T1B

88 wrote:The Conservatives are pissed at the Republicans.

The teabaggers aren't "conservative". Not by a long shot.

88 wrote:Ideally, I'd like to see eight or ten parties, each with significantly less than enough clout to control Congress. That would make things interesting.

In other words, all parties working together to get thier agendas passed. Some groups make consessions with other groups to get support for what they want. Of course that would mean groups opposed to the ideals of that group would make deals with other groups to make sure that the first groups agenda doesn't pass. As fate would have it, one group has remained nuetral and both sides need their votes to get the bastardized form of the origional idea passed or rejected. That swiss team will have people who support and people who oppose this bill that has now mutated into a useless shitpile attempting to benifit everyone who supports it. That last group splits in two and goes on both sides of the isle. The end result is people on each side realizing the other guys are assholes and if start to believe that the whole "strength in numbers" thing may be just the ticket to them being able to get what they want out of government and America going right back to one group against the other.



everyone got that?

I don't recall the Tea Party being a party.



What is their party platform?

just go with one party

88 wrote:I'm not sure where you'd categorize the Tea Party folks. But who cares? They are challenging the status quo. That is good enough for me.

Ideally, I'd like to see eight or ten parties, each with significantly less than enough clout to control Congress. That would make things interesting.

So...regardless of their "politics" you'd support them just because they're not....what?....

The tea baggers are ignorant cowardly racist Christers. Is that what you want clogging up the machinery? Why?

No one likes the lobbied and bought corporate whoredom that now passes for the U.S. government, but why seek to make it worse?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So...regardless of their "politics" you'd support them just because they're not....what?....

AP.

88 wrote:But they don't seem to have a coherent party message, aside from less government and less taxes.

Except for maintaining current levels of defense spending in the name of "supporting the troops."

Papa Willie wrote:
Marty can correct me if he would, but isn't it fairly typical for there to be about 8-10 people running for PM in Canada? Same goes for Britain? The US Gov't doesn't want it's citizens to actually have to "think" about who they vote for.

We need at least 8-10 different parties running and getting equal air time. Once people actually start seeing how fucked up both the D's and the R's are, they'll hopefully start voting for better choices.

Voting for 2 lumps of shit never did anybody any good.

The PM office in Canada or that other place across the pond is a lot different than the Presidency, in its function and the way they are chosen. You want to go to a Parilamentary system of democracy? It might be worth a shot but you'd have to trash the US Constitution (or move) to do it. Don't know too many people who are willing to go that far (even if it's just across the "bored"er).

Meet your next Knuckledraggers' Party pinup girl...

88 wrote:I think this is great.

That woman is a fraud. And the Delaware GOP knows it. That's why they will let her candidacy die rather than waste any money on her.

Martyred wrote:

88 wrote:The Conservatives are pissed at the Republicans.

The teabaggers aren't "conservative". Not by a long shot.

Will you just shut the fuck up about another countries politics and keep your comments relevant to your own welfare economy, your lack of any kind of military resolve and populated by and governed by a bunch of moose fucking nitwits ?..Ohh hell..... forget commenting about your fucked up country..none of us care...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bxI3HLANw0&feature=fvw

88 wrote:You are probably right. You should move to Delaware and then not vote for her to be one of your state's senators. That would show her. Otherwise, you can just be as mildly amused as I am at this situation, considering I have no intention of living in Delaware and really do not care whether the GOP or the Dems control the Senate. Both parties suck ass.

No need to move to Delaware. The Tea Party is going to do more to help the Senate stay marginally Democratic (remember, in the Senate, 60 votes is a majority) than anything the DNC or Obama is capable of doing.

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote:The PM office in Canada or that other place across the pond is a lot different than the Presidency, in its function and the way they are chosen. You want to go to a Parilamentary system of democracy? It might be worth a shot but you'd have to trash the US Constitution (or move) to do it. Don't know too many people who are willing to go that far (even if it's just across the "bored"er).

What are you talking about, Mikey? There isn't anything in the U.S. Constitution that requires that there only be two dominant political parties. There could be one, or there could be 8-10 like Papa Willie suggested. And you wouldn't have to change anything at all. Republicans and Democrats could still hold primaries, if they wanted to do so. And so could 8 or 10 other parties. And all eight or ten of their nominees could run for president.

Of course there's nothing in the Constitution that limits the number of political parties or Presidential candidates. But Buttsy used Canada and Great Britain as examples. The method of selecting the PM, who is the head of state in both of those countries, is completely diffferent than what's outlined in the US Constitution for electing a President.

He was talking about the "top office", but that office is very much different in terms not just of how they are chosen but also of what their function is. Not really a Chief Executive, but the leader of the majority party, chosen by that party, or in the case of no majority somebody acceptable to whatever coalition is formed that has majority membership in the legislative branch.

The US now has nothing like a "coalition" government. I also think it would be pretty interesting to see what would happen in this country with some kind of power-sharing coalition government. They actually might get more, or at least better, legislation done. I don't see that happening at all within our present system, though.

Mikey wrote:I also think it would be pretty interesting to see what would happen in this country with some kind of power-sharing coalition government. They actually might get more, or at least better, legislation done. I don't see that happening at all within our present system, though.

How would it even be possible given that the GOP's answer to everything is for government to do nothing? There is simply no place to negotiate from.

Yeah, because passing law after law after business-killing law, while nevereverever repealing antiquated laws is working out so well...

Better shift to a system where they can pass even more laws more quickly... makes perfect sense.

Mikey wrote:Meet your next Knuckledraggers' Party pinup girl...

i'd hit that

Cuda wrote:
i'd hit that

The way she opens up for the moneyshot, I don't know how anyone could refuse.

WTF does Karl Rove know about "conservatism"?

His brand of politics is very far removed from conservatism.

Yer right, dins, Rove is nothing but a Goebbels-like criminal. But the fact remains that EVERY single Tea Bagger is a pronounced Christer--of the virulent fundamentalist type. This immediately disqualifies each and every one from any consideration for higher office. Or what?

Karl Rove wrote: characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character

BSmack wrote:given that the GOP's answer to everything is for government to do nothing?

link?

No, the GOP's answer to everything is to steer the taxpayers' money into the hands of their pet special interests. The Dems' answer to everything is to steer the taxpayers' money into the hands of their pet special interests.

She's sort of a girl next door-ish version of Julia Louis-Drefyus. I'm in.

Tea Party Senate Candidate Opposes Masturbation


wtf

pron wrote:Tea Party Senate Candidate Opposes Masturbation

wtf

Of course she does. She also thinks gays can be "cured." She's a fucking whack job.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:He was talking about the "top office", but that office is very much different in terms not just of how they are chosen but also of what their function is. Not really a Chief Executive, but the leader of the majority party, chosen by that party, or in the case of no majority somebody acceptable to whatever coalition is formed that has majority membership in the legislative branch.

The US now has nothing like a "coalition" government. I also think it would be pretty interesting to see what would happen in this country with some kind of power-sharing coalition government. They actually might get more, or at least better, legislation done. I don't see that happening at all within our present system, though.

We need 8-10 different parties with 8-10 different people running for President. I think in Britain, each candidate is only allowed a few thousand dollars to promote themselves. Same thing needs to be done here. Give each party $10k. Right - that's not shit. People will actually have to go online and read articles and make an educated decision for a change, as opposed to which one has D or R in front of it, or as opposed to somebody voting for somebody because "they liked his commercial the best".

The campaign season lasts only a few weeks and all broadcast political advertising is strictly prohibited. How far do you think that kind of reform would get here?

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:I also think it would be pretty interesting to see what would happen in this country with some kind of power-sharing coalition government. They actually might get more, or at least better, legislation done. I don't see that happening at all within our present system, though.

How would it even be possible given that the GOP's answer to everything is for government to do nothing? There is simply no place to negotiate from.

Nice lock ( errrr goose step) step there with the board liberal twins...

Let us look at the sentence in a different context and see if it still applies :

How would it even be possible given that the Democrats answer to everything is for government to do everything ? There is simply no place to negotiate from.

Yeah..seems like a reasonable compromise position to me....fuck oh dear :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Cuda wrote:

Mikey wrote:Meet your next Knuckledraggers' Party pinup girl...

i'd hit that

but I bet she's a terrible lay. only fuck for marriage? and then, never diddle yourself? WTF? and you can't jerk off a rich dude to pay off your student loans?



that crazy illiterate guy in the Carolinas is happy babygirl is up for election.

Bizzarofelice wrote: but I bet she's a terrible lay. only fuck for marriage? and then, never diddle yourself? WTF? and you can't jerk off a rich dude to pay off your student loans?

You're not buying that bullshit, are you? Shit, that's Projection 101 with Professor Ted Haggard if ever it existed.

You know she's got a dildo for every day of the week stashed under bed.

Degenerate wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: but I bet she's a terrible lay. only fuck for marriage? and then, never diddle yourself? WTF? and you can't jerk off a rich dude to pay off your student loans?

You're not buying that bullshit, are you? Shit, that's Projection 101 with Professor Ted Haggard if ever it existed.

You know she's got a dildo for every day of the week stashed under bed.

Rack that. I dated a born again chick in college. She could be a straight up freak. But then afterward she'd be all worried that God was going to strike her down for being such a horrible sinner. It made for some real bizarre date nights.

If I was able to get a bible thumping chick to dirty talk about having God in her pussy and Jesus in her ass, I would be so proud of myself.

Papa Willie wrote:People will actually have to go online and read articles and make an educated decision for a change, as opposed to which one has D or R in front of it, or as opposed to somebody voting for somebody because "they liked his commercial the best".

just saying, i doubt the net effect is that people educate themselves more thoroughly.

8 parties... never gonna happen.

why?

bush sr in 92
gore in 2000


it is in the interest of power to consolidate power. it is not in the interest of money to chase after fringe candidates and risk pissing off the victors.

Bizzarofelice wrote:why?

bush sr in 92
gore in 2000


it is in the interest of power to consolidate power. it is not in the interest of money to chase after fringe candidates and risk pissing off the victors.

You forgot to add Clinton, Chimpy, Kerry and Hussein Onogger to the list. They're all part of the same Ivy League shit bucket.

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:why?

bush sr in 92
gore in 2000


it is in the interest of power to consolidate power. it is not in the interest of money to chase after fringe candidates and risk pissing off the victors.

You forgot to add Clinton, Chimpy, Kerry and Hussein Onogger to the list. They're all part of the same Ivy League shit bucket.

i'd say referencing 92 and 00 had to do with 'viable' third-party candidates.

M Club wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:why?

bush sr in 92
gore in 2000


it is in the interest of power to consolidate power. it is not in the interest of money to chase after fringe candidates and risk pissing off the victors.

You forgot to add Clinton, Chimpy, Kerry and Hussein Onogger to the list. They're all part of the same Ivy League shit bucket.

i'd say referencing 92 and 00 had to do with 'viable' third-party candidates.

but by continuing that thought he wouldn't have an opportunity for a witty barb at Obama.

M Club wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:why?

bush sr in 92
gore in 2000


it is in the interest of power to consolidate power. it is not in the interest of money to chase after fringe candidates and risk pissing off the victors.

You forgot to add Clinton, Chimpy, Kerry and Hussein Onogger to the list. They're all part of the same Ivy League shit bucket.

i'd say referencing 92 and 00 had to do with 'viable' third-party candidates.

I'd say you need to widen your focus and have another look at power consolidating power. Reagan was the last serious candidate for President who wasn't an Ivy League tool.

88 wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:If I was able to get a bible thumping chick to dirty talk about having God in her pussy and Jesus in her ass, I would be so proud of myself.

That's setting the bar kind of low, you know. Getting her to do it on her mother's front porch on Sunday afternoon might make it rack worthy and stuff.

How about in her parent's waterbed? Would that work?

mvscal wrote: Reagan was the last serious candidate for President who wasn't an Ivy League tool.

He was merely a tool.