Shush. Details.
I wanna shove a congress critter up his "campaign speech generator", and lecture him on morality & ethics.
I wanna shove a congress critter up his "campaign speech generator", and lecture him on morality & ethics.
I highly recommend this for every politician.rdx-fx wrote:
Oh! He's aborting his campaign?Ty wrote:
Another joke I saw in a similar vein: "Sorry Rick, you can't abort your campaign after 20 weeks, you now have to carry it to term".
Does that mean we get to stick a sonogram congressman up his ass, make him talk about his options, and lecture him about responsibility?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
suspended his 2016 cmapaignDilbert_X wrote:
I thought he'd suspended his campaign, not ended it.
that's so he can pay off his debts.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought he'd suspended his campaign, not ended it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
"suspend", they can keep the money they've been donated.Spark wrote:
that's so he can pay off his debts.Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought he'd suspended his campaign, not ended it.
"ended", they have to give back the money.
IIRC
basically.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Heads we lose, tails we lose
with one we lose more though...
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Just don't mention Bush.
Ron Paul 2012, althoght I support Barrack over Mitt Romney, Ron Paul is the only one that actually has a beating heart...
Ron Paul is literally the worst person you can vote for. Especially if you are favoring Obama over Romney.
Why? Because he is open about his opinions and willing to do what it takes to change our shit around. I feel as though Romney is a shell of a human being who only says what he needs to say to get elected, and Obama is as well but to a lesser degree. We need someone who will return dignity to the position of president, someone who can lead the country, not a fucking plastic politician looking to enhance his political power.Macbeth wrote:
Ron Paul is literally the worst person you can vote for. Especially if you are favoring Obama over Romney.
Well if you are picking a president based off of personality go for it. But if you are not: Ron Paul is as socially conservative as Rick Santorum and his economic positions would kill the U.S. economy.specops10-4 wrote:
Why? Because he is open about his opinions and willing to do what it takes to change our shit around. I feel as though Romney is a shell of a human being who only says what he needs to say to get elected, and Obama is as well but to a lesser degree. We need someone who will return dignity to the position of president, someone who can lead the country, not a fucking plastic politician looking to enhance his political power.Macbeth wrote:
Ron Paul is literally the worst person you can vote for. Especially if you are favoring Obama over Romney.
Social issues are the least of my worries, and Ron Paul is for enforcing the laws we currently have in place, what a disaster.Macbeth wrote:
Well if you are picking a president based off of personality go for it. But if you are not: Ron Paul is as socially conservative as Rick Santorum and his economic positions would kill the U.S. economy.specops10-4 wrote:
Why? Because he is open about his opinions and willing to do what it takes to change our shit around. I feel as though Romney is a shell of a human being who only says what he needs to say to get elected, and Obama is as well but to a lesser degree. We need someone who will return dignity to the position of president, someone who can lead the country, not a fucking plastic politician looking to enhance his political power.Macbeth wrote:
Ron Paul is literally the worst person you can vote for. Especially if you are favoring Obama over Romney.
He's also for repealing some. Like civil rights, or income tax.specops10-4 wrote:
Social issues are the least of my worries, and Ron Paul is for enforcing the laws we currently have in place, what a disaster.Macbeth wrote:
Well if you are picking a president based off of personality go for it. But if you are not: Ron Paul is as socially conservative as Rick Santorum and his economic positions would kill the U.S. economy.specops10-4 wrote:
Why? Because he is open about his opinions and willing to do what it takes to change our shit around. I feel as though Romney is a shell of a human being who only says what he needs to say to get elected, and Obama is as well but to a lesser degree. We need someone who will return dignity to the position of president, someone who can lead the country, not a fucking plastic politician looking to enhance his political power.
I seem to have a hard time finding credible sources backing this up. Although repealing income tax may not be as crazy as it seems.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
He's also for repealing some. Like civil rights, or income tax.specops10-4 wrote:
Social issues are the least of my worries, and Ron Paul is for enforcing the laws we currently have in place, what a disaster.Macbeth wrote:
Well if you are picking a president based off of personality go for it. But if you are not: Ron Paul is as socially conservative as Rick Santorum and his economic positions would kill the U.S. economy.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/specops10-4 wrote:
I seem to have a hard time finding credible sources backing this up. Although repealing income tax may not be as crazy as it seems.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
He's also for repealing some. Like civil rights, or income tax.specops10-4 wrote:
Social issues are the least of my worries, and Ron Paul is for enforcing the laws we currently have in place, what a disaster.
Ron Pauls own words wrote:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
I agree with the last sentence of what he said, although I disagree that it is a logical plan. Why should someone be forced to accept people from a philosophical standing?
Because excluding a sizable minority group from mainstream society isn't a good for the society.
It's a debate over individual rights over the good of society. This is one case that most people in this country can agree that the society takes precedence over the individual.
There is also an argument that states that you are protecting the rights of the people who are being refused service by forcing them to not be alienated.
Unrelated question: how old are you?
It's a debate over individual rights over the good of society. This is one case that most people in this country can agree that the society takes precedence over the individual.
There is also an argument that states that you are protecting the rights of the people who are being refused service by forcing them to not be alienated.
Unrelated question: how old are you?
Yeah I cant really defend his stance on this subject because well, I don't really agree with him. In most other aspects however he is very strong, atleast in the way of honorability and honesty.Macbeth wrote:
Because excluding a sizable minority group from mainstream society isn't a good for the society.
It's a debate over individual rights over the good of society. This is one case that most people in this country can agree that the society takes precedence over the individual.
There is also an argument that states that you are protecting the rights of the people who are being refused service by forcing them to not be alienated.
Unrelated question: how old are you?
I'm 21 and drunk as fuck right now cause it was my B-day this thursday.
Clinton at the democrat convention:
One of the better presidents (and public speakers) the US has had post-WW2 imo.
One of the better presidents (and public speakers) the US has had post-WW2 imo.
inane little opines
How is this in any way true? First off the foreign policy issues the US deals with today (I assume you mean the 'war on terror' et al) are connected to the cold war, not Clinton policy. Secondly, the Bush administration has an absolutely abysmal track record when it comes to foreign policy and foreign relations. Your allies are now far less supportive than they were years earlier, half the globe hates your guts and many foreign trouble spots were made worse. Only during his second term (and then the latter half of it) did things start improving.my karma wrote:
lol i hope you're kidding. clinton was the start of the shitfuck that bush finished off. most of america's foreign fuckups stem from clinton policy.
Oh and during Clinton's tenure nobody took these areas of concern seriously, if I recall correctly most of his efforts to try and destroy certain threats were criticised heavily by the repubs.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-09 10:18:08)
inane little opines
Yes, because he took half measures and cared more about PR than he did about doing the job right.
Got us involved in Somalia -> escalated a peacekeeping mission and then pulled out as soon as bad press started rolling in regarding the Blackhawk Down stuff.
USS Cole rammed, US embassies bombed -> launch cruise missiles at an aspirin factory.
About the only thing he did right (and late I might add) was the war with Serbia over Bosnia and Kosovo.
I joined the military during the final few months he was in office and the utter disgust, hatred, and levels of mistrust that pretty much every person that served during his administration felt was rather amazing.
All that said, he did do some things right while he was in office. He had to face a conservative backlash that put people like Newt Gingrich in power, and he dealt with the Lewinsky bullshit, but he can be credited for some very significant reforms that set the country on the right track fiscally. It's a shame that his two successors have abjectly destroyed that legacy.
Got us involved in Somalia -> escalated a peacekeeping mission and then pulled out as soon as bad press started rolling in regarding the Blackhawk Down stuff.
USS Cole rammed, US embassies bombed -> launch cruise missiles at an aspirin factory.
About the only thing he did right (and late I might add) was the war with Serbia over Bosnia and Kosovo.
I joined the military during the final few months he was in office and the utter disgust, hatred, and levels of mistrust that pretty much every person that served during his administration felt was rather amazing.
All that said, he did do some things right while he was in office. He had to face a conservative backlash that put people like Newt Gingrich in power, and he dealt with the Lewinsky bullshit, but he can be credited for some very significant reforms that set the country on the right track fiscally. It's a shame that his two successors have abjectly destroyed that legacy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Anything more than a bombing campaign or a missile strike would never have been accepted by congress. As I said, nobody took the threat seriously and imo I can't really blame people for that pre-2001. Up until that point the notion of some small group of fanatics being a serious danger to an entire nation and requiring considerable effort to be put down was considered dystopian fantasy and comic-booky kind of stuff.
inane little opines
He was pretty key in bringing peace to the northern ireland troubles. I'd say that's another good thing.Jay wrote:
About the only thing he did right (and late I might add) was the war with Serbia over Bosnia and Kosovo.