The Below the Belt 'Demon'crats

[daydreamer41]

Everyone see that FAT PIG Kennedy and idiot Joe Biden grill Future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito? That imbecille drunken murderer Kennedy doesn't hold a candle next to Alito. Kennedy, Biden and company are the poster boy of the left. What a sad sight. The left of the US are disguisting.

 

[bond_james_bond]

Sorry, I was actually watching the Alito hearings for the chicks

What can I say, I'm a hobbyist, always on the prowl for women.

Who's the brunette to Alito's left (not his wife)?

She's kinda cute; reminds me of the lead singer from Swing Out Sister in the 80s. Some nice legs seen in the Senate chambers from the ladies.

 

[daydreamer41]

Nevermind the Alito hearings. Yes, they're a joke. He'll be confirmed easily. But, how can you be a republican and use escorts? Do your fellow republicans know you hire escorts? Do they do the same all the while preaching about what awful morals Democrats have? What would the religious right say?
Reminds me of the priest in Nebraska who preached constantly against homosexuality. The police later arrested him for trying to pay a man for sex...

Republicans are not solely from the religious right. I don't like paying HIGH taxes. I want a strong military. As for abortion, I don't know how I feel. I wouldn't have wanted my mother to have had aborted myself. There are those who call themselves liberterians and are for legalizing prostitution. Republicans have many flavors, just like Democrats. It's just that the extremes of both are getting the most attention.

 

[zigezon]

It is a common misconception that "the rich" don't pay taxes and that it's "we little guys" who are paying all the taxes. It's easy to disprove this myth with federal government statistics.

Oh come, that's not where the problem is.

When your rich, paying taxes is a joke for you compared to the poor guy.

John makes 1 million, paying 500 000$ of taxes.
Mark makes 20 000$, and pays 5 000$.


John will have to wait 1 more yr to buy his new street legal McClaren F1.
Mark will have to cut his "food money" because of the gas prices rising.

John and Mark both work hard 40 hours week. John is not smarter than Mark, he just go to college because he had the money, probably because down th line in the past, his family screwed someone else's.



Btw, If the poorer would get richer, reducing the margin between the rich and the poor, it would cause great a depression. The balance in economy is everything for the power to buy stuff, and it has to stay balanced thats why you've got 10% of the rich, and 30% poor, 60% middle, and not the other way around. Get 30% of the rich mean the poor would die cause can't buy ANYTHING, then all you've got are rich ppl, then the 1$ means nothing, blablabla.

 

[HonestAbe]

Just one small thing.

The Pat Robertson types are setting the Republican agenda.

Respectfully disagree on this. The White House is constantly having to disassociate itself from his outrageous comments like the recent shocker about "God is punishing Ariel Sharon for trying to carve up Gods lands" (in an effort to continue the peace process) by causing his near fatal stroke. He went on to make a bigger ass out of himself by saying he has met Sharon and likes him, even feels bad for him! Can you imagine saying soemthing like this about anyone you knew let alone claimed to care about?! "Sorry about your heart attack (insert friend or family members name here) but God is punishing you for something!" Or how about "I'm sorry your mother passed away in that fire, she must have been a real bitch in the eyes of the Lord!"

Outside of his audience, he is viewed as an absolute idiot by any who have heard his hate filled propaganda/outright calls for assassinations. He won't be setting any GOP agendas anytime soon. Actually he is making himself more and more irrelevant every time he spews hot air out of his putrid blowhole.

 

[daydreamer41]

I see three reasons for the war in Iraq, none having anything to do with 9/11.

1. Furthering the Christian mission of George W. Bush and the Christian right, bringing righteousness to the heathen masses.

2. Control of the Iraqi oilfields.

3. Exploitation of the wealth to be gained by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. in "rebuilding" what they have destroyed.

Regand, you're a walking billboard of the Hardcore left. I bet you have memorized every Extreme leftist talking point.

I've never met you, but I bet having a conversation with you would be like conversing with Howard Dean's Parrot.

 

[bond_james_bond]

I see three reasons for the war in Iraq, none having anything to do with 9/11.

1. Furthering the Christian mission of George W. Bush and the Christian right, bringing righteousness to the heathen masses.

2. Control of the Iraqi oilfields.

3. Exploitation of the wealth to be gained by Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. in "rebuilding" what they have destroyed.

I would replace #1 with establishment of permanent airbases in Iraq, an ideal, centralized location for future actions in the Middle East. In addition, permanent listening stations for monitoring of terrorist communications could be built.

Even before 9/11, the military had lamented about lack of properly located airbases from which to launch heavier aircraft such as B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s.

Iraq, the most secular of the Middle East nations, would provide the most hospitable environment for construction of these bases and US personnel as well.

 

[anon_vlad]

Hey, Daydreamer,

You appear to disagree with Regnad regarding the reasons Bush invaded Iraq. If you believe in WMDs or to stop Iraqi support for terrorism or restoration of democracy, your handle is appropriate. You don't only dream at night.

If the reasons the Right cites are valid, why hasn't the US invaded North Korea?

 

[Nugie]

Daydreamer: Democratic Senators said nothing of value during the Alito hearings.

Everyone else: Yes, but overall, Republicans in general and W specifically are pussbag idiots.

Daydreamer: (ignoring the fact that everyone ignored his original comment) NO WE'RE NOT YOU GUYS ARE THE IDIOTS I HATE YOU LOSERS!!!

Everyone else: Bush is the perfect juxtaposition of world-class idiot and evil genius. So there. No matter what you say, I just bring up Bush and this trumps everything else.

As Abe has said in the past, "Politics is a big shit sandwich and we all get to take a bite." That doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have legitimate, intelligent discourse about valid issues without devolving into the typical my-idiot-is-better-then-your-idiot crapola. Let's face facts: There isn't a single one of you out there that would be willing to let either Bush OR Kennedy babysit your kids. We're so caught up in this banality that no one can get a word in edgewise about anything meaningful.

Is abortion a federal issue? Why argue state's rights for one social cause (marijuana) but not for another?

Supposing that a new supreme court determines that there does not exist a federal right to have abortions. How would this really change anything? How many states would be able to pass any meaningful restrictions on getting abortions?

If the issue is so fundamental, why can't we just change the constitution? It's been done before for even dumber crap (alcohol).

 

[lovin spoonful]

I know this is an open discussion area, but this is ridiculous. First of all, this is the Montreal forum. Second, this board shouldn't be a platform for political mudslinging, much less for another country's politics. Third, republicans are not exactly the bastion of integrity and wisdom, a sentiment that tends to be especially strong in Canada. Hence, I think this thread is merely troll bait.

 

[bond_james_bond]

This may be a Montreal board, but this is the Lounge (open area), and many of us are American, such as myself, EB, regnad, SpecialK, Uncle Kracker, just to name a few.

 

[HonestAbe]

Supposing that a new supreme court determines that there does not exist a federal right to have abortions. How would this really change anything? How many states would be able to pass any meaningful restrictions on getting abortions?

Welcome back Nugs,

Where ya been? As to your above questions, my understanding from the talking heads is that abortion rights ( or lack of ) would be left up to the states if the Supreme Court overturned ROE v. WADE. Therefore it isn't a stretch of the imagination to envision every "Red State" outlawing abortion altogether. Sadly even when the mothers life is in danger or in the case of rape or incest since so many of these religious wackjobs think it would be better for the woman to die in childbirth or suffer through a pregnancy which would be nothing more than a constant reminder of her violation by a sick criminal or relative and likely lead to extreme mental health issues.

Imagine an unloved, unwanted child, scorned, hated, beaten, or killed by its mother because of what the child represents to her. Many such children would end up just one more future criminal we'll have to build another jail cell for. Imagine a woman going insane because of the trauma she would be FORCED to endure by the state, a woman who might die from a botched "back alley abortion", or a woman who would rather kill herself than suffer such unendurable agony.

Of course this wouldn't effect rich Republican pro lifers when their daughters get knocked up by some ghetto thug soul brother. God forbid that a WASP family would have some color in their family tree. They would be sneaking their daughters up to NY for secret abortions whenever such circumstances arose. Unfortunately for most young women of normal backgrounds and modest means this would be financially unaffordable. ROE v. WADE represents a huge social issue in our country, a womans right to choose what is right for her based on her personal circumstances. I think women have just about had it in this country with rich, old, white, religious zealot, MEN telling them what they can and can't do with their own bodies and lives like women are still second class citizens, IF ROE v. WADE is overturned expect bedlam across this country.

 

[lovin spoonful]

This may be a Montreal board, but this is the Lounge (open area), and many of us are American, such as myself, EB, regnad, SpecialK, Uncle Kracker, just to name a few.

I know quite clearly that many people here are not from Montreal. Kudos on being able to read past the second sentence.

If you told me that this thread was created with the intent for open discussion and debate, and not because a hardcore republican got too excited and needed to draw attention to himself, I'd have to laugh right in your face.

I'd hate to see these boards turn into a political blast zone full of unwavering opinions fueled only by the intent to stir up emotions each time there's an inconsequential argument somewhere over the rainbow. (If someone is able to be swayed by incredibly one-sided arguments on the internet, it's not even worth it. And this is inconsequential not because it happened in America, but because of the actual content.)

It seems to me that this is daydreamer's train of thought, "Oh dear, someone in an opposing political party said something meaningless that I didn't like! Time to make a fuss in a different country's escort review board!"


edit:
VVVVV
I know most of the sex business isn't generated from locals, but then again this income is a spit in the bucket compared to "Canada's trade balance." It does, however, improve the city itself economically (morally is another story) due to hotel/restaurant revenue, increased escort variety and acceptance, etc. Hence, I'm not telling anyone to shut up because they're not locals and thus their opinion is not valid, or else I'd have to do the same.

It's the various reasons I already listed out coupled with the fact that there are obviously more appropriate places to 'debate' this that makes me say it's inappropriate. Now, most of the people here have and are capable of handling this reasonably, but it's clear that the OP is not.

I'll just leave it at that because I get tired of having to repeat myself.

 

[Nugie]

Ah, crap, where to start...

First of all, Abe, thanks for the kind words. I wasn't posting as much simply because I was content reading. But anyway...

Not to pick on anyone, but curious' cut'n'paste of an article is exactly what I was pointing out: Try to have any sort of political discussion, no matter how valid, and it devolves into "the idiot in your party is worse then the idiot in my party".

Abe, to respond to your comments:

1) Yes, RvW stated, by rule of the court, that the unrestricted right of a woman to have an abortion is federally guaranteed by the US Constitution. As you have said, any revocation of RvW would allow states to make their own determinations regarding abortions.

2) I may be optimistic, I may be a conservative from the northeast (i.e. branded a communist in Texas), but I don't see ANY states outright banning abortions in this day and age. In fact, I think it is more likely that states amend their own constitutions to protect this right then anything else.

3) The federalist in me feels compelled to mention that the constitution is very specific in the powers the federal government is allowed to exercise and the powers the state governments are FORBIDDEN to exercise; and that the remainder is left to the states.

4) I don't see anything in the constitution that says anything about women having the unrestricted right to have abortions (over and above the right of a state to make its own decision). I also don't see anything that says that a two-celled mass of goo is a citizen protected with equal rights (as fundamentalists argue). Therefore, the central issue (for me) isn't "at what point does uncontrollable cell growth change from a tumor to a citizen" as it is, "where in the US Constitution does it say that this issue is in the realm of the federal government?"

5) My point isn't that Alito is good or bad (from personal experience he is ABSOLUTELY one of the smartest legal minds on the planet), it's simply that the issues being debated shouldn't have been decided from the bench in the first place. That's what we have elected legislatures for.

6) Whether or not he should be confirmed... even among my extremely liberal minded colleagues, there is a consensus that the man is assuredly an expert in constitutional law.

7) Abe, you're the only one who went back to the original issue. Everyone else is still content to argue about which ass-shit sucking politician is worse then the other ass-shit sucking politician. As if they all wouldn't be infinitely more useful as fertilizer.

8) Which is why I choose to ignore every other comment. I'm not going to get caught up in an argument about who sucks worse, so for everyone else, don't bother responding to this post with comments about how much Bush is an idiot (I know, I'm ashamed, but that's not the point.)

 

[Nugie]

Daydreamer, I believe, and maybe I'm wrong, that you are a PJ O'Rourke republican...if so, there are only about five of you left...

PJ is the man. "Parliament of Whores" and "All the Troubles in the World" should be required reading for all (his other stuff is so-so).