Why are you guys not talking about the elections in Virginia and New Jewrsey?
In Virginia the Dems won by 3 percent, and this was because they cheated by putting a Libertarian candidate on the ballot to split the conservative vote:
Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race
A major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Virginia Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Robert C. Sarvis on the ballot — a move that could split conservative votes in a tight race.
Campaign finance records show the Libertarian Booster PAC has made the largest independent contribution (http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_in_donors/3974) to Sarvis' campaign, helping to pay for professional petition circulators who collected signatures necessary to get Sarvis' name on Tuesday's statewide ballot.
Austin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC's major benefactor (http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_in_donors/4025?end_year=2013&start_year=2013). He's also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/04/hot-list-the-top-races-in-tuesdays-election/)Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/03/a-blow-to-conservatism-a-look-at-tuesdays-governor-elections-in-nj-and-va-and-what-they-may-indicate-for-the-future/) for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.
A spokesman for Sarvis provided no direct answers late Monday when TheBlaze asked about Liemandt's Democrat ties and whether Sarvis had been recruited to split conservative votes as a way to aid Democrat Terry McAuliffe.
"We're coordinating Sarvis interviews with Richmond, Norfolk and Charlottesville TV news teams to reach Virginia voters – our first priority – on Election Eve," John Vaught LaBeaume, Sarvis communications director and strategist, responded in an email to TheBlaze.
According to Virginia election filings (http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_in_donors/4025?end_year=2013&start_year=2013) posted by the Virginia Public Access Project, Liemandt contributed $150,000 of the Texas-based Libertarian Booster PAC's $229,000 revenue. The Libertarian Booster PAC reported (http://www.vpap.org/committees/profile/money_out_details/4025?committee_id=3974) providing $11,454 to pay for signature collection, yard signs and campaign materials for Sarvis and another $4,690 for four Libertarian candidates running for the Virginia state legislature.
Full article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-bundler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/)
It's called 'strategery'.
Oi! New Jewrsey.
That's not cheating. That's called being clever in order to defeat evil.
Sure. If the Tea Party was the one doing this you would hear the screams.
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:28:43 PM
Sure. If the Tea Party was the one doing this you would hear the screams.
It appears we are already hearing screams. From you, posting stuff from Glenn Beck's website.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:28:43 PM
Sure. If the Tea Party was the one doing this you would hear the screams.
It appears we are already hearing screams. From you, posting stuff from Glenn Beck's website.
How come posting from MSNBC and a gazillion of other liberal crap website is ok, but posting from The Blaze is not ok?
Raz, your fucking bias and bigotry is starting to piss me off.
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:59:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 06:52:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:28:43 PM
Sure. If the Tea Party was the one doing this you would hear the screams.
It appears we are already hearing screams. From you, posting stuff from Glenn Beck's website.
How come posting from MSNBC and a gazillion of other liberal crap website is ok, but posting from The Blaze is not ok?
Raz, your fucking bias and bigotry is starting to piss me off.
Have I posted something from MSNBC? I don't recall doing so. You on the other hand keeping picking up stories from conspiracy-mongers and on occasion on anti-semites. You have to ask yourself, why do you keep finding yourself on the side of these people?
Siegey has become so Americanized he's already picked up the worst dysfunctions of American political culture.
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:07:37 PM
Why are you guys not talking about the elections in Virginia and New Jewrsey?
We are. In the OT thread.
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:07:37 PM
In Virginia the Dems won by 3 percent, and this was because they cheated by putting a Libertarian candidate on the ballot to split the conservative vote:
So now running alternate candidates is "cheating"? :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
So now running alternate candidates is "cheating"? :lol:
It's comparable to Republicans giving money to that retarded black Democratic candidate in Georgia. It may not be illegal, but it's not really quite cricket either.
Politics is war, not sport.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2013, 08:09:00 PM
Politics is war, not sport.
It's cold war. If your black ops get busted that's a ding.
Dude's a freelancer.
Anyway, Siege's sour grapes are just like the Democrats whining about Nader in 2000. People are well aware that their 3rd party vote isn't going to help decide the outcome. They chose not to vote for the Republican candidate.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2013, 08:23:32 PM
Dude's a freelancer.
Anyway, Siege's sour grapes are just like the Democrats whining about Nader in 2000. People are well aware that their 3rd party vote isn't going to help decide the outcome. They chose not to vote for the Republican candidate.
I think they're exactly like Dems whining about Republican money backing the black retard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
So now running alternate candidates is "cheating"? :lol:
It's comparable to Republicans giving money to that retarded black Democratic candidate in Georgia. It may not be illegal, but it's not really quite cricket either.
Or attempting voter suppression through voter ID laws.
Right. Or creating 18 million new Democratic voters through an amnesty.
18 million! :lol: You guys always crack me up.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2013, 08:23:32 PM
Dude's a freelancer.
Anyway, Siege's sour grapes are just like the Democrats whining about Nader in 2000. People are well aware that their 3rd party vote isn't going to help decide the outcome. They chose not to vote for the Republican candidate.
It can certainly help decide the outcome if in the absence of such a candidate they would have voted for one of the two main parties.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2013, 08:23:32 PM
Dude's a freelancer.
"TheBlaze" sounds like a newsletter for drag queens.
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:07:37 PM
In Virginia the Dems won by 3 percent, and this was because they cheated by putting a Libertarian candidate on the ballot to split the conservative vote
:lol: Ban third parties!
I'd love to be blazing right now. Sigh, sickening eyes.
And we are surprised? But don't just assume everybody who votes Libertarian would be voting Republican. Further 3% seems like a pretty big margin to blame on them.
7% is pretty high for a third party, I suspect a lot of it is protest vote. The recent government shutdown almost certainly hurt people in Northern Virginia, and probably created ill will toward Republicans in general.
In a thread about cheating at politics I'm amazed nobody brought up Gerrymandering the House.
Winning the popular vote by 2 points and losing the house by 7.5 points? That's almost 10% of election stealing. And thats not all the gerrymandering, thats republican gerrmandering minus democratic gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is a storied traditional American way of undermining Democracy so does not really count.
:lol: Don't ever change, Viking.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2013, 10:15:35 PM
:lol: Don't ever change, Viking.
Don't worry, you'll have your turn to bitch in 2020.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:14:38 PM
Gerrymandering is a storied traditional American way of undermining Democracy so does not really count.
How about how Virginia's three democratic congressmen won their districts by 24.5%, 34.0% and 62.8% while the republicans got 8 seats with a lead of only 1.9% state wide over the democrats.
It's this kind of system that produces mysogynists like Ken Cucinelli.
If you cheat at democracy, you can't call yourself the greatest democracy in the world.
To be fair we sort of leave it up to the States how they want to do their districts. States' Powers!
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:30:03 PM
To be fair we sort of leave it up to the States how they want to do their districts. States' Powers!
I thought you guys sorted the issue of states doing stupid, criminal and immoral things 150 years ago?
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:36:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:30:03 PM
To be fair we sort of leave it up to the States how they want to do their districts. States' Powers!
I thought you guys sorted the issue of states doing stupid, criminal and immoral things 150 years ago?
You kidding? They were forbidding people to vote as little as 50 years ago.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:36:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:30:03 PM
To be fair we sort of leave it up to the States how they want to do their districts. States' Powers!
I thought you guys sorted the issue of states doing stupid, criminal and immoral things 150 years ago?
You kidding? They were forbidding people to vote as little as 50 years ago.
Yes, the federal government made them stop. It worked for Lincoln and it worked for LBJ.
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48
Yes, but what advice should teachers give to 14 year olds dealing with asshole Radio Hacks?
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
Yes, but what advice should teachers give to 14 year olds dealing with asshole Radio Hacks?
Question everything.
THe proper advice to dealing with teachers who try to indoctrinate you is shut up, do the work, get a good grade, and totally ignore their bullshit. You know, the same way you deal with idiot bosses. If Rush said anything else he is an idiot.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:36:48 PM
I thought you guys sorted the issue of states doing stupid, criminal and immoral things 150 years ago?
You kidding? They were forbidding people to vote as little as 50 years ago.
Hell, Virginia was ironing out Jim Crow bullshit from Richmond's municipal code as recently as 1989.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 10:47:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
Yes, but what advice should teachers give to 14 year olds dealing with asshole Radio Hacks?
Question everything.
That will just get a drug addled fat man violently angry at you.
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 10:47:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
Yes, but what advice should teachers give to 14 year olds dealing with asshole Radio Hacks?
Question everything.
That will just get a drug addled fat man violently angry at you.
Raz is mostly harmless, fortunately.
he he
Rush Limbaugh: Obama got everything he wanted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odDWU_Uz4cI
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 11:07:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2013, 10:47:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
Yes, but what advice should teachers give to 14 year olds dealing with asshole Radio Hacks?
Question everything.
That will just get a drug addled fat man violently angry at you.
Typical liberal behavior. Attack the character of your opponent instead of discussing the ideas.
The last time I heard Rush he was ranting about how Obama was some sort of Black Panther which is hilariously idiotic since Obama is about the wimpiest politician around. Rush is an entertainer and a clown Siege. I was a fan a long time back when I was a teenager but you have to understand he often does not really believe what he is saying Siege.
I figured Siege would be more of a Michael Medved follower than a Rushie.
I'm thinking Mark Levin. Though how that dude has any followers with that voice of his is beyond me.
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48)
I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2013, 11:44:52 PM
I'm thinking Mark Levin. Though how that dude has any followers with that voice of his is beyond me.
On a different note, I'm still sad how Laura Ingraham changed after her brush with cancer. :(
Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2013, 10:36:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:30:03 PM
To be fair we sort of leave it up to the States how they want to do their districts. States' Powers!
I thought you guys sorted the issue of states doing stupid, criminal and immoral things 150 years ago?
Catholics couldn't vote in local elections in Rhode Island until the 30s
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2013, 10:15:35 PM
:lol: Don't ever change, Viking.
Curious, would you be as happy if the shoe was on the other foot?
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2013, 11:36:36 PM
I figured Siege would be more of a Michael Medved follower than a Rushie.
I thought he reviewed movies.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 07, 2013, 11:36:36 PM
I figured Siege would be more of a Michael Medved follower than a Rushie.
Mark Levin, actually.
I haven't decided whether I like Medved or not.
I heard him say a couple things too liberal for my taste.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48)
I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.
Yeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 12:24:52 AM
Yeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.
Conservatism means pandering to a certain demographic to get Republicans elected to office.
Liberalism means pandering to a different demographic to get Democrats elected to office.
I think I got it down.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.linuxfr.org%2Fimg%2F68747470733a2f2f726173686d616e6c792e66696c65732e776f726470726573732e636f6d2f323031302f30332f746f6c6572616e742d6c69626572616c732e6a7067%2Ftolerant-liberals.jpg&hash=b7e7913c66b117c34d86564500be1f1a6cef6dbb)
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48)
I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.
Yeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.
I'm told by conservatives (on this board no less) that Rush Limbaugh is not a news source, that's he's an entertainer. As such he's hardly comparable to say CNN. I have an idea, how about
you tell me what the conservative movement stands for. What does being a conservative mean?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftherightguy.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fsocialist-obama-democrats-change-vote-election-boob-barack-demotivational-poster-1223267401.jpg&hash=30de5e40b4da35464c99ccec1b1dcbab27fa16ad)
Siegy, if you're going to post retarded far right dad-spam pictures please have them be more of the "cute girls in vaguely implied bondage" rather than "grainy pictures of Obama".
Thanks!
I remember when Siege was a proud "tribal socialist".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 12:24:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48)
I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.
Yeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.
I'm told by conservatives (on this board no less) that Rush Limbaugh is not a news source, that's he's an entertainer. As such he's hardly comparable to say CNN. I have an idea, how about you tell me what the conservative movement stands for. What does being a conservative mean?
We are Americans. So for the Founding Fathers, individual liberty was not possible without private property rights. For the Founding Fathers, the only legitimate government was not only one that was instituted with the consent of the people, but one that would preserve and protect the individual's right to property. Jefferson talked about it, talked about 'tyranny of the legislature.' So the consent of the governed is only part of it.
But the government never has the authority to be tyrannical; it never has the authority to seize your property illegitimately. Private property represents the individual's labor, your labor, your initiative, your industriousness, your ambition, and so forth. We all have an equal right, an unalienable right as they wrote in the Declaration to pursue happiness. That especially involves the pursuit of property and wealth – not that materialism makes you happy, the point was so you can at least subsist, but even more expand your wealth and improve your lifestyle and that of your family. We do not have a "right" to equal results and outcomes. And this is the battle – we do not have a right to make demands on the labor and property and wealth of another individual, for that individual also has unalienable rights.
The purpose of government in the United States of America, according to the Founders is first and foremost to protect and preserve the individual's unalienable rights. These rights are God-given natural rights: no man, no government has the authority to deny them or destroy them. That is not to say that we as a community or society ought not look out for our fellow man; we did this even before there was a massive, leviathan State. We did this through good works, through charity, through churches and synagogues, through volunteerism, through good acts all the time. Most of us do not mind being taxed at a rational level to help take care of those who are truly incapable of survival due to physical or mental disabilities. That is different than redistributing the wealth. That is different than "spreading the wealth." That is different than class warfare.
Our Constitution is intended to protect us from a central government that would take advantage of us as individuals. It does not grant power to the federal government to violate our unalienable rights. It does not authorize the federal government to take the fruits of our labor, whether physical or intellectual, to "spread the wealth" for "economic justice" or anything of the sort. The Constitution does not empower anyone, especially the President of the United States, to take our labor, our property, our wealth from us and our families in order to equalize economic outcomes. I don't care what you are worth. To say that some person has a right to another person's labor simply because one person demands it, or because a politician thinks it can be put to better use, or because a group of people think it can be put to better use and vote that way, does not make it Constitutional nor does it make it moral, and it clearly violates the unalienable rights of the person who is being targeted. When the government seizes the power to take what you have earned with your own labor and put it to an illegitimate use, then government has power that is not recognized in the Declaration or the Constitution.
Since property rights are inextricably tied to an individual's liberty, the government is expanding its power not only over your labor, but over you, as a human being. This is exactly what is happening today. This is exactly what you hear Obama saying in these speeches. He is claiming a power he does not have. That is, the power to decide whose labor is to be protected by the government, and whose labor is to be seized by the government. Obama is saying that the government has the power to take whatever it needs from an individual, thereby punishing that individual and rewarding some other individual who has not earned it. They call this "a right." You have a "right" to health care, a "right" to go to school; you have a "right" to this, a "right" to that. But somebody else is losing their liberty, in support of this politician who is stealing from one to give to another. And by the way, not altruistically either, but for power and votes. This is said to be "just"; this is said to be "fair." This is said to be "compassionate," yet it violates the individual's unalienable rights and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government. There is nothing fair, just, or compassionate about it.
The reason why liberals cannot tell you 'what are the limits of this new power' is because there are not any limits. The government identifies what's unequal, what program it wants to fund or create, what "entitlement" it wants to create or expand, calls it a "right" and then plunders individuals that it targets. You might think 'why do I care? Let me have my piece.' ... Your children are also, under God granted unalienable rights, recognized by our Declaration. Your children, and their labor, and their motivation, and their ambition, and their industry, and who they want to be, and how they want to be, is also protected by the United States Constitution. If Obama and people like him, people of this alien ideology who reject unalienable rights, who reject the limits of the Constitution are successful, then what are you? What are your children? They will not have the freedom that your parents and grandparents had. They will not have the ability to be successful, to pursue opportunities, to improve their lifestyles, to take care of their families the way that you, your parents, and your grandparents have. This is fundamental ladies and gentlemen...we need to get back to first principles. ... What is an American? What is the American society? What is the American culture? It's completely different; it's the opposite of what you hear Obama saying day in and day out.
– Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, 4/19/2011 ~2:00-10:30
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2013, 12:47:42 AM
Siegy, if you're going to post retarded far right dad-spam pictures please have them be more of the "cute girls in vaguely implied bondage" rather than "grainy pictures of Obama".
Thanks!
Roger.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 12:50:22 AM
I remember when Siege was a proud "tribal socialist".
The key word here is tribal.
A socialist economic model works at the very lowest level of familiar relationship, within the frame of a larger national free market economy.
Now, this work with traditional sefaradi families with strong values, but I doubt its effectiveness in a western style family.
That's why.
No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means, not what Mark Levine things about the constitution. In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job. The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection. People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people. That product is security.
I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.
This is a great quote:
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
– Frédéric Bastiat, The Law — 1850
You can think for yourself, can't you?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 01:04:26 AM
No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means, not what Mark Levine things about the constitution. In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job. The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection. People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people. That product is security.
I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.
Sorry, English is not my first language.
But I can google it for you.
And what the fuck are you talking about slavery and tyrani of state and individuals over others?
Where have you been living for the last 6 years? Fuck that, for the last 25 years.
Everything been about big govermetnt since Reagan.
But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.
This is Reagan's speech in 1964 "A time for choosing".
It is the greatest I have ever heard. I cried when I heard it.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html
Siege if you really want to know what the Founders thought about private property, look at the Constitution they wrote. There is no absolute right to private property in there. Instead they provided for extensive powers to tax and to regulate in various spheres. They even permitted the government to take private property for public use, provided fair compensation was paid.
If you were right and these second rate entertainers were what the conservative movement stood for, then conservatism would be in a lot of trouble. In reality its not quite that bad, but it is heading that way because a generation is being raised with the notion that political wisdom can be defined from YouTube videos, talk show screamers, and similar flotsam.
Oh God, the tired lines of the current generation been worse than their forebearers?
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 01:18:45 AM
But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.
Lincoln was for high tariffs and internal improvements.
Nowadays we call that tax and spend.
Your man Levin OTOH talks about Jeffersonian ideas of property. And when Jefferson talked about property he didn't just mean land, and silverware, and fancy footwear. He also meant human beings, a number of which he personally owned,
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 01:04:26 AM
No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means, not what Mark Levine things about the constitution. In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job. The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection. People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people. That product is security.
I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.
Sorry, English is not my first language.
But I can google it for you.
And what the fuck are you talking about slavery and tyrani of state and individuals over others?
Where have you been living for the last 6 years? Fuck that, for the last 25 years.
Everything been about big govermetnt since Reagan.
But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.
This is Reagan's speech in 1964 "A time for choosing".
It is the greatest I have ever heard. I cried when I heard it.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html)
Are you saying that Reagan ushered in Big government? I'm unclear on that. I'm aware that Lincoln was a Republican (well for hist first term at least). He was also a Whig, a political party that predates the GOP. During the Lincoln presidency the US government increased in size enormously and property was taken away from their owners by government fiat.
When I was talking about states and tyranny by individuals, I was discussing the federal government's role in preserving rights. For instance, if the state you were in pass a law that prevented Jews from voting, who would stop them? Such things have happened before.
Now you English is good enough you can tell me what being a conservative means, if you actually do know what it means. You told me
QuoteYeah well. Then maybe stop talking shit you don't know shit about.
I listen to NPR and CNN from time to time.
You clearly have no knowledge of what the conservative movement stands for.
You just repeat what the liberal media tells you conservatism means.
Whatever dude.
But so far you have not been able to tell me what the conservative movement stands for you have been the one repeating what others have said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 08, 2013, 01:25:09 AM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 01:18:45 AM
But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.
Lincoln was for high tariffs and internal improvements.
Nowadays we call that tax and spend.
Your man Levin OTOH talks about Jeffersonian ideas of property. And when Jefferson talked about property he didn't just mean land, and silverware, and fancy footwear. He also meant human beings, a number of which he personally owned,
In some cases he himself even produced said property. By the sweat of his brow. :)
Princess Hillary to the rescue!
http://www.today.com/news/artist-responds-mixed-reactions-over-disney-fied-feminist-icons-8C11554114
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia4.s-nbcnews.com%2Fj%2Fstreams%2F2013%2FNovember%2F131107%2F8C9623571-disney9.blocks_desktop_medium.jpg&hash=3138a82e1a7cfc9c0675dbaf2b3c6bcc7ea7bda9)
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 06:28:43 PM
Sure. If the Tea Party was the one doing this you would hear the screams.
If the Tea Party was that clever there would be no Tea Party.
Just out of curiosity, why did you even single out NJ elections? The only thing controversial on the ballot was the minimum wage question, which passed 61-39. Also, unfortunately, that shithead Van Drew got re-elected yet again. <_<
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 01:18:45 AM
Everything been about big govermetnt since Reagan.
Actually the size of the government declined a bit during the 1990s only to skyrocket again around 2000 sometime.
QuoteBut the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.
Yeah but back then the Republicans were the crazy left wing radical party and the Democrats were the conservatives. Of course those terms also meant very different things back then, but the Democrats were primarily about a small federal government and strong state governments.
Quote from: garbon on November 08, 2013, 01:24:04 AM
Oh God, the tired lines of the current generation been worse than their forebearers?
Garbon your grandparents had opportunities your children could never dream of.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 01:04:26 AM
In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job. The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection. People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people. That product is security.
Public goods and transfers are different things Raz.
On a different note, I heard Fat Boy say he wasn't opposed to the minimum wage change per se, he just thought it didn't belong in the state constitution.
There's a lot of continuity; 19th century Republicans were the party of bankers, nativists, and prohibitionists.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2013, 10:50:54 AM
There's a lot of continuity; 19th century Republicans were the party of bankers, nativists, and prohibitionists.
I think prohibition crossed party lines :hmm:
As does support for the War on Drugs. But Republicans are more retarded about it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2013, 10:50:54 AM
I think prohibition crossed party lines :hmm:
Not to mention nativism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 10:50:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 01:04:26 AM
In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job. The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection. People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people. That product is security.
Public goods and transfers are different things Raz.
On a different note, I heard Fat Boy say he wasn't opposed to the minimum wage change per se, he just thought it didn't belong in the state constitution.
Oh? How so?
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2013, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 08, 2013, 10:50:54 AM
I think prohibition crossed party lines :hmm:
Not to mention nativism.
No kidding. But I think PW was talking specifically about the Republicans absorbing the Know-Nothing party.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 10:50:43 AM
On a different note, I heard Fat Boy say he wasn't opposed to the minimum wage change per se, he just thought it didn't belong in the state constitution.
I think it is actually more properly a state matter. Wage standards vary a lot from state to state.
But I guess he was specifically talking about it being in the constitution.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
Oh? How so?
A public good is one that ostensibly benefits the greater public, but cannot be provided by the private market because of the free rider/positive externality problem. A transfer benefits those who recieve it.
Military defense is a public good. Food stamps are transfers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:11:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:05:49 AM
Oh? How so?
A public good is one that ostensibly benefits the greater public, but cannot be provided by the private market because of the free rider/positive externality problem. A transfer benefits those who recieve it.
Military defense is a public good. Food stamps are transfers.
You can provide military defense on the private market.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48)
I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.
It's not like you have anything better to do.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:14:13 AM
You can provide military defense on the private market.
No I can't.
And if I could the amount I purchased would be suboptimal from a societal POV because of the positive externality.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2013, 11:06:22 AM
No kidding. But I think PW was talking specifically about the Republicans absorbing the Know-Nothing party.
Quote from: Samuel BurchardWe are Republicans, and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion. We are loyal to our flag.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:14:13 AM
You can provide military defense on the private market.
No I can't.
And if I could the amount I purchased would be suboptimal from a societal POV because of the positive externality.
I don't know the particulars of why you can't provide it, but I fail to see how something being "suboptimal" to society makes it impossible. People have or formed private military organizations. It's not conducive to a stable state, but so what?
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2013, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2013, 11:48:21 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 07, 2013, 10:43:33 PM
Raz, this is my answer to your crazy liberalism:
Rush Limbaugh advises 14-year-old on dealing with teachers who indoctrinate liberalism
Rush Limbaugh (10/18/13): "They think that they are utterly, totally normal, that there is nothing biased about them, nothing ideological about them at all. They talk about 'tolerance'... "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91aF-nhUZ48)
I'm not going to listen to 23 minutes of Rush Limbaugh on youtube.
It's not like you have anything better to do.
Pretty much anything I did would have been better. As it was, I went to sleep.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:14:13 AM
You can provide military defense on the private market.
No I can't.
And if I could the amount I purchased would be suboptimal from a societal POV because of the positive externality.
But there are no relevant externalities or suboptimal outcomes related to having children grow up malnourished, and grown-ups starve?
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2013, 11:23:55 AM
But there are no relevant externalities or suboptimal outcomes related to having children grow up malnourished, and grown-ups starve?
You tell me.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:22:54 AM
I don't know the particulars of why you can't provide it, but I fail to see how something being "suboptimal" to society makes it impossible. People have or formed private military organizations. It's not conducive to a stable state, but so what?
I can't because I don't have enough money.
I mispoke earlier Raz. Anything can be bought on the private market. The point is that public goods will not be consumed at the optimal level if left to the private market.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 11:22:54 AM
I don't know the particulars of why you can't provide it, but I fail to see how something being "suboptimal" to society makes it impossible. People have or formed private military organizations. It's not conducive to a stable state, but so what?
I can't because I don't have enough money.
I mispoke earlier Raz. Anything can be bought on the private market. The point is that public goods will not be consumed at the optimal level if left to the private market.
I'm sorry you you don't have enough money. Define "Optimal" here. I can think a lot of goods that are private and can be consumed publicly.
Tone down the razzishness a notch or two.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 11:34:36 AM
Tone down the razzishness a notch or two.
Stop stalking me. You going to tell me, what "Optimal" here means or not.
Somebody's escalated to RazCon 3.
Done.
Good.
Alrighty then.
Well now.
I got really sick last night, so I've not been in a good mood.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 12:52:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2013, 12:47:42 AM
Siegy, if you're going to post retarded far right dad-spam pictures please have them be more of the "cute girls in vaguely implied bondage" rather than "grainy pictures of Obama".
Thanks!
Roger.
:cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 10:50:43 AM
On a different note, I heard Fat Boy say he wasn't opposed to the minimum wage change per se, he just thought it didn't belong in the state constitution.
He wasn't opposed to the concept, but he couldn't come to an agreement with the Democrats on the terms, and so the Democrats decided to go over his head and put their proposal to referendum. I'm sure the primary reason he was opposed to the referendum was because it was designed to leave him out of the negotiation.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2013, 12:16:11 PM
He wasn't opposed to the concept, but he couldn't come to an agreement with the Democrats on the terms, and so the Democrats decided to go over his head and put their proposal to referendum. I'm sure the primary reason he was opposed to the referendum was because it was designed to leave him out of the negotiation.
What are your reasons for disregarding his stated objection? I find it to be a reasonable one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 12:17:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2013, 12:16:11 PM
He wasn't opposed to the concept, but he couldn't come to an agreement with the Democrats on the terms, and so the Democrats decided to go over his head and put their proposal to referendum. I'm sure the primary reason he was opposed to the referendum was because it was designed to leave him out of the negotiation.
What are your reasons for disregarding his stated objection? I find it to be a reasonable one.
Common sense. If someone takes an action to completely cut you out of negotiation, you're not going to like it. You're also not going to object to that action on the grounds that your feelings are hurt. You're going to look for an objection that sounds plausibly reasonable.
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2013, 12:25:45 PM
Common sense. If someone takes an action to completely cut you out of negotiation, you're not going to like it. You're also not going to object to that action on the grounds that your feelings are hurt. You're going to look for an objection that sounds plausibly reasonable.
Common sense leads to the conclusion that very view people will offer an explanation for their actions that they believe will make them look bad. It does not however, lead us to choose that explanation over other completing explanations.
Else, by your logic, we would only ascribe bad motivations to every act. Even those performed by people who are not moderate Republicans with centrist appeal. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 08, 2013, 12:25:45 PM
Common sense. If someone takes an action to completely cut you out of negotiation, you're not going to like it. You're also not going to object to that action on the grounds that your feelings are hurt. You're going to look for an objection that sounds plausibly reasonable.
Common sense leads to the conclusion that very view people will offer an explanation for their actions that they believe will make them look bad. It does not however, lead us to choose that explanation over other completing explanations.
Else, by your logic, we would only ascribe bad motivations to every act. Even those performed by people who are not moderate Republicans with centrist appeal. :P
Whatever. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2013, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 12:52:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 08, 2013, 12:47:42 AM
Siegy, if you're going to post retarded far right dad-spam pictures please have them be more of the "cute girls in vaguely implied bondage" rather than "grainy pictures of Obama".
Thanks!
Roger.
:cheers:
Does this one counts?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-l3m4Nya8a2E%2FTyQ0s0-88kI%2FAAAAAAAAAgc%2FjdbQWg3cDDk%2Fs400%2Fthe-glare-michelle-obama-carla-bruni-sarkozy-glare-demotivational-poster-1244466818.jpg&hash=45c56261698a94c8a6ee3db9a1fc62b0172ab752)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.whicdn.com%2Fimages%2F8982251%2Fpaintball-girl-paintball-hot-demotivational-poster-1219672830_large.jpg&hash=8d22acc6b518f04f8dd91d0da0c7d1a1c4736bfa)
I think she's a little old for you. She can't be much more than 15 or 16.
She's a Hungarian porno chick, so odds are she's of age.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 02:44:01 PM
She's a Hungarian porno chick, so odds are she's of age.
I'm pretty sure that's the first lady.
I find it interesting that Siege can't actually tell me why he's a conservative or what the conservative movement is about.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 08, 2013, 02:44:01 PM
She's a Hungarian porno chick, so odds are she's of age.
I'm pretty sure that's the first lady.
I really wonder what the French porno chick next to her said to earn that glare.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 08, 2013, 03:06:18 PM
I really wonder what the French porno chick next to her said to earn that glare.
"Check out my delicate little Caucasian nose."
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
I find it interesting that Siege can't actually tell me why he's a conservative or what the conservative movement is about.
To be fair, though, nobody you disagree with is ever able to explain things to your satisfaction.
Quote from: derspiess on November 08, 2013, 03:10:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
I find it interesting that Siege can't actually tell me why he's a conservative or what the conservative movement is about.
To be fair, though, nobody you disagree with is ever able to explain things to your satisfaction.
They have before. Siege didn't try. I wonder if even he knows why he's a conservative.
I know why I'm a conservative.
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2013, 09:23:11 PM
I know why I'm a conservative.
Because they are going to let Alberta keep the most oil?
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2013, 09:23:11 PM
I know why I'm a conservative.
I do not doubt that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 08, 2013, 10:21:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 08, 2013, 09:23:11 PM
I know why I'm a conservative.
Because they are going to let Alberta keep the most oil?
No, because I believe that the collective is worth nurturing and protecting, even to some degree over and above individual rights.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 01:57:42 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.whicdn.com%2Fimages%2F8982251%2Fpaintball-girl-paintball-hot-demotivational-poster-1219672830_large.jpg&hash=8d22acc6b518f04f8dd91d0da0c7d1a1c4736bfa)
She is going to end up with a lot of ugly welts if she plays paintball dressed like that.
I'd give her some welts from my belt
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 09, 2013, 09:23:41 PM
She is going to end up with a lot of ugly welts if she plays paintball dressed like that.
She is so Hott, that the paintballs melt before reaching her body.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2013, 09:27:37 PM
I'd give her some welts from my belt
That's not very sexy. Use your hand.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 09, 2013, 10:23:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2013, 09:27:37 PM
I'd give her some welts from my belt
That's not very sexy. Use your hand.
Shame on you for treating her like a sex object. :mad:
She's been a naughty girl and needs to be punished.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 10, 2013, 05:34:28 AM
She's been a naughty girl and needs to be punished.
In which case the rod should be used to punish her naughtiness not to titillate seedy perversions.
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2013, 05:36:11 AM
The cane is the preferred option.
Like the belt, it suffers from a lack of nerve endings. :(
Anyway, all women ache for some Weltschmerz.
I think the libertarian candidate took some votes from both other candidates. As for McAuliffe, news reports that I've seen say the SEC and Feds have been investigating him and the "electric car company" he created and the funding he received. I don't know where that all stands but it was going on long before the election. I wonder how big that will get or if he'll be in some trouble part way into his governorship. The guy is a real light weight it seems to me, just a money bundler for the Clintons. The Clintons and Dems wanted him in Virginia to help push a Hillary win in the state, I guess figuring that a dem governor would mean a larger democrat political machine into the 2016 presidential elections. Dumb ass Repubs didn't give much help or funding to Cuccinelli probably because he was Tea Party. And spited themselves into losing the state instead. Plus shutting down the government in a state heavy with govt. workers was dumb timing. <_< But with the new health care bill blowing up Cuccinelli still nearly pulled out a win.
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2013, 05:36:11 AM
The cane is the preferred option.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5866.msg307627.html#msg307627
Ach, how the years go by. :schmerz:
I'm not sure that McAuliffe can be fairly seen as a "lightweight," given the high-level positions he has held (e.g. a very successful Chairman of the DNC) and the fact that the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard invited him in as a vising fellow.
He certainly isn't a political or business heavyweight, OTOH.
I asked my brother who he voted for for governor and his reply was "There was an election?" :face:
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2013, 12:32:11 PM
I'm not sure that McAuliffe can be fairly seen as a "lightweight," given the high-level positions he has held (e.g. a very successful Chairman of the DNC) and the fact that the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard invited him in as a vising fellow.
Yeah. I think there's a difference between being sleazy and a lightweight.
QuoteDumb ass Repubs didn't give much help or funding to Cuccinelli probably because he was Tea Party. And spited themselves into losing the state instead. Plus shutting down the government in a state heavy with govt. workers was dumb timing.
That may have been a factor, but I don't think it's the largest:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57611186/could-ken-cuccinelli-have-won-the-virginia-governors-race/
QuoteThe biggest factor he pointed to is what he termed "the ideology gap." While 41 percent of the electorate thought McAuliffe was too liberal, a full 50 percent thought Cuccinelli was too conservative. Plus, there was a substantial difference in how unified the parties were: while McAuliffe did well across the spectrum of liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats, Cuccinelli performed 17 points worse among moderate and liberal Republicans than he did among conservatives.
"That's a really rough hurdle to overcome, when you begin with half the electorate that's made an all-things considered judgment that you're just not on the right place on the spectrum for them," Galston said.
He also pointed to Cuccinelli's relatively poor showing against Virginia's well-educated population, trailing by 22 points among the 29 percent with a post-graduate education, and the 18 percent of voters who are single women, where he trailed by 32 percent.
But I think he wasn't an exciting candidate even for conservatives and he was consistently behind in the polls. If he doesn't set the heart going and doesn't look like winning, why would you give money?
Quote from: Caliga on November 11, 2013, 07:57:24 PM
I asked my brother who he voted for for governor and his reply was "There was an election?" :face:
That is about how I feel about elections. What a waste of my valuable time.
That's basically what he said. :sleep:
I think it took me all of 10 minutes.
I'm also incredibly lazy.
Also, I got a new slogan out of it. I am the 24.3%!
If a Tea Party guy wins the state, then the Republicans have still lost it. Personally, I think that the Republican money men in Virginia are heroes for not heavily supporting the candidate. They saw (quite rightly) that a Democrat is better than a Tea Party type. The Tea Party is a cancer in the party of Nixon.
Quote from: Neil on November 12, 2013, 12:04:03 AM
If a Tea Party guy wins the state, then the Republicans have still lost it. Personally, I think that the Republican money men in Virginia are heroes for not heavily supporting the candidate. They saw (quite rightly) that a Democrat is better than a Tea Party type. The Tea Party is a cancer in the party of Nixon.
Nixon was a cancer in the party of Nixon, too. Sure, pancreatic is a bit different than melanoma, but still.
You Reaganauts are all the same: Bad.
Foreigner.
I'm hot blooded.
You're as cold as ice.
That was yesterday.
And it will be again tomorrow.
Quote from: Siege on November 08, 2013, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 08, 2013, 01:04:26 AM
No, Siege, I meant what do you think being a conservative means, not what Mark Levine things about the constitution. In your own words. Presumably under Levine's definition you'd lose your job. The military is an organization that is funded by taxes to protect all Americans. By having a military the government is saying that all Americans have a right to safety and protection. People who are not paying much in taxes get protected just as much as the people who pay a lot in taxes. They are taxing are some of the people to provide a product to all of the people. That product is security.
I can have fun poking holes in his stuff all day, things about slavery and the tyranny of states and individuals over others, but I want to here what you think the conservative movement is about.
Sorry, English is not my first language.
But I can google it for you.
And what the fuck are you talking about slavery and tyrani of state and individuals over others?
Where have you been living for the last 6 years? Fuck that, for the last 25 years.
Everything been about big govermetnt since Reagan.
But the way, it was the Republican Party who fought for the end of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.
This is Reagan's speech in 1964 "A time for choosing".
It is the greatest I have ever heard. I cried when I heard it.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html
You realize Lincoln was a 'radical' republican and was pro immigration/immigrants and anti-slavery, which the conservatives were completely against?
Essentially, Lincoln was worse than Obama and Hitler in teabilly eyes and you would have tried assassinating him were you alive back then.