T1B

smackaholic wrote:the "progressive" view of stomping out religion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obongo wants to kick it up a notch or two to full on totalitarianism.

Moving Sale wrote:

Truman wrote: And besides: Lenin recognized early that only an Authoritarian presence could succeed in revolutionizing Russia. In case you missed it, we just elected one of those last Tuesday to a new four-year term.

Please name the last POTUS who wasn't, in your lard filled brain, an authoritarian.

This should be fun.

No. But you are welcome to start with FDR and work backwards. I won't waste the keystrokes on a sawed-off Jerry's Kid that is too fucking stupid figure it out on his own. Your retarded ass struggles with English. What, pray tell, would give anyone the impression that you would do any better with history?

My turds have more intellectual honesty than you do. Don't you have an ambulance to catch? Better yet, step out in front of one. TIA.

Smackie Chan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:the "progressive" view of stomping out religion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obongo wants to kick it up a notch or two to full on totalitarianism.

Don't you roll your eyes at me mr!!!! :P

You know who i am talking about. I am talking about the asshole libs who want to see to it that christians can't practice their religion in a public place. The a-holes that want to ban christmas trees or nativity scenes from any public places.

I don't believe in any of those fairy tales, but, I understand that many people do and they are ingrained in american society to the point that even us g0dless heathens take part in them.

KC Scott wrote:MVS post mortem was spot on

I've been arguing the futility of the abortion thing and the religion thing with my fellow GOPs on here for longer than I remember
Too bad it took losing another election for the Republicans to finally see the light

Unfortunetly, beacasue the T-baggers hijacked the party and ran out all the social moderates we are now seen as the extremist party. One only needs to look at the senate resluts (sup' Claire) to confirm the trend

Rebranding as the Small Govt, Individual rights party of inclusion must be THE new message

Fortunetly the GOP still controls the house so there's nothing too radical 0baMAO can push thru

Oh, shut up Scott, you worthless cunt. I've left things on tissues more intelligent than you.


As the voter exit polls have shown, mvsal is right about the 12 million or so voters who stayed home, but not for the reasons dipshits like KC Scrote & Feeldix try to claim. The voters who stayed home were not the conservatives who were dissatisfied with their moderate to liberal candidate, Romney, but the moderate to liberal Republicans who were dissatisfied with their moderate to liberal candidate, Romney, who wasn't liberal enough. In other words- the same ass-wipes who demand that conservatives vote for "moderates" won't vote for a moderate who isn't sufficiently moderate (i.e. a moderate who masquerades as a conservative)

Tru,
I was asking for your opinion you fat stupid fuck. You can dodge the question and blame it on me or you can sack up and put your fat fingers to work and actually answer the question.

Truman wrote: My turds have more intellectual honesty than you do. Don't you have an ambulance to catch? Better yet, step out in front of one. TIA.

You are getting your Attorney memes messed up you fat stupid flyover piece of shit.

Actually the really big picture is not being addressed. Declining fertility rates (having babies for those of you in Rio Linda) and an ever increasing population of baby boomer retirees is all creating a financial situation that cannot be controlled by anyone in government. Social security, retirement plans, health care, the value of the US dollar are in peril. Lucky me, I'll be in my columbarium by the time the shit really hits the fan. You younger guys will be the ones who will suffer. There is probably not much you can do.
In the meantime, this 73 year old has officially taken the stand that I do not give a crap. Sadly for you all, I have a sinking feeling that folks who are in control in DC feel the same way.

smackaholic wrote:I am talking about the asshole libs who want to see to it that christians can't practice their religion in a public place.

link? the only place they don't want them inflicting their views on other people are places that are owned by the government....you know, that crazy first amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." the religious can put up all the nativity scenes and baby jesus in the mangers they want, just not on government property.....freedom of religion also guarantees freedom FROM religion

The a-holes that want to ban christmas trees or nativity scenes from any public places.

just from government property......churches should feel free to put up as many christmas trees as they want, just so long as they don't do it on property that I'm part owner of....

Cuda wrote:but not for the reasons dipshits like KC Scrote & Feeldix try to claim.

I never said voters stayed home for any particular reason....stop trying to put words in my mouth....the republicans rolled out the worst possible candidate they could have.....romney had all of the personality of a pair of socks, and the republicans had no reason to vote for him....he couldn't take a stand, he couldn't focus on an issue, he continually disenfranchised thousands of voters, he pissed off women, latinos, blacks, and the middle class in general.....it was a recipe for disaster.....

Felix wrote: just from government property......churches should feel free to put up as many christmas trees as they want, just so long as they don't do it on property that I'm part owner of....

Cuda wrote:but not for the reasons dipshits like KC Scrote & Feeldix try to claim.

I never said voters stayed home for any particular reason....stop trying to put words in my mouth....the republicans rolled out the worst possible candidate they could have.....romney had all of the personality of a pair of socks, and the republicans had no reason to vote for him....he couldn't take a stand, he couldn't focus on an issue, he continually disenfranchised thousands of voters, he pissed off women, latinos, blacks, and the middle class in general.....it was a recipe for disaster.....

those people own that property as much as anyone does. so long as their displays aren't interfering with that gov property's daily use, they should be free to use it.

As for your last statement, it is unfortunately spot on. A presidential candidate must have charisma above all else. Romney's a nice guy and likely would have made a good president, but, it was kind of painful to watch him attempt to put on a huge smile in front of crowds. It seemed as though there was someone just off camera with a gun pointed at him saying "smile willard or I'll blow your g0ddamn head off". You are also right about the ability to explain in some sort of detail what he would do. Hopefully the next guy will be a cross between Reagan and Newt, a charismatic peson who can explain exactly what he will do.

As for your part about latinos and blacks, that's pretty simple. Promise them free shit and you'll skim off some of their vote, although, if the next dem is black, you can skip that as well. For all their screaming about racism, it is they who are racist right to the fukking core. And if you don't believe that, you are a dumbfukk on a scale that only mvscal can properly describe, so I won't even bother trying.

smackaholic wrote:What he should have said was totalitarian.

You are correct that our gubmint has been authoritarian for quite some time. Obongo wants to kick it up a notch or two to full on totalitarianism.

No, I'm pretty sure I meant Authoritarian. But you're, right 'holic, Lenin was a totalitarian. But not at first. Per wiki:

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.

Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules, which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.

I suppose a true cynic might say, "see, that describes our current political system," but I would also argue that we DO manage to get around to electing our leaders every four years, and the transfer of power is largely peaceful. A true authoritarian system wouldn't provide for that. Now, if the Current Occupant were to declare the 22nd Amendment null-and-void and seek a third term, we might have an issue.

Felix wrote:

smackaholic wrote:I am talking about the asshole libs who want to see to it that christians can't practice their religion in a public place.

link? the only place they don't want them inflicting their views on other people are places that are owned by the government....you know, that crazy first amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." the religious can put up all the nativity scenes and baby jesus in the mangers they want, just not on government property.....freedom of religion also guarantees freedom FROM religion

The a-holes that want to ban christmas trees or nativity scenes from any public places.

just from government property......churches should feel free to put up as many christmas trees as they want, just so long as they don't do it on property that I'm part owner of....

Felix,

What about privately owned public places such as shopping malls. Do you think these sorts of locations should be allowed to stand up Christmas trees and nativity scenes?

Mitt had two problems. The conservatives didn't believe his attempt to be conservative and the libertarian side were turned off by it. Having a lock on on sort of kind of conservatives ain't good enough.

So, who's next?

Rubio?

I hope so. He will pull enough of the spic vote, I think. He can also pull some of the balck vote as some of them can relate to a hispanic a hell of a lot better than they do an old Mormon dude. Also point out that after 8 years of their boy, they are still fuct, economically, as they surely will be along with the rest of us.

If I was Marco, I would start hanging out in Hialeah and brushing up on my espan-yol.

Another one I think should step up is Rand Paul. The Ron Paul Army is still out there and Rand has a better chance of mobilizing them for the GOP than anyone else other than his pop.

smackaholic wrote:The conservatives didn't believe his attempt to be conservative

They didn't? :?

Um, no.

Oh, OK. Well, enjoy getting your asses kicked in 2014 and 2016, too.

KC Scott wrote:anyone that can read and comprehend the news / polls etc. (sorry Cuda) saw the two main demographics that lost this election:

Women - regardless of race
Hispanics

the GOP can and will modify the message on abortion / contraception / womans health if they want to win

The immigration issue will also need to modify - something like offering citizenship to those already here while restricting new entries

Yeah, I watched McLaughlin Group too this morning, Scott.

Okay, Scott.

meanwhile, it's freezing rain here while the temp has dropped 40 degrees in the last 12 hours.

Nice pic, $cott...

KC Scott wrote:you don't sound convinced....

Oh, don't misunderstand. I wasn't doubting your going to the beach...

Truman wrote: A true authoritarian system wouldn't provide for that. Now, if the Current Occupant were to declare the 22nd Amendment null-and-void and seek a third term, we might have an issue.

So what you are saying is you were full of shit when you started spouting off about TPOTUS being an authoritarian. Nice going fathead.

No, it was hyperbole that apparently flew right over your head. Then again, most everything does with you, doesn't it, Shorty?

Felix wrote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." the religious can put up all the nativity scenes and baby jesus in the mangers they want, just not on government property.....

Putting up a fucking Christmas tree during the Christmas holiday doesn't establish a state religion, you thick twat.

freedom of religion also guarantees freedom FROM religion

No, it doesn't. Fuck off, idiot.

KC Scott wrote:The immigration issue will also need to modify - something like offering citizenship to those already here while restricting new entries

Not a fucking chance. They will lose far more than they would gain by that sort of pandering. What they need to "offer" Hispanics is a free ride home for illegals and a clear articulation of why fiscally conservative policies benefit people with a solid work ethic by getting government out of their pockets and out of their business.

mvscal wrote:

freedom of religion also guarantees freedom FROM religion

No, it doesn't. Fuck off, idiot.

No, it doesn't.

The Ninth Amendment does.

War Wagon wrote:meanwhile, it's freezing rain here while the temp has dropped 40 degrees in the last 12 hours.

Nice pic, $cott...

the cold rain just started here.

two hours ago it was 70 degrees and i was throwing a tennis ball out in a field with the dog.

now i'm wondering why i didn't hit all the gutters one more time before the rain

Dinsdale wrote:The Ninth Amendment does.

No, it doesn't. The only way to have "freedom from religion" is to abolish religion. Sorry if the sight of Christmas trees and menorahs offends you. You'll just have to deal with it somehow.

Truman wrote:

smackaholic wrote:What he should have said was totalitarian.

You are correct that our gubmint has been authoritarian for quite some time. Obongo wants to kick it up a notch or two to full on totalitarianism.

No, I'm pretty sure I meant Authoritarian. But you're, right 'holic, Lenin was a totalitarian. But not at first. Per wiki:

I'd be careful using it at all, the word 'totalitarianism' was originally invented and used by Italian Fascist theorists.
Far from implying coercion, the concept of 'totalitarianism' actually implied the lack of coercion. In a corporate state, totalitarianism would be a way of avoiding coercion between conflicting groups within society, a way of incorporating those conflicting interest groups into a unitary, integrated society without internal contradictions. This is actually the exact opposite of the modern use of the word 'totalitarian'. It is now one of the most abused words in the English language.

smackaholic wrote:Mitt had two problems. The conservatives didn't believe his attempt to be conservative and the libertarian side were turned off by it. Having a lock on on sort of kind of conservatives ain't good enough.

So basically, Shit Romney voters and supporters pre-election, are now admitting how much of a hypocritical, phony, fake, lying fuck he is? Cool...it's good to see the truth coming out. What a guy! What a great POTUS he would be! GFY

Dr_Phibes wrote:It is now one of the most abused words in the English language.

I am speechless.

:|

H4ever wrote:So basically, Shit Romney voters and supporters pre-election, are now admitting how much of a hypocritical, phony, fake, lying fuck he is? Cool...it's good to see the truth coming out. What a guy! What a great POTUS he would be! GFY

Nothing is more useless or pathetic than a sore winner.

What's next, you got some parting shots for Ann as well?

Die in a head on crash with a miscreant 12 point buck on I-80.

I'll help all you guys out.

Obama won because he got the women and minority, but mostly he won because he got the young peoples vote.
I don't know if the young people voted emotionally or logically, neither or both. But the young people picked who they
wanted. I have no problem with this. It's called democracy. Young people and women want gay rights, abortion rights and don't want religion in government.

As a woman who votes conservative, I see Obama as a dirty, sneaky politician. He cares about others as much as you and I. But he cares about himself most. I see Mitt as too nice for politics.

trev wrote:I'll help all you guys out.

Obama won because he got the women and minority, but mostly he won because he got the young peoples vote.
I don't know if the young people voted emotionally or logically, neither or both. But the young people picked who they
wanted. I have no problem with this. It's called democracy. Young people and women want gay rights, abortion rights and don't want religion in government.

It is obvious that they voted emotionally, which I guess is OK if you are a clueless 19 year old. It's the 43 year olds voting for him that piss me off. The gays and pro-abortion folks already have every right conceivable. Religion is not in government other than in fake bullshit ways.

As a woman who votes conservative, I see Obama as a dirty, sneaky politician. He cares about others as much as you and I. But he cares about himself most. I see Mitt as too nice for politics.

racist bitch!!!!!

I think you are right about Mitt. The Benghazi debacle was a gift wrapped pinata. In debate two he sort of took a swing at it until that miserable fat cunt cockblocked him. In debate three, he could have blown it wide open and forced some sort of media attention, but, he was playing prevent defense at that point and we all know what a good idea prevent defense is.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Truman wrote:

smackaholic wrote:What he should have said was totalitarian.

You are correct that our gubmint has been authoritarian for quite some time. Obongo wants to kick it up a notch or two to full on totalitarianism.

No, I'm pretty sure I meant Authoritarian. But you're, right 'holic, Lenin was a totalitarian. But not at first. Per wiki:

I'd be careful using it at all, the word 'totalitarianism' was originally invented and used by Italian Fascist theorists.
Far from implying coercion, the concept of 'totalitarianism' actually implied the lack of coercion. In a corporate state, totalitarianism would be a way of avoiding coercion between conflicting groups within society, a way of incorporating those conflicting interest groups into a unitary, integrated society without internal contradictions. This is actually the exact opposite of the modern use of the word 'totalitarian'. It is now one of the most abused words in the English language.

In theory, it is a utopian concept, not unlike communism. If it worked, communism would work.

But it doesn't because humans are selfish.

Honest people with IQs above room temperature get this.

Unfortunately honest people are outnumbered by the dishonest/dumbfukk coalition.

trev wrote:I'll help all you guys out.

I see Mitt as too nice for politics.

mvscal wrote:
Putting up a fucking Christmas tree during the Christmas holiday doesn't establish a state religion, you thick twat.

it promotes one religion (Christianity) over every other religion so placing christmas decorations on state or federal lands most certainly does establish a state religion.....unless the state or federal entity is going to allow celebration of Pancha Ganapati or Kwanzaa or any of the other myriad of religious celebrations

No, it doesn't. Fuck off, idiot.

it most certainly does you brain dead imbecile.....

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

you should take up your argument with Thomas Jefferson

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Putting up a fucking Christmas tree during the Christmas holiday doesn't establish a state religion, you thick twat.

it promotes one religion (Christianity) over every other religion so placing christmas decorations on state or federal lands most certainly does establish a state religion.....unless the state or federal entity is going to allow celebration of Pancha Ganapati or Kwanzaa or any of the other myriad of religious celebrations

Bingo! That's exactly what they have to do. A live Nativity scene in my part of the state became an issue for the ACLU a number of years ago and the christers fought them based on Freedom of Religion....and lost. It wasn't a Freedom of Religion issue, it was a Freedom of Speech issue and, when they used that tact in the courts, they won and were able to have the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn.

I worked in courthouses for over 30 years and there was never a year when there weren't several Christmas trees in the halls with decorations and fake gifts under the trees.

Dr. Phibes wrote:This is actually the exact opposite of the modern use of the word 'totalitarian'. It is now one of the most abused words in the English language.

Mace wrote:they used that tact in the courts

[notspellingsmack]Whereas Phibes is talking about word abuse, this is a case of word misuse, and it's fairly common. It's not a simple typo or misspelling; it's a case of using the wrong word.[/notspellingsmack]

tact (noun) - 1. diplomacy; a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations
2. Touch or sense of touch

The appropriate word here is:

tack (noun) - a course of action or conduct, especially one differing from some preceding or other course

yw

Mace wrote: It wasn't a Freedom of Religion issue, it was a Freedom of Speech issue and, when they used that tact in the courts, they won and were able to have the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn.

I've never had a problem with displaying Christmas decorations on city, state, or federal property.....it's perfectly fine with me....but if they're going to allow that, then they are obligated to afford the same opportunity for any other religious belief to practice their form of celebration....

Felix wrote:

Mace wrote: It wasn't a Freedom of Religion issue, it was a Freedom of Speech issue and, when they used that tact in the courts, they won and were able to have the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn.

I've never had a problem with displaying Christmas decorations on city, state, or federal property.....it's perfectly fine with me....but if they're going to allow that, then they are obligated to afford the same opportunity for any other religious belief to practice their form of celebration....

Put me down for sacrificing a virgin or three.

Felix wrote:

not pictured: free Obama phones