RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution

RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

flcouple2009 -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 11:57:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead True enough: he was just the first example who sprang to mind who'd been a dismal failure in the private sector before launching a political career. I'm sure there's plenty more, as you say. Just think Republican President with a slew of failed businesses behind him.

mnottertail -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You used to be worth the effort. You never have been.

TheHeretic -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:03:15 PM)
And I don't recall seeing you discussing Hank Johnson, Flco, or commenting on his reelection with 75% of the vote. Did you bother to watch the video?

isoLadyOwner -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:07:47 PM)
Democratic loyalists and Republican loyalists seem to assume that Independents and Moderates view their parties as the "good guys". I don't see either party doing anything but lining their pockets, pointing fingers at each other, and bleating about some boogieman from which only their political party can protect the US public. When does the NYT run "faces of the fallen" these days or is war a good thing now because Obama's the president? I'm a Moderate and I really can't support either party. I'll go Republican until there's total gridlock and/or Obama fails to win re-election. I'm a bit more disgusted with the Democrats for continually maintaining two incredibly expensive wars we can't win, lying about Guantanamo, shrieking about the Patriot Act then renewing it, maintaining corporate/bank giveaways and bailouts, creating Obamacare, pushing new warrantless wiretaps, etc. Obama called the Democratic base "retarded" for not blindly supporting his bad policy (through Rahm Emmanuel). The Administration (through Gibbs) then called for Democrats who don't agree with Obama to be drug tested. Gibbs may have been joking but no prior Administration ever insulted its base like that or even joked about that kind of invasion of privacy. That Obama allowed (or even directed) his staff say these things solidifies Obama's staggering sense of entitlement and incompetence in my view. I've seen the supporters of the most powerful man on the planet (Obama) even try to play the race card to explain why the center has retracted its support. I won't support Obama because I dislike his policy, he is not entitled to my support because he's labeled a Democrat. His supporters simply can't face that its not his race but rather his job performance that's created opposition and disdain in the center. When a party demonstrates it can't be trusted with power its necessary to vote for gridlock. The Democrats will only make things worse and throw money at their friends, same as the Republicans. I don't see Democrats as the lesser of two evils, they're both horrendous.

Moonhead -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:13:19 PM)
It wasn't a criticism of independents, and I apologise if it looked like that was what I meant. Poopey has a tendency to come out with all manner of teabagger/lunatic right nonsense, while insisting that he's an independent. I was just taking a cheap pop at his "stealth Republican" thing, rather than implying that all independent voters are equally right leaning. Sorry: I forgot that posters who haven't been on here long wouldn't have read enough of the highly partisan nonsense he posts to pick up on that reference in the spirit with which it was intended.

flcouple2009 -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:13:40 PM)
No, I'm discussing you starting a thread to throw stones and make jokes, but yet you ignore blunders by other idiots. What I can gather is OK to be an idiot as long as they are your idiot.

TheHeretic -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:42:15 PM)
Quoth the one who brags about just throwing rocks at other posters, rather than watch the link and comment on the subject. Democrats own the House contest for dumbest member, Schumer launched a nice bid here in the Senate, of course you want to make this about my motivations.

Moonhead -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:53:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Democrats own the House contest for dumbest member I thought Leiberman had gone solo a while back?

Lucylastic -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 12:56:35 PM)
Heretic donning his Master Baiter costume again weeeeeeeeeeeeee Schumer is a dumbass [:D] Edited for a blonde moment in spelling baiter

Real0ne -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 1:01:06 PM)
and who signs the bidicktatership check?

TheHeretic -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 1:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Schumer is a dumbass [:D] See, Flco? Even the foreign libs without a clue get this one. Ya'll have yourselves a lovely day.

Lucylastic -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 1:17:51 PM)
oooooh nice try...no prize

joether -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 1:31:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Chuck Schumer (D) New York, on the three branches of our government. "We have a House, we have a Senate, and we have a President." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eEN0sHPKGA No. Really. It's ok. He's a Democrat. It saddens me that I need to include this, but the correct answer will be found here If that's your best jab at Mr. Schumer, your a failure. Lets compare his abilities to that of Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Republicans have many people in office, that are just failures in their role. They can't do their job, are poor representatives of their people, and generally forget their role is not 'lord of all'. Unless you want to convince me that Mr. Scalia is unbias and will be 'open minded' when arguements 'for' and 'against' the Affordable Care Act are presented? We can play these little games, and you'll lose, largely due to the amount of stupid Republicans in office right now. Not to mention the cheerleaders of the conservative philosophy.

joether -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 1:43:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner Democratic loyalists and Republican loyalists seem to assume that Independents and Moderates view their parties as the "good guys". I don't see either party doing anything but lining their pockets, pointing fingers at each other, and bleating about some boogieman from which only their political party can protect the US public. When does the NYT run "faces of the fallen" these days or is war a good thing now because Obama's the president? I'm a Moderate and I really can't support either party. I'll go Republican until there's total gridlock and/or Obama fails to win re-election. I'm a bit more disgusted with the Democrats for continually maintaining two incredibly expensive wars we can't win, lying about Guantanamo, shrieking about the Patriot Act then renewing it, maintaining corporate/bank giveaways and bailouts, creating Obamacare, pushing new warrantless wiretaps, etc. Obama called the Democratic base "retarded" for not blindly supporting his bad policy (through Rahm Emmanuel). The Administration (through Gibbs) then called for Democrats who don't agree with Obama to be drug tested. Gibbs may have been joking but no prior Administration ever insulted its base like that or even joked about that kind of invasion of privacy. That Obama allowed (or even directed) his staff say these things solidifies Obama's staggering sense of entitlement and incompetence in my view. I've seen the supporters of the most powerful man on the planet (Obama) even try to play the race card to explain why the center has retracted its support. I won't support Obama because I dislike his policy, he is not entitled to my support because he's labeled a Democrat. His supporters simply can't face that its not his race but rather his job performance that's created opposition and disdain in the center. When a party demonstrates it can't be trusted with power its necessary to vote for gridlock. The Democrats will only make things worse and throw money at their friends, same as the Republicans. I don't see Democrats as the lesser of two evils, they're both horrendous. Ever play a FPS? Its an acronym for 'First Person Shooter'. Modern example of an FPS is Call of Duty: Black Ops. The reason I bring this up, is internet games in the FPS gene and moderates are so much alike. In FPS games, there's a group of players that will, round after round in team deathmatch games.....stay on the same team.....regardless of the outcome. Then there's a group of players that need to be on the winning team......no matter what. They'll make up all sorts of excuses, for why their loyality to one side is no longer current. As result, some matchs are not 18 on 18, but 27 on 9. Unlike goverment, in a TEAM deathmatch game, the general idea is both sides are even in terms of player number. Moderates it seems, are trying to pick the 'right' team to side with right now. Their reasons are numerous, but one thing is certain: they always try to be on the winning team. And they never say they voted or 'cheered' on the losing team. Next election, isoLadyOwner, will vote Republican or Democrat for the office of President. She'll come up with reasons for why that is. Not because they are good reaons (they could be), but because she wants to be on the winning team. And if the other person wins, she'll just say she voted for him as well. Since people know she's a 'Moderate', she won't be seen as 'being disloyal to her party'.

Hillwilliam -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 2:01:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner Democratic loyalists and Republican loyalists seem to assume that Independents and Moderates view their parties as the "good guys". I don't see either party doing anything but lining their pockets, pointing fingers at each other, and bleating about some boogieman from which only their political party can protect the US public. When does the NYT run "faces of the fallen" these days or is war a good thing now because Obama's the president? I'm a Moderate and I really can't support either party. I'll go Republican until there's total gridlock and/or Obama fails to win re-election. I'm a bit more disgusted with the Democrats for continually maintaining two incredibly expensive wars we can't win, lying about Guantanamo, shrieking about the Patriot Act then renewing it, maintaining corporate/bank giveaways and bailouts, creating Obamacare, pushing new warrantless wiretaps, etc. Obama called the Democratic base "retarded" for not blindly supporting his bad policy (through Rahm Emmanuel). The Administration (through Gibbs) then called for Democrats who don't agree with Obama to be drug tested. Gibbs may have been joking but no prior Administration ever insulted its base like that or even joked about that kind of invasion of privacy. That Obama allowed (or even directed) his staff say these things solidifies Obama's staggering sense of entitlement and incompetence in my view. I've seen the supporters of the most powerful man on the planet (Obama) even try to play the race card to explain why the center has retracted its support. I won't support Obama because I dislike his policy, he is not entitled to my support because he's labeled a Democrat. His supporters simply can't face that its not his race but rather his job performance that's created opposition and disdain in the center. When a party demonstrates it can't be trusted with power its necessary to vote for gridlock. The Democrats will only make things worse and throw money at their friends, same as the Republicans. I don't see Democrats as the lesser of two evils, they're both horrendous. Ever play a FPS? Its an acronym for 'First Person Shooter'. Modern example of an FPS is Call of Duty: Black Ops. The reason I bring this up, is internet games in the FPS gene and moderates are so much alike. In FPS games, there's a group of players that will, round after round in team deathmatch games.....stay on the same team.....regardless of the outcome. Then there's a group of players that need to be on the winning team......no matter what. They'll make up all sorts of excuses, for why their loyality to one side is no longer current. As result, some matchs are not 18 on 18, but 27 on 9. Unlike goverment, in a TEAM deathmatch game, the general idea is both sides are even in terms of player number. Moderates it seems, are trying to pick the 'right' team to side with right now. Their reasons are numerous, but one thing is certain: they always try to be on the winning team. And they never say they voted or 'cheered' on the losing team. Next election, isoLadyOwner, will vote Republican or Democrat for the office of President. She'll come up with reasons for why that is. Not because they are good reaons (they could be), but because she wants to be on the winning team. And if the other person wins, she'll just say she voted for him as well. Since people know she's a 'Moderate', she won't be seen as 'being disloyal to her party'. Let me guess, you're one of those folks that would vote for a flatworm if it had an (R) after its name on the ballot because your favorite talking head on the TV or radio told you to. At least you admit you're a sub.

Sanity -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 2:09:00 PM)
The Obama administration seems to have missed the reading of the Constitution as well, Rich. The judiciary? Whats that?

flcouple2009 -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 2:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Quoth the one who brags about just throwing rocks at other posters, rather than watch the link and comment on the subject. Democrats own the House contest for dumbest member, Schumer launched a nice bid here in the Senate, of course you want to make this about my motivations. Now now Ritchie Rich, Find me where I was bragging about "throwing rocks". Here's the problem dear sir. I don't need to watch the link. You told me what he said. It's mind boggling and down right pitiful when a standing member of Congress screws up something which should be Jr High Civics. My point was in questioning your purpose for posting this to begin with. Somehow his butchering the branches of Government is much worse than Bachman claiming the Founding Fathers ended slavery when they wrote the constitution? I didn't see any hand wringing on your part about how she must not have read the constitution. You never declared her a dumb ass. Why is that? All I am gathering from you is this, It's OK to be a dumb ass as long as your a dumb ass I support. You got the first letter of your handle correct, but you used the wrong word.

Louve00 -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 2:58:24 PM)
Well, you want to make a big deal over Senator Shumer not knowing what the 3 branches of gov't are. But people higher up on the totem pole in Washington acted just as ignorant. Like all the grammatical errors and blunders Bush (not a senator but the president of the U.S.) made. For example, he said that the U.S. and Japan have been friends for "a century and a half", and during the 2000 campaign he could not name the president of Pakistan. The first example is most likely a slip of the tongue, in the category of #2 above: He surely meant to say "half a century" (Note...how utterly civil of a lefty to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on that, too!) [;)] http://www.johansens.us/sane/politics/bush_moron.htm (you'll find 100 mistakes Bush made...and he made so many he wasn't even "allowed" to give an un-scripted appearance!!...something perhaps they should have restricted Palin to) And then, yes Palin...who aside from thinking bordering Canada and being able to see Russia from Alaskan land was experience in foreign relations, also thought Africa was a country. (Lord only knows what our potential (and thankfully not meant to be) vice president (again, not a senator) thought Ethopia, Kenya, Egypt were, if not a part of the African continent...but hey. Let's instead concentrate on a senator in NY and magnify it, and dwell on it, and say all democrats must think this way, when republicans have given us plenty of ammunition as to how all republicans think...right?

rulemylife -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 3:18:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: joether Ever play a FPS? Its an acronym for 'First Person Shooter'. Modern example of an FPS is Call of Duty: Black Ops. The reason I bring this up, is internet games in the FPS gene and moderates are so much alike. In FPS games, there's a group of players that will, round after round in team deathmatch games.....stay on the same team.....regardless of the outcome. Then there's a group of players that need to be on the winning team......no matter what. They'll make up all sorts of excuses, for why their loyality to one side is no longer current. As result, some matchs are not 18 on 18, but 27 on 9. Unlike goverment, in a TEAM deathmatch game, the general idea is both sides are even in terms of player number. Moderates it seems, are trying to pick the 'right' team to side with right now. Their reasons are numerous, but one thing is certain: they always try to be on the winning team. And they never say they voted or 'cheered' on the losing team. Next election, isoLadyOwner, will vote Republican or Democrat for the office of President. She'll come up with reasons for why that is. Not because they are good reaons (they could be), but because she wants to be on the winning team. And if the other person wins, she'll just say she voted for him as well. Since people know she's a 'Moderate', she won't be seen as 'being disloyal to her party'. Let me guess, you're one of those folks that would vote for a flatworm if it had an (R) after its name on the ballot because your favorite talking head on the TV or radio told you to. At least you admit you're a sub. Where did he admit that? More to the point, what fucking difference does it make?

Hillwilliam -> RE: I guess he missed the reading of the Constitution (2/5/2011 4:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: joether Ever play a FPS? Its an acronym for 'First Person Shooter'. Modern example of an FPS is Call of Duty: Black Ops. The reason I bring this up, is internet games in the FPS gene and moderates are so much alike. In FPS games, there's a group of players that will, round after round in team deathmatch games.....stay on the same team.....regardless of the outcome. Then there's a group of players that need to be on the winning team......no matter what. They'll make up all sorts of excuses, for why their loyality to one side is no longer current. As result, some matchs are not 18 on 18, but 27 on 9. Unlike goverment, in a TEAM deathmatch game, the general idea is both sides are even in terms of player number. Moderates it seems, are trying to pick the 'right' team to side with right now. Their reasons are numerous, but one thing is certain: they always try to be on the winning team. And they never say they voted or 'cheered' on the losing team. Next election, isoLadyOwner, will vote Republican or Democrat for the office of President. She'll come up with reasons for why that is. Not because they are good reaons (they could be), but because she wants to be on the winning team. And if the other person wins, she'll just say she voted for him as well. Since people know she's a 'Moderate', she won't be seen as 'being disloyal to her party'. Let me guess, you're one of those folks that would vote for a flatworm if it had an (R) after its name on the ballot because your favorite talking head on the TV or radio told you to. At least you admit you're a sub. Where did he admit that? More to the point, what fucking difference does it make? It's on his profile. Read it if you're capable. The diference is this. There are several "Straight Doms" here that if Sean Hannity said "Suck My Dick" they'd be on their knees in a flash. How can someone claim to be a Dom is some talking head on the radio or TV tells them how to think and what to say? They are incapable if independent thought. This is BOTH sides of the aisle. Last I heard, Dom(mes) were people that weren't the ones being told what to do. They were the ones doing the telling. Again, at least you admit to being a sub.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875