about how they think people should be allowed to marry horses and dogs?

Once again, our fault. My bad. I'm sorry liberalism exists, because it made your reactionaries freak their shit and start going to law school straight outta Bible camp.

I'll apologize for Byrd, Miller and Nelson, if you apologize for the 45 Rs who wanted to bring S. J. Res. 40 to a vote. On second though, fuck Zell. You apologize to me about Zell. 46-2. Still think the parties are tied in the homophobia department?

As usual, I can't really follow what you are trying to say. My only point was that since the DEMs have been in the minority, the have discovered states' rights. I pointed to gay marriage because I have heard many DEMs proffer that it should be left to the states. And I don't think I ever said the parties are tied on homophobia. Racism, perhaps, but not homophobia.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As usual, I can't really follow what you are trying to say. My only point was that since the DEMs have been in the minority, the have discovered states' rights.

Of course. The difference is, anti-federalism isn't a principle; federalism is. When the Dems say something should be left to the states, they're not betraying a core principle. Contrast this with the GOP.

Somehow the naked opportunism of religious wingnut leaders of your party --- whom you insist are not really in control, but who are merely a convenient way to carry states that economically speaking should prefer the Dems --- raises no hackles on this board's con-side.

What I'm saying is that the guys you hired to protect your sacred cow are raiding your henhouse. Again.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As usual, I can't really follow what you are trying to say.

This isn't your fault. Ag is an idiot who cannot follow logic. And just an all-around asshole.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The sky is falling......

Lookie, medical institutions already don't have to perform abortions or pay for them or refer them. I've never heard of a state compelling a doctor to do a type of procedure, have you?

There is a large percentage of the population that feel abortion is state sponsored murder. They have to live with the availabilty of abortions; is it so odd that they strongly like restrictions on things like gov't paying, gov't ordering, etc.

Abortion is an issue that will always be hot button, at least until your islamists take over, then the offending woman will be killed for having been raped.

Or are you complaining that GOP started an issue it knows is meaningless to force a campaign issue? Frankly I think you guys benefit from stupid anti-gay and abortion GOP inititives. Sit back and let it spin, it mobilizes and expands your base.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


Somehow the naked opportunism of religious wingnut leaders of your party --- whom you insist are not really in control, but who are merely a convenient way to carry states that economically speaking should prefer the Dems --- raises no hackles on this board's con-side.

Ahem. :hi:

My biggest concern about the current slate of choices for President is not that John Kerry will be elected, but that George Bush's victory will embolden this wing of the party. It does mean, however, than in 2008 the party will likely blow up when it seeks to nominate Dick Cheney or a similar understudy, allowing Hillary to gain the White House (which she would have no chance of doing against, e.g., Giuliani, Pataki, or any other semi-moderate republican).

[Say_hello_for_me]

1.) So does this mean we all do sorta agree that states should be able to decide this an all similar issues?

2.) Completely unrelated. Not so long ago, 2 Russians were arrested for killing a rebel Chechen leader in Dubai or something. This leads to a couple of questions. a.) Do we support Russia threatening Dubai (even though they are our ally) and b.) do we support Russia adopting our doctrine and threatening anyone who supports terrorists who threaten Russia?

The thing on 2b is, I'm generally in support of any nation being able to attack threatening terrorists in another nation. However, some of the harboring nations are our allies (as has been discussed ad nauseum here before) when they harbor our own enemies. I'm thinking this is a great way for Putin to solidly align Russia with the U.S., while also allowing us to exert even more pressure on our allies to deal with the jackasses they harbor. Of course, I'm looking forward to Britain threatening us over the IRA, but that's another story. All in all, I think this Russia thingy could be good for us, but I hope the WH is paying attention and trying to figure out how to do the right thing while still leveraging this to our benefit (and not necessarily to Russia's detriment).

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Of course. The difference is, anti-federalism isn't a principle; federalism is. When the Dems say something should be left to the states, they're not betraying a core principle. Contrast this with the GOP.

Somehow the naked opportunism of religious wingnut leaders of your party --- whom you insist are not really in control, but who are merely a convenient way to carry states that economically speaking should prefer the Dems --- raises no hackles on this board's con-side.

What I'm saying is that the guys you hired to protect your sacred cow are raiding your henhouse. Again.

You make absolutely no sense to me.

eta: board motto?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ahem. :hi:

My biggest concern about the current slate of choices for President is not that John Kerry will be elected, but that George Bush's victory will embolden this wing of the party. It does mean, however, than in 2008 the party will likely blow up when it seeks to nominate Dick Cheney or a similar understudy, allowing Hillary to gain the White House (which she would have no chance of doing against, e.g., Giuliani, Pataki, or any other semi-moderate republican).

Who knows what the wingnuts would do if they actually won something. Right now, they gain power by losing. Abortion is still legal, and gay marriage increasingly so. This scares and energizes their base, which doesn't seem to care that the politicians it elects don't ever come through.

I recommend What's The Matter With Kansas? for anyone who's interested in where the wingnuts have come from in the last decade.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You make absolutely no sense to me.

AG's point is that while Republicans have run on an anti-federalist, states' rights position for years, it's not like Democrats have taken the position that everything should be federalized. Democrats are happy to work through whichever reins of power they can hold onto. When the Republicans surrender their states'-rights rhetoric to try to stick it to gays, metaphorically speaking of course, they are being hippocritical; not so (says AG) when Dems oppose them.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
AG's point is that while Republicans have run on an anti-federalist, states' rights position for years, it's not like Democrats have taken the position that everything should be federalized. Democrats are happy to work through whichever reins of power they can hold onto. When the Republicans surrender their states'-rights rhetoric to try to stick it to gays, metaphorically speaking of course, they are being hippocritical; not so (says AG) when Dems oppose them.

'Tis better to have no principles than to violate the ones you espouse?