Republicans prefer Satan
-
Actually, we prefer Beelzebub, but let's not get technical. What I think is hilarious is that, besides the fact that the same lame claims are made each year by the left in order to illegitimize their loss in their eyes, this year they actually preemtively started claiming fraud. Cynthia McKinney claimed over a month ago that Republicans were planning election fraud. Hmmmmmmm... What's interesting is that these are the same tactics used by leftists in third world countries to justify revolutions. What's further interesting is that pretty much all dead people vote Democrat.
Red Stateler wrote:
pretty much all dead people vote Democrat
At least they wait until they're entirely dead!
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
-
led mike wrote:
You don't think selling your congressional power for campaign funds qualifies as fraud?
the last guy who did it is now doing time, what is your point? oh, unless you mean Murphy of PA and ABSCAM - he's still in Congress and still a breying jackass. of course you could mean Jefferson of the $100k freezer packet of course you could mean Alcace Hastings the defrocked (by a Democrat Congress) federal judge who could be poised to chair a committee. Nah - you couldn't be talking about any of those guys.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the last guy who did it is now doing time
NO! The last guy who got "caught".
Mike Gaskey wrote:
what is your point?
People without honor and integrity (fraud would be included there) can be found in both parties in and out of office. It is an argument that cannot be won by either party.
led mike
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the last guy who did it is now doing time
NO! The last guy who got "caught".
Mike Gaskey wrote:
what is your point?
People without honor and integrity (fraud would be included there) can be found in both parties in and out of office. It is an argument that cannot be won by either party.
led mike
led mike wrote:
People without honor and integrity (fraud would be included there) can be found in both parties in and out of office. It is an argument that cannot be won by either party.
then go back to my list: Cunningham - busted, tried and convicted and now doing time. I can't remember (but that doesn't make it true) any GOP effort to protect him. Murphy - on tape, ABSCAM - sitting in congress, a darling of the opposition. Jefferson - busted with 100k in the fridge, sitting in Congress still. point being, GOP will fry their own if they go awry.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
led mike wrote:
You mean double-speak like the Republican platform of Religious Intolerance and Family Values being lead by Gay Pedophile Congressmen and Married Gay Evangelical Christians.
Precisely. The fact that these guys professed values means that they could be held accountable for violating those values, and were. Your solution, and that of the left in general, to that 'problem' is to prefer individuals who do not profess such values. Good plan.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
prefer
Wrong again. Tolerance or their right to freedom has nothing to do with who one "prefers". You guys just can't get the simple truth of things can you? Also "reasonable" people understand that if you need someone to build you a bridge their sexual preference is not logically included in the assessment of who you prefer to build a freakin bridge. You prefer the person that will do the best job for the least money and again "reasonable" people "get" that a person can fulfill those qualifications even though one does not "prefer" their sexual preference. Right-wingnuts, illogically draw the conclusion that being homosexual is equivalent to being bad and/or less intelligent, incapable, and therefore you would exclude that person from being qualified to build a bridge. In short you are just plain wrong, period.
led mike
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Right "I'm hoping he prefers Libertarians this election (I know, fat chance...)." was terribly partisan.
I wasn't referring to the partisan-ness of your response. I'll try to clarify it for you. Your reply to Red Stateler's God prefers Republicans: I'm hoping he prefers Libertarians this election (I know, fat chance...). Your reply to my Republicans prefer Satan: Thanks for the expected daily dose of partisan crap. :mad: So you get pissed at me for posting links to dirty tricks being committed by the Republican party, but you give a light-hearted, friendly reply to Red, who claims that God favors Republicans, based on the weather conditions. Is your hypocricy clear now? When are you going to get pissed at the Republicans on this board who constantly spoute their partisan crap?
Rob Graham wrote:
Obviously you believe that only Democrats deserve votes this election. I disagree. Both major parties fail to offer reasonable alternatives, so I chose a third party.
That's beautiful. What did you do when a third party wasn't a choice? I don't believe Democrats deserve anything. But I do believe Republicans deserve nothing. Unfortunately, the only practical way to make sure they get that is to vote them out, via the Democrats.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Ah, but you initiated this thread. As the initiator, you introduced what was the first really vitriolic partisan material of the day. Red praying for good weather was expressing his hope for republican success (without saying anything negative about Democrats - unless you consider the satement that they historically are more easily discouraged by bad weather as negative). The difference in tone between Red's post and yours was marked. Yours was about slamming the opposition - calling them cheats and dirty tricksters. Somehow I see that as much more partisan and vitriolic than wishing for rain.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
What did you do when a third party wasn't a choice?
There were no National or Statewide offices where that was the case. I was able to choose a Libertarian for everything from U.S Senate to State Secretary. For the local offices I went by what I knew of the candidates local positions. My choices were generally Republican in those cases, but not exclusively. I actually care more about the issues and the candidates stand on them thna about their party affiliation. You have made it clear that you care more about affiliation, hence my charge that you are a partizan fits. For the various initiatives, I made the choice that best aligned with my beliefs, which are largely in line with Libertarian positions.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
the only practical way to make sure they get that is to vote them out, via the Democrats.
Absurd. A vote against is a vote against, a vote for a Libertarian is a vote against BOTH Republican and Democrat. And not all republicans nor all democrats are either evil or undeserving of support.
-
Poor red. It doesn't take much to get you to resort to name calling. I'm embarrassed for you.
Huh? Namecalling? I just asked if you like my keys. What's wrong with you?
-
Both of those guys were removed from their positions, indicating no hypocrisy, whereas leftists generally promote and reelect similar people.
The top republican leadership, GWB, Rumseld and Cheny are republicans that are re-elected after dismal failures in the Military handling of Iraq and the search for Bin Laden. Bush and Cheney refuse to admit any mistakes and the whole way the handled the entire affair is one mistake after another including the continual support for Rumsfeld. Katrina is another example of utter failure absent any admittance of mistakes. After stating Browny was doing a good job, meaning GWB is admitting doing no wrong, he then flips and fires the guy. Now the ongoing efforts in New Orleans are completely FUBARED and again no responsibility. You're all bullshit, you got nothing.
led mike
-
I am sorry for you red. It is unfortunate that you believe that a group populated by dyed-in-the-wool republicans and funded by the GOP is non-partisan. Your claim is invalid, the evidence provided to support the claim is biased, and was shown to be biased by its membership. Only someone completely brainwashed could imagine them to be unbiased. You continue to resort to name calling since you cannot support your position. So, for you red: hypocrite.
Hey, I said I was sorry for presenting you with such fundamentally indisputable evidence that was obviously well beyond your capability to grasp. I sincerely hope that you accept my sincerest apology for overestimating your capabilities. If you are uncomfortable that you match the dictionary definition of "retarded", then I further apologize as it was not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable by confronting you with a truism that is obviously very difficult for you. In the future, I will try to be more sensitive to your shortcomings which are clearly biological in nature and therefore beyond your control. *jingle jingle*
-
led mike wrote:
People without honor and integrity (fraud would be included there) can be found in both parties in and out of office. It is an argument that cannot be won by either party.
then go back to my list: Cunningham - busted, tried and convicted and now doing time. I can't remember (but that doesn't make it true) any GOP effort to protect him. Murphy - on tape, ABSCAM - sitting in congress, a darling of the opposition. Jefferson - busted with 100k in the fridge, sitting in Congress still. point being, GOP will fry their own if they go awry.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Jefferson - busted with 100k in the fridge, sitting in Congress still.
Republicans took part in protecting him.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
point being, GOP will fry their own if they go awry.
That is ridiculous, they draw the distinction at what evidence there is just as the democrats do. When they see the evidence is both incontrovertible and "out" they axe the person, until then they hide evidence or hang on like grim death just as the Democrats do. Our problem is that with all the scurrilous accusations on both sides, and irresponsible and ineffective media, we almost never know what the truth is. The only "real" difference between the two parties are the platforms. Even those distinctions have blurred beyond recognition with the majority of Republicans no longer being conservative and the majority of Decmocrats waiting to see what the next Republican mistake is so they can step forward and claim they new better after the fact. We need some serious campaign finance reform that will result in cleaning house. Ridding ourselves of this Lobbiest bullshit is our only hope.
led mike
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Jefferson - busted with 100k in the fridge, sitting in Congress still.
Republicans took part in protecting him.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
point being, GOP will fry their own if they go awry.
That is ridiculous, they draw the distinction at what evidence there is just as the democrats do. When they see the evidence is both incontrovertible and "out" they axe the person, until then they hide evidence or hang on like grim death just as the Democrats do. Our problem is that with all the scurrilous accusations on both sides, and irresponsible and ineffective media, we almost never know what the truth is. The only "real" difference between the two parties are the platforms. Even those distinctions have blurred beyond recognition with the majority of Republicans no longer being conservative and the majority of Decmocrats waiting to see what the next Republican mistake is so they can step forward and claim they new better after the fact. We need some serious campaign finance reform that will result in cleaning house. Ridding ourselves of this Lobbiest bullshit is our only hope.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Ridding ourselves of this Lobbiest bullsh*t is our only hope.
my view is what we need are more citizens temporarily serving their country and no professional politicians - term limits. restricting campain finance is essentially restricting speech. but I'd settle for a combination of the 2 concepts.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
led mike wrote:
Ridding ourselves of this Lobbiest bullsh*t is our only hope.
my view is what we need are more citizens temporarily serving their country and no professional politicians - term limits. restricting campain finance is essentially restricting speech. but I'd settle for a combination of the 2 concepts.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
restricting campain finance is essentially restricting speech.
Is this "free" speach you speak of? :) You should not have to "pay" to have a voice in government, more to the point, you should not be able to buy a more powerful voice in government.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
but I'd settle for a combination of the 2 concepts
Agreed! Yikes! :laugh:
led mike
-
The top republican leadership, GWB, Rumseld and Cheny are republicans that are re-elected after dismal failures in the Military handling of Iraq and the search for Bin Laden. Bush and Cheney refuse to admit any mistakes and the whole way the handled the entire affair is one mistake after another including the continual support for Rumsfeld. Katrina is another example of utter failure absent any admittance of mistakes. After stating Browny was doing a good job, meaning GWB is admitting doing no wrong, he then flips and fires the guy. Now the ongoing efforts in New Orleans are completely FUBARED and again no responsibility. You're all bullshit, you got nothing.
led mike
Huh? I thought we were talking about moral deviance, not competancy. Everyone (including finally the administration) is in agreement that Iraq is messed up. As for Katrina, that's just foolish to pin the consequences of a natural disaster on the president. The Katrina bodycount was the result of people failing to take the hurricane seriously and failing to evacuate, which was a state-level issue. The National Guard did an amazing job after Katrina and it's simply inappropriate to complain that things could have been better (the perpetual leftist's complaint). Interestingly enough, New Orleans is still FUBARED...but Mississippi is not. This provides a stark difference between Republican and Democrat-controlled initiatives. We are in agreement, however, that New Orleans is a demonstration of the potential ineptitude of government and why we should ensure Democrats don't expand it.
-
Huh? I thought we were talking about moral deviance, not competancy. Everyone (including finally the administration) is in agreement that Iraq is messed up. As for Katrina, that's just foolish to pin the consequences of a natural disaster on the president. The Katrina bodycount was the result of people failing to take the hurricane seriously and failing to evacuate, which was a state-level issue. The National Guard did an amazing job after Katrina and it's simply inappropriate to complain that things could have been better (the perpetual leftist's complaint). Interestingly enough, New Orleans is still FUBARED...but Mississippi is not. This provides a stark difference between Republican and Democrat-controlled initiatives. We are in agreement, however, that New Orleans is a demonstration of the potential ineptitude of government and why we should ensure Democrats don't expand it.
Red Stateler wrote:
Huh? I thought we were talking about moral deviance, not competancy.
Refusing to take responsibility for your own mistakes is not an issue of compentancy. I thought you went to college?
Red Stateler wrote:
As for Katrina, that's just foolish to pin the consequences of a natural disaster on the president. The Katrina bodycount was the result of people failing to take the hurricane seriously and failing to evacuate, which was a state-level issue. The National Guard did an amazing job after Katrina and it's simply inappropriate to complain that things could have been better (the perpetual leftist's complaint). Interestingly enough, New Orleans is still FUBARED...but Mississippi is not. This provides a stark difference between Republican and Democrat-controlled initiatives.
Pure rubbish exuded from the (D)espeir logic prism.
Red Stateler wrote:
We are in agreement, however, that New Orleans is a demonstration of the potential ineptitude of government and why we should ensure Democrats don't expand it.
So you think that every state needs to fund and manage separate capacity to deal with disasters the magnitude of Katrina? :wtf::laugh: A simply flaming display of logic. :laugh::laugh:
led mike
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
restricting campain finance is essentially restricting speech.
Is this "free" speach you speak of? :) You should not have to "pay" to have a voice in government, more to the point, you should not be able to buy a more powerful voice in government.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
but I'd settle for a combination of the 2 concepts
Agreed! Yikes! :laugh:
led mike
led mike wrote:
Agreed! Yikes!
once again - amazing fyi - my objection to the reform issue has to do with limitatons / controls on advertising expenditures. fyi(2) - I'd be cool with elimination of lobbyists or control over lobbyist activities such that they only time they could do anything is if a politician requested research on an issue and I would require a heavy biblograph such that bias could be distilled from the resulting research.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
led mike wrote:
Agreed! Yikes!
once again - amazing fyi - my objection to the reform issue has to do with limitatons / controls on advertising expenditures. fyi(2) - I'd be cool with elimination of lobbyists or control over lobbyist activities such that they only time they could do anything is if a politician requested research on an issue and I would require a heavy biblograph such that bias could be distilled from the resulting research.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Dear NYT - Thanks for being the house organ of the Democrat Party. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
fyi(2) - I'd be cool with elimination of lobbyists or control over lobbyist activities such that they only time they could do anything is if a politician requested research on an issue and I would require a heavy biblograph such that bias could be distilled from the resulting research.
I like the sound of that. Maybe we should Lobby that solution. :laugh: Sorry... couldn't resist.
led mike
-
Hey, I said I was sorry for presenting you with such fundamentally indisputable evidence that was obviously well beyond your capability to grasp. I sincerely hope that you accept my sincerest apology for overestimating your capabilities. If you are uncomfortable that you match the dictionary definition of "retarded", then I further apologize as it was not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable by confronting you with a truism that is obviously very difficult for you. In the future, I will try to be more sensitive to your shortcomings which are clearly biological in nature and therefore beyond your control. *jingle jingle*
Hey, I'm sorry you can't deal with the issue at hand, and feel you have to resort to name calling and personal attacks. You can write paragraph after paragraph attacking me, but it will not obscure the fact that you attempted to use a partisan republican hack job to support to your claims and got busted.
-
Huh? Namecalling? I just asked if you like my keys. What's wrong with you?
Apparently you have forgotten your previous post. I am not suprised, after all others have pointed out, numerous times, your inability to remember more than one post back.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Of course, and all these claims are pure fiction.
Pretty much, yes. Voter fraud always benefits the left overwhelmingly. There's always going to be some in limited amounts of fraud, but that fraud has historically been perpetrated primarily by the left.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Bullsh*t. Leftist revolutions are based mostly on economic inequality and corruption.
Yes...inequality and corruption. And oftentimes the left claims that elections were rigged (by the corrupt upperclass, of course) to oppress them, thereby justifying revolution in the process.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
All dead people? Man, those are some "interesting" connections you've got.
I'm referring to the fact that in New York and Ohio last election, numerous dead people magically began voting from the grave. Naturally they voted Democrat.
Happened in Memphis recently as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
prefer
Wrong again. Tolerance or their right to freedom has nothing to do with who one "prefers". You guys just can't get the simple truth of things can you? Also "reasonable" people understand that if you need someone to build you a bridge their sexual preference is not logically included in the assessment of who you prefer to build a freakin bridge. You prefer the person that will do the best job for the least money and again "reasonable" people "get" that a person can fulfill those qualifications even though one does not "prefer" their sexual preference. Right-wingnuts, illogically draw the conclusion that being homosexual is equivalent to being bad and/or less intelligent, incapable, and therefore you would exclude that person from being qualified to build a bridge. In short you are just plain wrong, period.
led mike
I don't know what the hell any of that has to do with my post. I was not talking about sexual 'preference'. I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values. When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important. The recent incidents with Foley and Haggard(sp?) only serve to reinforce my own beliefs in the importance of religious values within a society. As to your silly rant on homosexuality, if the issue is important enough to someone that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them. The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate on the basis on one's own personally defined values is at least as important as the right to have oral sex with another man (or woman). It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
I don't know what the hell any of that has to do with my post. I was not talking about sexual 'preference'. I was referring to the left's general tendency to elect people who do not profess strong commitment to traditional religious values. When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important. The recent incidents with Foley and Haggard(sp?) only serve to reinforce my own beliefs in the importance of religious values within a society. As to your silly rant on homosexuality, if the issue is important enough to someone that they don't want to hire a homosexualy to build their bridge, that should be entirely up to them. The attitude of the right is that the freedom to discriminate on the basis on one's own personally defined values is at least as important as the right to have oral sex with another man (or woman). It is the left, not the right, that wishes to force their moral views of homosexuality (as with so many similar issues) upon the entire society in the name of some extremist principle of "equality" rather than a traditional view of freedom.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When people on the right resign or guit their positions for violating the values they campaigned on or promoted in some way, that is not hypocrisy. Rather, it is an affirmation of why the values were important.
Resigning once you have been found out doesn't take a lot of character. What about the hypocrisy before you are found out? I rather prefer Haggard's take on the issue: "I am a liar and a deceiver".
John Carson "All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won’t go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself." Paul Krugman