Obama needs to STOP fucking BOWING to everyone.

AllBizNiz said:
No way would Sarah Palin even be a front runner. She's been so dismantled by the media she won't have a chance. I don't think she would get a Republican nomination.

I think Paul could run a pretty strong campaign as an independent. I would keep putting ads out there how the two party system needs to be dismantled. That's the only way real change is going to happen.
Click to expand...

While I enjoy the same feelings regarding the jacked up 2-party system as many others here, I feel this is not the time to be slicing up the Republican party as that will only provide a guaranteed win for Obama in 2012.

I would rather see Conservative principled candidates take back the party and clean out all the worthless crap (RINO types).

A few days ago I noticed some news regarding the formation of "The Independent Conservative Republicans of Texas" and I hope other groups of politicians can follow suit to grow the movement and do some serious house cleaning.

edit: for reference search Google News for "TX State Senator Dan Patrick"
 


obamaburgerking.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: guerilla
emp said:
Err... I am almost afraid to ask, but what are the bad, unintended consequences of civil rights or gay rights?

Unless you are talking about the embarassment it causes whenever a republican is caught smoking pole in a public restroom. :p

::emp::
Click to expand...

Thier is nothing wrong with civil/gay rights but don't one moment believe that the liberals give a fuck about them. They play up to minorities and the poor to buy their vote.

You think Harry Reid gives a fuck about blacks? or the poor? They are in it pander to WHOEVER will provide them money and votes. This way they can push thier radical agendas.
 
LotsOfZeros said:
It's tiresome how you douchebag libs have no way to counter any criticism without bringing Bush up. I'm not exactly sure what you're implying by saying 'flyboy swagger' but in case you're wondering, I probably hate BO much more than you ever hated Bush.

A lot more.

At least Bush wasn't trying to systematically dismantle his own country from within.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you douchebag Rethugs can't extol the virtues of Conservatism, without bringing up Reagan. That time has come and gone
 
emp said:
Err... I am almost afraid to ask, but what are the bad, unintended consequences of civil rights or gay rights?

Unless you are talking about the embarassment it causes whenever a republican is caught smoking pole in a public restroom. :p

::emp::
Click to expand...

Elevating any group to have specific rights others do not (including affirmative action) is not right. Government should place everyone on a level playing field and let it go from there.
 
Big Mike75 said:
It's funny how you douchebag Rethugs can't extol the virtues of Conservatism, without bringing up Reagan. That time has come and gone
Click to expand...

..."douchebag Rethugs". Real nice way to win people to your cause or side. More sports fan politics bullshit. "My side is the ONLY side, you're WRONG, GO BLUE!"
 
papajohn56 said:
..."douchebag Rethugs". Real nice way to win people to your cause or side. More sports fan politics bullshit. "My side is the ONLY side, you're WRONG, GO BLUE!"
Click to expand...

I don't know what's funnier: That somehow calling me something I am not will actually change my views, or that some pitiful soul actually appears happy we may never have another Reagan
 
papajohn56 said:
Elevating any group to have specific rights others do not (including affirmative action) is not right. Government should place everyone on a level playing field and let it go from there.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this.

But most gay rights that are still in discussion - for example, marriage - would just put them on that level field.

::emp::
 
emp said:
But most gay rights that are still in discussion - for example, marriage - would just put them on that level field.
Click to expand...

Why does calling them 'married' give them any better rights than the existing civil unions? I have gay friends who actually could care less what it's called as long as they can have joint survivorship rights like married couples.

To me, the gay marriage debate has always been about a fringe group of queers who just want to make an issue out of nothing for the sake of being whiny bitches and shove the whole gayness into the faces of religious people. A kind of "here you go aunt Matilda for all those times you drug me to church on Sundays".

It's because of them I oppose "gay marriage" out of principle.
 
LotsOfZeros said:
Why does calling them 'married' give them any better rights than the existing civil unions? I have gay friends who actually could care less what it's called as long as they can have joint survivorship rights like married couples.

To me, the gay marriage debate has always been about a fringe group of queers who just want to make an issue out of nothing for the sake of being whiny bitches and shove the whole gayness into the faces of religious people. A kind of "here you go aunt Matilda for all those times you drug me to church on Sundays".

It's because of them I oppose "gay marriage" out of principle.
Click to expand...

Hahaha..

First you say you want everyone on a level playing field (..and if it is not important, why not call it marriage?), but then you oppose it out of the principle of not liking a group of people because of their supposed motives.

Way to make policy.

::emp::
 
emp said:
Hahaha..

First you say you want everyone on a level playing field (..and if it is not important, why not call it marriage?), but then you oppose it out of the principle of not liking a group of people because of their supposed motives.

Way to make policy.

::emp::
Click to expand...
You weren't paying attention.

They are getting equal treatment with their civil union (level playing field).
I wasn't opposing the act of them getting the same legal rights as married couples, only the name of such act.
When they act like bitches over semantics I say "fuck you, quick griping".
 
Fair enough.

Just keeping in mind that the bitching about semantics is coming from both sides.

::emp::
 
emp said:
I actually agree with this.

But most gay rights that are still in discussion - for example, marriage - would just put them on that level field.

::emp::
Click to expand...

Government shouldn't recognize 'marriage' in the first place. Give civil unions to everyone, but leave the act of marriage to the churches.
 
papajohn56 said:
Government shouldn't recognize 'marriage' in the first place. Give civil unions to everyone, but leave the act of marriage to the churches.
Click to expand...

Now THAT would be great. But seperation of church and state seems to be an issue a lot of countries still have not managed completely.

::emp::
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom