Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
And this stupid fucking asshole sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. But hopefully not too much longer since he's a stupid fucking asshole.
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I left the Republican Party.
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I left the Republican Party.
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Libertarians are just as bad as the other two parties. Why support a party which supports Ayn Rand's principles.
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Libertarians are just as bad as the other two parties. Why support a party which supports Ayn Rand's principles.
I'm sure your right, they just haven't had the spotlight to show their ignorance like the other 2 parties.
Didn't know much about the Greens, but they seem to be about personal freedoms, which I like. I don't smoke pot and rarely drink soda and eat fast food, but I want that to be my choice.
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Libertarians are just as bad as the other two parties. Why support a party which supports Ayn Rand's principles.
No exactly. They actually are an anti-war party. That can not be said about republicrats.
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Libertarians are just as bad as the other two parties. Why support a party which supports Ayn Rand's principles.
No exactly. They actually are an anti-war party. That can not be said about republicrats.
Republicans are not pro-war, that's just a left spin. Democrats voted for the Afghan and Iraq war, and we are still engaged in Afghanistan. The Republicans drafted the Iraq exit plan, and good on Obama for following that through and now working on the same for Afghanistan, with support from the Republicans.
And Obama has indicated that using the military against Iran is an option, and even used the idea as a threat.
@B5C We have actually engaged in more wars under Democratic leadership than Republican, so we could say that historically speaking, we are more likely to go to war with a Democrat President.
I will concede though that the Republicans are more pro-defense spending, at levels that excede what is needed to actually defend the US... they can't defend the idea that they are posturing for worldwide muscle flexing.
Neo-Conservative republicans are about as pro war as you get IMO. They are the ones who helped the Egyptians imprison and torture early members of the muslim brotherhood, which created a whole new level of "jihad". Specifically, Sayyid Qutb, the mentor of the mentor of osama bin laden, was tortured in an Egyptian prison, with the help of the Neo-Conservative republican led CIA. They smothered him in lard and sicked dogs on him, which literally gave him a heart attack. He survived and when he got out of prison, there was this whole new level of jihad. You have to go back to the 60's to get the big picture IMO. Sayyid Qutb only came to the conclusion that killing Americans is appropriate, after he was tortured like this this by the CIA. Neo-Conservatism dramatically radicalized Islamic jihad, which resulted in the death of tens of thousands of people.
Perhaps you could say they are not "pro war" but you definitely can't say they are anti-war.
I'm not really familiar with their history except with a quick wiki check. G W Bush was not a Neo Conservative... interesting that they were formed in the 60s from a group of Liberals who were paranoid of the rise of the USSR.
"During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union"
"The Bush campaign and the early Bush administration did not exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles. As a presidential candidate, Bush had argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea of nation-building[45] and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives."
"Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks."
I will concede though that the Republicans are more pro-defense spending, at levels that excede what is needed to actually defend the US... they can't defend the idea that they are posturing for worldwide muscle flexing.
Republicans and Democrats are both IMPERIALISTS. When I ever say Democrats are pro-peace?
I find it hard to seriously see how anyone from the working class or middle class could vote Republican or be taken in by their drivel their only interest lay in cutting tax for the super rich at the expense of everyone else dumb enough to vote for them.
In the fox media they call them 'job providers' not 'the rich' hehe
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Listening to the coverage of this today everyone was focusing on the "legitimate rape" quote. My initial take was that was a poor choice of words and I got his point. What bothered me more was that a congressman's level of ignorance was such that he believed that its any harder for a woman to get pregnant through rape than normal.
After listening though I guess there is some precedent for distinguishing forcible rape from other forms for various reasons. Its just jaw dropping.
I find it hard to believe any anti-war person would actually vote for any of them! It's like a choice between pile of dung A or pile of dung B. So do you want elephant dung or donkey dung?
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Apparently, he also believes women can only get pregnant when they orgasm? :rolleyes:
I find it hard to seriously see how anyone from the working class or middle class could vote Republican or be taken in by their drivel their only interest lay in cutting tax for the super rich at the expense of everyone else dumb enough to vote for them.
There is a fine line on where the tax line should be drawn to encourage prosperity... too far either way is not good. The right believes the left has it wrong and visa versa... it's very possible that both sides have it wrong, too far each way, which makes both sides "dumb".
@caznamyaw I get most of that spin, but how do the Dems spin the job loss and unemployment in their favor? The numbers are a fail for Obama
Political manoeuvring. They like to block as much as possible in order to make the president fail and credit their selves with being those who can deliver. Funny that considering the latest candidate has similar bush like policies.
@caznamyaw I get most of that spin, but how do the Dems spin the job loss and unemployment in their favor? The numbers are a fail for Obama
Political manoeuvring. They like to block as much as possible in order to make the president fail and credit their selves with being those who can deliver.
Is this a Republican or Democrat strategy, or both?
@caznamyaw I get most of that spin, but how do the Dems spin the job loss and unemployment in their favor? The numbers are a fail for Obama
Political manoeuvring. They like to block as much as possible in order to make the president fail and credit their selves with being those who can deliver.
Is this a Republican or Democrat strategy, or both?
Both can be guilty of doing it but Republicans are the worst. Especially if there's a black guy in office.
I think this article makes a good a point: "If you don't know how basic biology works, you shouldn't be able to hold a government position that gives you real power over the bodies of millions of women."
Me too, but I don't see the Dems as being any better.... I thought I'd go Libertarian in the recent local elections, and they had that option, but state laws are that you have to vote in your party, and there were no Libertarians to vote for... Didn't know what to do
Libertarians are just as bad as the other two parties. Why support a party which supports Ayn Rand's principles.
See this is why I'm voting for the U.S. Socialist Party. Sure they'll never get elected, but at least I'll feel like I didn't directly help cause these wars, or other messed up problems of our country.
@caznamyaw I get most of that spin, but how do the Dems spin the job loss and unemployment in their favor? The numbers are a fail for Obama
Political manoeuvring. They like to block as much as possible in order to make the president fail and credit their selves with being those who can deliver.
Is this a Republican or Democrat strategy, or both?
Both use to an extent, but Republicans have been very obstructionist in dealing with Obama.
---Or you could just NOT vote. Isn't that the same as not voting for a party you don't like? Why vote for another group of people with a similar misunderstanding of how life works?
There have been some great politicians, who were in it for the right reasons. They are few and far between, but not ALL politicians are in it for personal gain, as someone said earlier. Paul Wellstone was a great example as a politician who worked hard, and diligently for the people her served. He went into politics for the right reasons, and he was just a fabulous person. I wish politics would go back to a "of the people, for the people" place. It shouldn't be a career you study in college. You can spend time doing any number of things. If your heart isn't in it, and with the people you serve, you are a disservice to the citizens.
This type of stuff, with Akin etc, is why I say I am "pro choice." I have a uterus, and ovaries, I've been pregnant and delivered babies. I don't understand what it's like to have to adjust my testicles a dozen times a day, so, I'm not going to tell a man how to do it, or not to do it. So he likewise has no business telling me how to manage my uterus or ovaries etc. Stick with what you know. Take your viagra, give me my birth control, covered at the same rate with insurance, and we can all be happy.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: Politicians are no better or worse than the people who elect them. And a helluva lot better than the people who don't vote at all.
I see your Mark Twain and raise you George Carlin: If you vote you don't have a right to complain, because you're an enabler. I'm not sure I agree with Carlin, but his logic isn't bad.
In a close vote, at least, you're enabling whichever outcome you could have changed. A lack of voting often has just as much effect as voting.
A non sequitur... I remember Carlin saying, "Destroy the Earth? We're not going to destroy Earth - she's gonna shake us off like a bad case of fleas." Don't know that I agree, but always thought it was funny.
Comments
Makes me wonder about my own levels of ignorance... I must have a bunch of areas as misguided as this fellow and I'm happily grinning along!!
http://www.gp.org/index.php
ALL politicians are trolls and only care about maintaining their one party system that weds us to policies of perpetual debt and war.
And Obama has indicated that using the military against Iran is an option, and even used the idea as a threat.
I will concede though that the Republicans are more pro-defense spending, at levels that excede what is needed to actually defend the US... they can't defend the idea that they are posturing for worldwide muscle flexing.
Perhaps you could say they are not "pro war" but you definitely can't say they are anti-war.
I'm not really familiar with their history except with a quick wiki check. G W Bush was not a Neo Conservative... interesting that they were formed in the 60s from a group of Liberals who were paranoid of the rise of the USSR.
"During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union"
"The Bush campaign and the early Bush administration did not exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles. As a presidential candidate, Bush had argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea of nation-building[45] and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives."
"Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks."
From wikipedia
Sorry to derail your post Mountains ... I do hope Akins loses his seat over this.
After listening though I guess there is some precedent for distinguishing forcible rape from other forms for various reasons. Its just jaw dropping.
Both can be guilty of doing it but Republicans are the worst. Especially if there's a black guy in office.
Both use to an extent, but Republicans have been very obstructionist in dealing with Obama.
---Or you could just NOT vote. Isn't that the same as not voting for a party you don't like? Why vote for another group of people with a similar misunderstanding of how life works?
This type of stuff, with Akin etc, is why I say I am "pro choice." I have a uterus, and ovaries, I've been pregnant and delivered babies. I don't understand what it's like to have to adjust my testicles a dozen times a day, so, I'm not going to tell a man how to do it, or not to do it. So he likewise has no business telling me how to manage my uterus or ovaries etc. Stick with what you know. Take your viagra, give me my birth control, covered at the same rate with insurance, and we can all be happy.
I see your Mark Twain and raise you George Carlin: If you vote you don't have a right to complain, because you're an enabler. I'm not sure I agree with Carlin, but his logic isn't bad.
A non sequitur... I remember Carlin saying, "Destroy the Earth? We're not going to destroy Earth - she's gonna shake us off like a bad case of fleas." Don't know that I agree, but always thought it was funny.