The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 16    Average: 3.5/5]
89 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4764
Rating: 3.5
Category:
Date: 09/25/12 10:31 AM

89 Responses to We`ve Heard It All Before: The Extended Edit

  1. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:31 am
    Link: We`ve Heard It All Before: The Extended Edit - Four more years of this? But the question is, what`s the alternative?
  2. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:37 am
    All I could think of was this:



    But then that`s all I can think of any time I see a political post on I-A-B now.
  3. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:53 am
    Romneys Ad guys really dropped the ball all you need is this...

    All these people are voting Obama need we say more.....

    Goes to show how out of touch he is.
  4. Profile photo of TruTenrMan
    TruTenrMan Male 30-39
    2553 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:54 am
    The alternative is NOT Obama. Duh.
  5. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:55 am
    All hail Hypnotoad.
  6. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 11:00 am
    Vote McGovern or an army of kitteh will stick their asses into your face while you sleep...

    (the kitteh may still do this even if you do vote for me) I support this threat!
  7. Profile photo of discardderek
    discardderek Male 30-39
    78 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 11:13 am
    Ron Paul
  8. Profile photo of 13thDoctor
    13thDoctor Male 30-39
    48 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    So consistency is a bad thing in politics? Candidates change their stories - they get screwed; They say the same thing, and they get screwed. WTF. Much of what he said were catch-phrases or beliefs, the rest addressed issues that are still our nation`s biggest and not ones that are solved in 4 years. Could he have have used new phrasings, sure. But is being focused on the same issues and ideals a bad thing? Not in my opinion.
  9. Profile photo of Andicicle
    Andicicle Male 18-29
    503 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    politicalcompass.org you`re all fools. Obama and Mittens are the same. The same except for gay rights and abortion. Be smart. Barr/Sheehan 2012.
  10. Profile photo of Andicicle
    Andicicle Male 18-29
    503 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm
    As for you Ron Paul nut jobs, he is simply more Republican bull. You people need to try and tear yourselves away from the bigotry of the long dead tea party.
  11. Profile photo of Burgh
    Burgh Male 40-49
    300 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 12:19 pm
    The current sock puppet is as terrible as the last. At least one lucky family gets to tear ass around the world in luxury on Air-force One (one perquisite of many). I say rotate them out as quickly as possible to give another sock puppet family a go at the free rides too.
  12. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    I see a consistency of message that is refreshing in politics. Try the same with Romney and you`ll see two different men with two entirely different sets of beliefs and "core values." The man is just a weather vane. If the GOP`s best argument is that Obama is consistent, then the race is over my friends.
  13. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    The race was over in May.
  14. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    So consistency is a bad thing in politics?
    Lolz! @13thDoctor! @chalket! Obama promised to solve ALL these problems IN his first term, yet NONE of them are. He also vowed to be a "one-term President" if he didn`t fix things, it seems he lied about that too...

    He`s a broken record: empty promises & outright lies is all he has to say.
  15. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 2:16 pm
    madest: You`ve been hypnotoaded since May.
  16. Profile photo of defendors87
    defendors87 Male 18-29
    570 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 2:24 pm
    Hey! A consistency of failure and broken promises is still consistency! He killed Osama BinLaden for heaven`s sake!
  17. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    defendors87: Navy Seals killed Osama Bin Laden. Obama was out playing golf until Hillary and Leon Panetta advised him they`d made the decision to send in Seal Team 6.

    The truth of this fact will be revealed, eventually. It`s already leaked out from a few anonymous sources, but the MSM wants Obama reelected so they won`t tell you, right now.
  18. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    "But the question is, what`s the alternative?"

    ^I did not say this^
  19. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14656 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm
    I agree: same rhetoric, same promises, this time it`s an uphill battle as America is worse off this time. It`s not an issue with him, but Republicans blocking legislation. The only thing he has done wrong is try to change America when the Republicans won`t let him. They still won`t let him next term, but he`ll be a lot better than Mitt. His policies are just evil.

    It`s like a voting for a pig vs the devil.
  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    VV @Draculya: You are delusional: 2 years of absolute Democrat control and Obama didn`t get ANYTHING passed, but you blame Repubs?

    Except that abortion of a Healthcare Bill, which has caused MORE people to be without insurance coverage AND driven up prices ALREADY! It isn`t even in place yet FFS!

    In 2008 he blamed Bush!
    In 2012 he blames... Bush!
    That`s OK with you @Draculya? srsly dude.
  21. Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    Well..... it worked once....just sayin`
  22. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm
    Lolz @OutWest! Fool me once shame on you, eh? Sadest part is: it just might work a second time...

    Link To Stories About Rising Insurance Costs
    Which Obama PROMISED would actually go DOWN!!!

    Remember that? You know: when doctors stopped billing for unneccessary tonsilectomies. You think I`m joking? OBAMA actually said that! Not "out of context" either, dead serious he was.
  23. Profile photo of defendors87
    defendors87 Male 18-29
    570 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:05 pm
    Crakr, I was being facetious.
  24. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:31 pm
    "You are delusional: 2 years of absolute Democrat control and Obama didn`t get ANYTHING passed, but you blame Repubs?"

    All it takes is 41 Senators to filibuster. If Obama doesn`t have a solid 60 nothing can get past cloture. You know this.
  25. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    defendors87: Sorry, It`s sometimes hard to tell just by reading text.
  26. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    markust: The democrats had 60 votes, but Obama, Pelosi and Reid decided to shove Obamacare down our throats instead of a sensible budget or anything else.
  27. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:49 pm
    If you want to hear all this for the next 4 years, by all means, vote for Obama.
  28. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:54 am
    "All it takes is 41 Senators to filibuster. If Obama doesn`t have a solid 60 nothing can get past cloture. You know this."

    They had a super majority in the Senate Markust.

    They only had a simple majority in the House, but they would hold votes at odd times to ensure passage of somethings. Obamacare comes to mind. 8PM on December 23? Really?
  29. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:11 am
    If Obama doesn`t have a solid 60 nothing can get past cloture.
    So @markust: I`ve asked this before (I think of @HolyGod) HOW did any government in the USA survive without 60+ in the senate?
    I`m fairly sure that most Presidents before Obama had times when there were less than 60 of their party in the Senate. Opposition Majorites even! HOW did anything get done?
    It did get done you know, that`s a fact!

    So how on Earth did they do it...

    What`s so very different about Obama that 59 in the Senate "isn`t enough"?
  30. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 3:58 am
    "What`s so very different about Obama that 59 in the Senate "isn`t enough"?"


    The Republican`s refuse to work with him. Their filibuster record speaks for itself.
  31. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:17 am
    "They only had a simple majority in the House, but they would hold votes at odd times to ensure passage of somethings. Obamacare comes to mind. 8PM on December 23? Really?"

    I think you are confused with the payroll tax cut extension that was opposed by the Republicans. John Boehner caved under the enormous pressure from the media and the American people. This was approved Dec 23rd 2011.
  32. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:18 am
    "They had a super majority in the Senate Markust."

    If he had a super majority that whole period how were the Republicans able to filibuster so much without Democratic support? It is a myth that he had a super majority for two solid years. Ted Kennedy was sick and died. Al Franken`s seat took forever to confirm. When he truly had a super majority it was very briefly. A republican filled Teddy`s seat.
  33. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:36 am
    markust: Demanding your way or the highway is not `working with` anyone. Republican amendments were mostly ignored, those that did come up for a vote were squashed, the democrats ran roughshod over the committee meetings, then the democrats would go outside to talk with the press and call the Republicans `obstructionist`.

    That took some first rate gall and the few amendments that did get voted on were only accepted because many democrats were catching hell in their own districts by the Tea Party exposing the socialist details of Obamacare.

    The Republicans couldn`t filibuster anything. What happened was the Democrats couldn`t get everyone in their party on board, some even demanded sweetheart deals to go along with it.
  34. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 5:32 am
    Crakrjak, it is a waste of my time to argue with someone who looks at life through the eyes of opinion media. Your world is filled with lies and spin every day. It is not reality.
  35. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 6:09 am
    Sorry to jump on you there CrakrJak. I was so impressed with your thoughtful response to the fight with the Afghan drug lords, and then here you just went back to spewing garbage. I guess I was just disappointed.
  36. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 8:28 am
    I believe the majority of democrats wish for a sensible republican party. Majorities on either side end up hurting their respective parties more than helping. Problem is the republican party is in desperate need of a reset. Re-hashing nonsense issues that have been settled law for 40years don`t help anything, we will never go back in time. Yet these issues are front and center every election cycle. To win the nomination candidates need to make promises to the crazies that are revolting to the masses. The economy will never be helped by controlling who marries whom or forcing women to have unwanted babies. We`ll never advance as a society if we reject science for corporate interests. Know this, there is no such thing as clean coal and anyone with a 2 digit IQ should know that.
  37. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 8:29 am
    Oh @markust123, you`re such a "partisan hack" and you don`t even realize it. Your debates ALWAYS devolve into simple accusations and vain attempts to "take the high road". Despite this, your "noble retreats" betray your true nature; they are nothing more than a necessary defense mechanism for you to dismiss valid points conflicting with your own ideologies.

    Indeed, at the end of the day you are both intelligent and educated - an intelligent, educated, partisan hack. Afterall, every single political thread of yours follows the same pattern: attack conservatives/Republicans; defend Democrats (Obama especially); attempt to dismiss your opponent`s views based on unfounded accusations; and, excuse yourself from the discussion in some attempt to "be the better person".

    Ca
  38. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 8:45 am
    So HumanAction, In your mind only the people who have opinions are hacks? What the hell is that? You cannot put yourself on a pedestal by claiming that having no opinion somehow makes you virtuous. You are a jellyfish. A spineless castaway with a make-believe reality.
  39. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 8:49 am
    @madest: Oh, I think you will find that I have many opinions. These are opinions formed by research and discussion; ask anyone who has had a reasonable debate with me.

    This is a shame, as I was actually going to congratulate you on having a sensible post for once (see the one prior). I actually agree with much of what you said in that post (for example, the GOP needs to be restructed).

    Now, don`t misunderstand me. I am not attacking @markust because he has an opinion. I am attacking @markust because he refuses to even consider or acknowledge when a legitimate point is made that conflicts with his own ideology.

    I know there were quite a few "big words" there, but I insist - keep with it and you shall prevail.
  40. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 9:02 am
    But professor, The point is there are no legitimate points in today`s republican party. No ideas, no vision. I don`t know exactly what markust said that got your dander in a flurry but every position republicans hold today are simply because they hate Obama. That`s not policy, it`s nonsense. A national election can`t be won by claiming 100% of everything the other party does is wrong. Unless they have credibility. Recent history proves they don`t have any credibility. Obama didn`t take us here, he just hasn`t fixed it fast enough for their tastes but they`ve bent over backward to block anything he`s planned. That`s not a winning plan.
  41. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 9:12 am
    @madest: Well, for starters, I again agree with many of your points. I also think that the GOP is in shambles and is a poor reflection of its former self. Furthermore, I am also disappointed in there current efforts regarding this election (Romney) and believe that they will fail as a result (Yes - I believe that Obama will win).

    However, your opening line is exactly the type of nonsense that I have attacked numerous liberals and conservatives for. If we continue to get into the mindset that the opponent party is 100% wrong and that its members are, by extension, 100% wrong then we limit ourselves. The next logical progession is to convince ourselves that our party (and members) and 100% correct, which is absurd.
  42. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:12 am
    HumanAction is just upset because I wouldn`t continue arguing with him in this last
    Post. I don`t know how to make it clearer HA. I don`t like to discuss things with people like you because you guys change your stance at every turn. It is a dishonest way to debate. If I call you on incorrectly stating something about blue you will say that you meant black. And if I point out that it is even more incorrect about black you will switch to green. Look in the mirror if you want to see the problem. Quit pointing fingers all around. I had a manager like you. He was incredibly frustrating to deal with. I don`t need it.
  43. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:31 am
    @markust, It`s his MO. Been there done that.

    @HumanAction, Really? You think Obama will win? Congratulations on reading the ten foot, neon letters written on the wall.
  44. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:38 am
    @markust123: It`s actually that you fail to acknowledge that your statements were incorrect. As always, when this occurs, you either accuse your opponent of being partisan, attempt to distort their claims to suit your argument, or try to "take the high road."

    Then, on top of all of this, you run around pointing the finger at everyone else. You claim others are partisan, yet you appear to be one of the most partisan among us.

    You claim others change their stance. Look at our previous discussion and I show exactly how you change your stance.

    You accuse others of using straw-man arguments, yet I`ve seen many occasions of your committing this same fault.

    Just admit it, you are a hypocrite; the only way you are able to justify it to yourself is to distract yourself by accusing others. Sound about right?
  45. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:40 am
    @madest: No one takes you seriously; that is all.
  46. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:46 am
    I`m not going to waste one more minute on such a frustrating insecure person. Call me whatever names you want if that will make you feel better I really could care less.
  47. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:53 am
    You don`t think you`re partisan HA? I got news for you. You are. Anarchy is not non-partisan. I gotta side with markust when it comes to today`s republican party. Their entire platform is nonsense. Abortion, Religious liberty, Cracking down on porn, Repealing Obamacare, Inventing a time machine to go back to the 1950`s.... They have flipped their friggin` lid as a party. They need to concentrate on what republicanism means and implement a plan to move there. I have ideas that would would win them converts while remaining true to their ideals but I`m not a mega-donor, so they have no interest in people like me.
  48. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 10:59 am
    @markust123: I`m not going to waste one more minute on such a frustrating insecure person.
    You just did. Insecure is a new insult coming from you though, so kudos to that (I really ought to start keeping a list!).

    It is funny to me that I am 23, in a conversation with two individuals claiming to be in their 40`s, and I consistently feel like I am the adult. The petulance is incredible.
  49. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:04 am
    @madest: Where in the world did you get the impression that I was an anarchist? I really think you are confused here... Would it help if I explained to you what exactly I believe? Let me know and I would be happy to oblige.

    Also, I agree (this is the third time now I`m saying this) that the GOP is in trouble and needs to be restructured. However, earlier you claimed that ALL Republicans are completely wrong, not just the platform. Fundamentally, these are two entirely different concepts.

    Just as I believe that the Democratic platform is corrupt and looking out for their own interests only, I do not believe that everything that all Democrats say is wrong. This makes me non-partisan compared to you. Based on your statements, you are partisan because you dismiss opposing views without considering or understanding them.

    For example, you think Libertarians want anarchy - ignorance.
  50. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:06 am
    The Republican`s refuse to work with him
    @markust: That`s not an answer, it`s "spin".
    ALL PotUS face hostile opposition, yet EVERY previous PotUS got the job done!
    Obama couldn`t find ONE "RHINO" to sit on their hands during a vote? That`s all it would take, 59 - 39 = Supermajority! It`s a fact! They wouldn`t even have to switch sides!

    FACT: Obama cannot compromise. THAT explains everything.

    Know this, there is no such thing as clean coal and anyone with a 2 digit IQ should know that.
    @madest: Odd, Obama HIMSELF supports "clean coal" and said so in MANY campaign speeches, I got video! It`s impossible to take "...in America we have clean coal..." out of context, eh?

    Once more, you prove yourself the fool @madest.
  51. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:15 am
    I never claimed to be bipartisan. I`m left of the most leftist liberal you can imagine. You`re wrong about the democratic party but I`m not going to get into a forums debate with you on that, what you should know is I`m old enough (sadly) to cop to voting republican, democratic and even reform parties. I`ve been around the block but my views are always consistent.
  52. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:16 am
    @markust and @madest: @HumanAction has you, both of you, dead to rights!
    You`re both flipping and flopping like catfish in a bucket!
    It`s so funny it`s sad really. How you both bitterly cling to your delusions of being "100% correct" in the face of a WALL of evidence to the contrary.
    All the "mental gymnastics" in the world cannot hide the fact: you are both wrong.

    The winner is: @HumanAction! By a landslide!
  53. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:18 am
    You`re Canadian. Your opinion means nothing. Don`t they teach that in Canada? - @madest
    See?
    Soooo open minded of you!
    And it directly answers the question with 100% liberal perfection!
    I rest my case.
  54. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:19 am
    Well there`s something to be proud of HA. You`ve been declared the smartest man in the room by a Canadian cat lover. Lucky you.
  55. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:26 am
    @madest: I never claimed to be bipartisan either... Bipartisan is not the same as non-partisan (which I claim to be). I claim to align most-closely with Libertarian beliefs, yet there are some that I disagree with. By definition, this is not partisan.

    You`re wrong about the democratic party but I`m not going to get into a forums debate with you on that
    This is exactly what I am talking about; you offer nothing except a dismissal. You even explicity say that you won`t discuss the merits (or lack of) in your perspective.

    In order to truely contribute something to the conversation, you need to offer either a unique point, a rebuttal, or supplementary evidence. Yet here you are again failing to do so.
  56. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:33 am
    Well we`ve been through this HA. It`s why I choose not to now. You`re a libertarian who supported Ron Paul but were unable to see how his religion polluted his politics. His libertarian-ism ended where his religion began and exposed himself as a fraud because of it. A true libertarian would have seen that themselves.
  57. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:33 am
    "How you both bitterly cling to your delusions of being "100% correct" in the face of a WALL of evidence to the contrary."

    I admit I am wrong all the time. You are the one that has to be dragged kicking and screaming until he will give even a hint that he is wrong. And I do not claim the Republicans are 100% wrong. Madest put those words in my mouth. My parents are Republicans. They are good people. Both sides bring good things to the table if they will just listen.
  58. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:43 am
    `The Republican`s refuse to work with him`

    "@markust: That`s not an answer, it`s "spin"."

    That is not spin. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell flat out stated the Republicans stance from the very beginning, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That is not a party that is going to work with the other side. That is a party that will do everything they can to ensure the President does not get a second term.
  59. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:44 am
    @madest: You should start at least trying to choose your words more carefully. Not only did I support Ron Paul, I still do. I also support Gary Johnson for that matter.

    That being said, yes, we have been through this. You`ve tried to suggest that Ron Paul was somehow religiously motivated, and I have disproved you.

    Now, you will suggest that he changed his opinion at some point (very descriptive) and supports creationism. You`ll also say he is against abortion. However, you will conveniently forget that he has consistently upheld that his personal beliefs do NOT affect his political beliefs.

    Creationism is a personal belief. Ron Paul does not want to control what you believe in.

    Regarding abortion, he is personally against it, yet has consistently stated that he would never suggest federal legislation on the matter; it is a states rights issue. That, my friend, is Libertarian.
  60. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:57 am
    That is a party that will do everything they can to ensure the President does not get a second term.
    @markust: That`s called "being the opposition party" eh? I recall the Dems doing and saying the EXACT same thing about Bush, along with calls to impeach him & stuff. WHAT are they supposed to say? "Oh Obama is so cool, we`re not even going to oppose him next election"...

    Madest put those words in my mouth.
    Yeah, he likes doing that, a lot!

    Meanwhile you never answered my overall question or the specific follow-ups. At least to my satisfaction. "Blame Bush (Repubs)" doesn`t explain how other PotUS managed to run the country, while Obama has failed to.

    And while it`s true you`ve admitted mistakes before (well done!) it in no way mitigates your errors here. Sorry to be harsh, when it`s @madest that`s BY FAR the worst offender. You got splashed by some of his tar...
  61. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 11:58 am
    Ron Paul`s "Freedom and Liberty" mantra ended where his religion began. Why would only abortion and same sex marriage be singled out for states to decide if religion wasn`t the underlying factor? Then if that`s the case couldn`t religious states come up with biblically based laws? I donated to his campaign in 2004. He was a different man in 2008. Somebody got a hold of him and forced him to coddle up with the rights extreme base.
  62. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    Again: all it would take is for ONE "rhino" to NOT VOTE and it`s a super-majority! 59 - 39

    Reid, Pelosi and Obama couldn`t find enough compromise between the three of them to sway ONE opposition member? rly?

    Also there`s been lists of how many times "cloture" was invoked, but NO mention of ANY important Bills that Republicans actually blocked! Not one!
    Since Obama and the Dems haven`t submitted a Federal Budget since 2009, one wonders what it is the Repubs have "voted against" to frustrate Obama so much.
  63. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    but NO mention of ANY important Bills that Republicans actually blocked! Not one! -------
    Veterans jobs bill just last week comes to mind in about .00016 seconds.
  64. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    "Meanwhile you never answered my overall question or the specific follow-ups. At least to my satisfaction. "Blame Bush (Repubs)" doesn`t explain how other PotUS managed to run the country, while Obama has failed to."

    I thought I did answer that question I really do feel the Republicans in congress will do everything they can to ensure Obama is a one term President. I have seen very little evidence of them trying to work with him. And a lot of evidence that they are opposing him at almost every turn. Look at the incredible rate of filibusters they have used. Look at how the party pushes out any moderate Republicans that show signs of working with the other side. Both sides have extremes but it is my opinion that the Republicans currently in office are being led by the extremes. Nothing good can come from that.
  65. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
    @madest: Ron Paul`s "Freedom and Liberty" mantra ended where his religion began.
    You have yet to explain this. I believe it is because you cannot.

    Why would only abortion and same sex marriage be singled out for states to decide if religion wasn`t the underlying factor?
    They`re not the only issues he wants delegated to the states. Libertarians want "smaller government" which is what he is proposing (handle legislation at the lowest possible level). This is evidence that he is a Libertarian.

    Then if that`s the case couldn`t religious states come up with biblically based laws?
    Yes, but why is it your concern? The point is to keep beliefs and legislation localized. If there is a 50-50 split in ideology and you make a decisive federal law, then 50% of the population is alienated. By keeping it at the state level, this problem is reduced.
  66. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    "Also there`s been lists of how many times "cloture" was invoked, but NO mention of ANY important Bills that Republicans actually blocked! Not one!"

    All the cloture votes are listed here. Just click on the congress number and you will see all the bills were the filibuster was used to stop bills.
  67. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    @madest: For example, let us consider marijuana legalization. Last time I checked, about 51% of the population supported it, and 49% opposed it. Why then is it still illegal?

    The answer is obvious; it is illegal because it was passed at the federal level. Because of this, 51% of the population is being underrepresented.

    Now, let us consider what would happen if the legislation was allowed to be handled by the states. I think we would see about a 50/50 split in the states that legalize it. Those states are the ones that WANT legalization more (higher percentage).

    What is the end result then? The answer is that more people are better represented. The problem with your method is that you believe that you are right and that everyone else should be forced to follow your beliefs. Guess what? Your opponents feel the same way.

    Therefore it is best to invite different opportunities.
  68. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3929 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    I`ve got to jump out of here. The task I was doing has a lot of one minute pauses in the tool. That allows me to jump on here. I have to put in a project that is going to take my full attention. Have a good day.
  69. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    Yes, but why is it your concern? --------
    I don`t know, maybe because it`s unconstitutional?
  70. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 12:44 pm
    Marijuana isn`t a contractual agreement, marriage is. So long as the constitution garuntees equality then equality should be the rule, not the exception. There`s no situation where a contract becomes void in another state because you`re on vacation. It`s a silly religiously based opinion meant to appease crazies, that flies in the face of sanity when thought through.
  71. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    @madest: I don`t know, maybe because it`s unconstitutional?
    Actually, it isn`t. Passing those laws at the federal level is. Here it is clearly stated in the tenth amendment:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution; therefore, it is a matter of states rights. You really should read the Consitution before claiming things to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.

    Marijuana isn`t a contractual agreement
    Yes it is - you were forced by the federal government to sign into it. To use your logic, there is no situation where you can use marijuana and not be arrested.

    The contract is this: you will not use marijuana and the government will not detain you.
  72. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    @madest: It`s a silly religiously based opinion meant to appease crazies, that flies in the face of sanity when thought through.
    You keep at this ridiculous notion that states rights are religiously fueled (when in fact they are consitutionally fueled). You should explain this more, because it is absurd and "flies in the face of sanity when thought through".
  73. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm
    Veterans jobs bill just last week...
    @madest: Soooo: when I ask for an example of Repubs blocking a Democrat Bill while the Dems had a super-majority (or close to it) AND control of the House, YOU come up with a Bill that`s blocked by the Senate last week?

    A last minute, political gimmic, to try to buy some votes is shut down; 5 Repubs supported it and it STILL failed? THAT is your example? ONE MORE and it would have passed, which is exactly what I`m saying:
    Obama cannot compromise. (Or Reid or Pelosi)

    News Flash: In the mid-terms the Senate went from 60-40 to 53-47.

    Republicanophobic.
  74. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    See that`s what markust and I both have noticed about you. You change the argument you`re in disagreement with and in essence twist the discussion to an irrelevant argument.
    Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution but you forget to mention that equality is. It`s the 14th amendment, you know it, I`m sure. Since the US constitution supersedes state constitutions, states can not constitutionally discriminate against someone because their religion doesn`t approve no matter what the 10th amendment says. Especially since the 1st amendment disallows religiously based laws.
    You can`t argue for discrimination and win that argument constitutionally. Our forefathers were too smart for that.
  75. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    @markust: That link you provided came from @HG`s link, correct? It actually proves MY point: The Dems force cloture rather than negotiate. Even to sway ONE vote is too much for them: all or nothing!

    But have fun with your project! We`ll continue to laugh at @madest until he calls us all "retards" and wanders off to smoke more pot...

    The contract is this: you will not use marijuana and the government will not detain you.
    @HumanAction is entirely, %100% correct. The "Contract With Society" essentially says that you obey the law and the Police will leave you alone.
    THAT is why people get mad about unlawful search & seizure, eh? It`s the Police (Government) violating the contract.
  76. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    @madest: So let`s quickly discuss what I`ve come to notice about you (since you are so keen on the idea of analyzing patterns). When someone makes a point that you disagree with yet are unable to counter, you accuse them of being either: partisan; having changed their story; and many times, you simply start trying to call them names (see: every post you`ve ever written).

    Now that this is out of the way, let`s discuss why the 14th amendment is a bad way to go with this: it doesn`t CHANGE anything. Can first cousins marry? The answer is no, obviously. But, considering your interpretation, shouldn`t they be allowed to?

    Let`s say we make a federal marriage law now. Do you believe that, all of a sudden, first cousins will be allowed to marry? Of course not. Therefore, it is a tough argument to make, considering the government you propose does not satisfy your interpretation.

  77. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm
    @madest: The point of that post is to show that it is fallacious to assume that one governing body will not abuse the Constitution the same way as another.

    It does us no good to make a federal law when the federal government has so often proven incapable of following their own laws. Based on your previous assertations, I am comfortable suggesting that this is a "fairy-tale" reality. If your reality were true and realistic, marijuana would be legal (more people support it than those who don`t) - yet it is still illegal. What happens if the federal government gets it wrong? Then we are all screwed.

    So, the Constitution suggests that the states make the laws. If a law is truely unconstitutional, then it can be contested by an entity (the federal government) with no bias or vested interest (in my example they are essentially a 3rd party).
  78. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 1:59 pm
    Incest is a crime. Homosexuality is not. It`s another strawman argument people who are accustomed to failure use. Falls in line with the polygamy slippery slope. Look ultimately the Supremes will decide. Probably next term. There will be no reason to deny constitutionally guaranteed equality to same sex couples and their right to marry will be forced on a nation who think they can vote on the rights of a minority. They and you are in for a rude awakening. Them because they didn`t expect it, you because you`ll realize I know what I`m talking about.
  79. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    @madest: Once again, you use a straw-man argument to attempt to divert yourself from responding to my actual words.

    Incest is a crime. Homosexuality is not.
    In some places, homosexuality IS a crime. The point being made is that, if we are going to use the 14th Amendment to claim "equal rights", then it must be used in all cases. By that logic, incest should not be a crime (and that`s why you were wrong to use it).

    Now, you are also confusing what I want with what I think will happen. For instance, I want Gary Johnson to win, but I think Obama will. Furthermore, I want marriage to be legislated at a state level but I think it will eventually happen at the federal level. See what`s going on here or should I give you some more examples?

    you`ll realize I know what I`m talking about
    Haha - that`s a good one. I ALMOST took you seriously.
  80. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    It`s clear to me you`re ignorant about our system of justice. I refer you to Texas v Johnson. There may be jurisdictions that have the crime of homosexuality on the books but it`s unactionable since that SC ruling. Learn the system you pretend to know.
  81. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm
    @madest: You do realize that Texas v. Johnson was regarding the desecration of the US flag, correct? Is this another one of your straw-man arguments?

    I`m really not sure where you are trying to go with that case - it`s out there even by your standards.

    As usual though, you try to redirect criticisms by pointing to some distraction rather than meeting the bull head-on. Where I`m from, we have a word for that: cowardice. It`s either cowardice, hubris, or ignorance.

    I look forward to you trying to explain how that case has anything to do with our discussion. In reality though, I know you won`t (because you can`t); you`ll divert to some other ridiculous claim.
  82. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm
    @madest: Honestly, you bring up Texas v. Johnson? That`s laughable. You decide to bring up a case regarding freedom of speech (Amendment #1) when so far we`ve been discussing #10 and #14...

    And yet you still have the gall to accuse me of changing topics, stance, etc? You`ve once again not only proven your ignorance, but your stupidity.
  83. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    Sorry, Lawrence v Texas.
  84. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 26, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    @madest: Now that makes more sense...

    Even so, that case actually supports what I am suggesting. Think about it - what exactly happened?

    States made their own laws regarding sexuality, one of which was unconstitutional. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, and the court struck it down. This is undoubtably a good thing, correct?

    Now, please reread my post at Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:58:57 PM. It perfectly describes this system and that I am a supporter of it.

    However, this is NOT the system you were promoting earlier. You suggested that laws be passed at the federal level, at which point there is no longer the extra check-and-balance. This means that, if the law was unconstitutional, it would be much more difficult to reverse than in the setup I promote.

    I again refer to marijuana as an example of how difficult unjust federal laws are to reverse.
  85. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 27, 2012 at 5:32 am
    No. The case proves that religious beliefs are foundations for some of our laws. Can`t compare incest to homosexuality. Incest may involve consenting adults but nobody is being busted for marrying their cousin. In fact I doubt they even check relations when filing for a marriage certificate. People who are attracted to a relative aren`t driven by a sexual desire to only have sex with relatives, yet the same can`t be said of homosexuals. Not to mention homosexual sex won`t produce inbred babies so your comparison is an insult to the gay community.
    My point is if we lived up to the constitution we would never even have this discussion. What I find astounding is all the votes on gay marriage across the country are unconstitutional and nobody is pointing that out. There`s no provision in the constitution allowing for the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. The constitution is specific on equality.
  86. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 28, 2012 at 4:59 am
    @madest: Now I agree that we aren`t living up to the Constitution, as you say. Moreso, the Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that no governmental body is infallible. Therefore, they thought it would be best to have each state govern themselves and to use the federal government to ensure the states followed those rules.

    Surely you understand that I am not a proponent of anti-gay marriage laws. It is one of the greatest sins in government to identify groups and to create laws specific to only some groups. All laws created by a governing body should apply equally and without prejudice to the citizens governed by that body.

    Unfortunately, we have been shown multiple times that we simply cannot trust a governing body to protect those rights. Therefore, the best answer is the federalist (states rights) model. Faults will occur in any system, but this one allows for correction.
  87. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 28, 2012 at 5:02 am
    @madest: Now, you`ll see that we`ve strayed from out original discussion about states rights. We WERE NOT discussing the validity or legality of marriage laws. We were only discussing the best model for creating and monitoring those laws.

    This must be done to ensure that we stay on topic. Afterall, that is what we want, correct?
  88. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 28, 2012 at 6:26 am
    Sorry, Lawrence v Texas.
  89. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm
    Sorry, Lawrence v Texas.

Leave a Reply