I really hope the Republicans nominate Santorum

[Terry in Crapchester]

Remember McCain? Before he got the nomination, he was the "electable moderate" a "maverick" even who wasn't afraid to the buck the party line to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats to get things done. As soon as he got the nomination, they fucked his ass eight ways from Sunday. They threw every single piece of shit they could find at him. How many houses did he have? Why was he fucking a lobbyist? He was turned into a wildy extreme warmongering maniac.

From selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, to wearing a $500 pair of shoes to a meet-and-greet at a supermarket, to "the fundamentals of the economy are strong," followed by his weak attempt at backpedaling from that statement, to suspending his entire campaign to go back to Washington and work on the economy, McCain was his own worst enemy. All Obama had to do was get out of the way.

[BSmack]

The single worst Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater Bob Dole was John McCain.

Mitt Romney LOST to John McCain.

Think about it folks.

FTFY

Dole was another "accomodating moderate."

Goldwater had the singular misfortune of pairing up against one of the dirtiest bastards in the history of American politics. At least Barry didn't get his head blown off...

Goldwater went to St. Petersburg, Florida and called for the abolition of Social Security. That single gaffe alone make him the worst GOP Presidential candidate ever. He may have been the godfather of the Reagan "revolution," but as a candidate he was a giant steaming turd.

[BSmack]

Dole was another "accomodating moderate."

oh please, you don't know jack shit about Bob Dole. Dude was conservative as they get.

Dole had the misfortune of running against an incumbent when times were flush.

Dole also had the misfortune of having Ross Perot fragmenting the right wing vote in that election.

[LTS TRN 2]

Excuse me, but how does one purport to "nominate" Santorum: The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. ??

Has it really come to this? The disdain for moderation has driven those already scared and cowering into genuine depravity?

While I have no sympathy for your cowardice and robust ignorance, I will offer a simple bit of advice , though I've no direct experience: You're not supposed to consume the Santorum, but rather just wash it off and try to look normal.

[Python]

Extreme right wing douchebags. Jackasses. Jackasses.

It's getting hard to take you seriously anymore.

[bradhusker]

NO, the context where HIS ACTIONS speak louder than his words. The guy gives between 7.5 and 8.5 MILLION a year to various charities which HELP the POOR. THAT CONTEXT you stupid fuckin moron you!!! The guy gives 15 percent of his income to the poor.

no he doesn't....the majority of his donations are to the mormon church and he even stiffs them (doesn't always give his 10%)....some of the other "poor" charities that he gave money to were The Friends of George Bush Library, the US Equestrian Team Foundation, the Heritage Foundation.....and exactly how do these organizations help "the poor"

What percent of your income goes to the poor? Did you give a soft taco to a bum once?
Did you give a snickers bar to a hooker after she failed to get you off?
Tell us if your actions speak louder than your disturbed words.

what does that have to do with anything? I'm not running for POTUS.....but, if it will make you feel better, 5% of my income goes to United Way and I donate lots of time to helping the local area food bank, I sit on the board of a local Children's Art Institute, I donate time and money to the local Humane Association, I raise money for Habitat for Humanity, and a couple of other things.....

hope that helps

Felix, I hate to be the one to break this to you, BUT, you are one dellusional mixed-up dude.

You say you give your 5 percent? thats nice. BUT, 5 percent is not as good as 15 percent. NOW, Ive got the official public record showing Romney giving 15 percent of his income to charities.
ALL we have from you is just your word, and pardon me for saying, BUT YOUR WORD doesnt hold much weight in this forum.
AND, lets just say we believe you about you giving 5 percent? YOU STILL come up way short of Mitt's 15 percent giving.
BUT, I DONT believe you. AGAIN, your life comes up way way short of Romney's in every way, shape and form.
NOT only is Romney more successful in LIFE, but in business, in giving, in philanthropy, in being a pillar of his community, etc... etc....
IN FACT, in every single way that you can measure a man's worth, he beats you to a pulp.
A loving and devoted husband for 42 years, A philanthropist of a level you can NEVER REACH.
A titan in the world of capitalism, a leader of men, A governor of a great state, a man with executive experience.
A man who has donated millions upon millions to the poor over the last 30 plus years. AND you want to argue the point with me? YOU felix, you are trying to say im lying here?
FUCK you, and your dellusional detached from reality weird world.
Next to the LIFE of Mitt Romney and his donating millions upon millions to charity, YOUR LIFE looks sickly and disturbed in comparison.
Its no wonder that you lie and lie some more. I understand your "penis envy" here, and may I say, ITS UGLY and shameful.
YOU TALK BIG, but you wield a very small dick.

[Van]

88, in the example you provided I would expect you to vote and/or enact legislation according to your views. It wouldn't matter that you don't approve of prostitution. You feel it is not forbidden by the Constitution, therefor you would vote to legalize it if the issue was ever put before you.

That is as it should be.

If Santorum did something similar in regards to the birth control issue, then yes, I applaud him. If, however, he voted against his conscience merely in an effort to pander—as opposed to doing so on the basis of constitutionality—then I find that abhorrent.

I took it to mean the latter. Maybe I have it wrong.

[Python]

I am Republican

I think you're missing my point. It's not about what you believe in or who you want to vote for. It's the fact that you can barely post anymore without sounding like you're about to kill someone. I can almost see the vein popping out in your forehead.

Calm down. It'll all be ok.

[Van]

The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex...

...though I've no direct experience...

Suuuuuuure you don't!

[Terry in Crapchester]

It's fairly abhorrent, but not as abhorrent as this...

"He also said that is his personal view, and not how he has voted when performing his role as an elected government official."

What the fuck is he doing as an elected official if not voting based on his personal views? If he's just going to stick his finger in the air and vote the prevailing winds, then what difference does it make what he thinks about anything?

Van-

I am surprised by your take. I give you credit for being able to think things through. There are a lot of things that someone might have a negative personal view of, but would vote to allow because of that big ass Constitution sitting out front. Prostitution, for example. I personally think it is a bad idea for men or women to sell sexual favors to each other. And if I were elected to the office of President, I would use the "bully pulpit" to extol how awful a choice it would be for adults to sell sexual favors to each other. But, I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids consenting adults from selling of sexual favors to each other, and thus as a judge, legislator or President I would vote to recognize the right of consenting adults to exercise the freedom to choose whether to do so or not. I would strongly opine against it. But I would not vote to use governmental power to forbid it. Freedom means the freedom to fuck up, you know. There are many, many instances where I would personally oppose something that, as a governmental official, I would not vote to restrict.

I hope you were trying to play devil's advocate on some level with Van. If not, that's an entirely weak argument.

I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from killing your wife or next door neighbor. Does that mean you have the freedom to do that?

And no, I'm not equating prostitution with murder, except to the extent that both are criminalized (albeit to very different degrees) by nearly every penal code in existence in the U.S. As I've said before, the Constitution is, by definition, the supreme law of the land. But it is not, nor was it ever intended to be, the only law of the land.

All of that having been said, there's actually an argument to be made in favor of legalizing prostitution, but it is a policy argument rather than a Constitutional argument. In order to sustain a conviction for prostitution, it usually is necessary for the police to put in a considerable amount of man-hours. Almost always, an undercover police officer is a decoy, used either as a prostitute or as a "john." It sometimes involve the undercover police officer being placed alone in potentially dangerous situations. By contrast, prostitution or patronizing a prostitute is usually a relatively low-level misdemeanor. And, if by criminalizing prostitution, it was our intent to legislate it out of existence, then in that regard we have failed miserably. Perhaps at this point it is better to admit that and move on then to continue to throw more public money at what has been, so far at least, a futile attempt to legislate prostitution out of existence, not to mention exposing more police officers to potential danger.

[Van]

Jsc, in no way, shape or form is the current Republican party dominated by the extreme right wing. Although that segment may receive most of the headlines they are but a fringe element that has little standing in terms of the national picture.

Far and away, both parties are dominated by dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist moderates. Swap the unis and drop the rooting interests, and one could scarcely tell the difference.

[Moving Sale]

88,
Why is illgalized prostitution a bad idea?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

88,
Why is illgalized prostitution a bad idea?

[Moving Sale]

One post a month and I fucked it up.

[smackaholic]

not one to encourage further posting by you, but, perhaps you could go ahead and fix it then.

[mvscal]

Do you think it is appropriate for a public official to tell non-consenting adults that they must pay for contraceptives and/or abortions for their employees and/or insureds?

Oh, you want to get into the latest derp from the Republican party? OK, fine.

Obama says that insurance should include contraceptives, and OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT says the right wingers.

Why should contraceptives be covered under any insurance policy? Buy your own fucking rubbers, asshole.

Anyone who gets wound up either way on social issues is a goddamn moron. And, since you're a goddamn moron, you probably don't understand why it is that you're such a goddamn moron. Fortunately, I'm here to help.

You're a goddamn moron because none of it fucking matters. It will not affect your life in any way, shape or form. Rick Santorum disapproves of contraception. Well la dee fuckin da. What's he going to do? Outlaw contraception? No? Then who gives a flying fuck what he thinks about it?

Oooo. But, but ~sniffle~ he's PRO LIFE, too ~sniffle~

And? So were Reagan and both Bushes. In the 20 years that those pro life Republicans were in office, did they mount even a feeble attempt to overturn Roe v Wade?

They only thing that matters when evaluating a presidential candidate is his fiscal/economic policies and, to a lesser extent, his foreign policy. Everything else is a distraction.

[Diego in Seattle]

Do you think it is appropriate for a public official to tell non-consenting adults that they must pay for contraceptives and/or abortions for their employees and/or insureds?

Oh, you want to get into the latest derp from the Republican party? OK, fine.

Obama says that insurance should include contraceptives, and OH NO WE CAN'T HAVE THAT says the right wingers.

Why should contraceptives be covered under any insurance policy? Buy your own fucking rubbers, asshole.

Anyone have numbers on how much we spend on WIC?

[mvscal]

Weeelll why don't you just git a'googlin' thar, kiddy diddler, and relieve us of this crushin burden 'a suspense.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I think Diego is just here for the Capri Sun.

[War Wagon]

since you're a goddamn moron, you probably don't understand why it is that you're such a goddamn moron. Fortunately, I'm here to help.

Fortunately.

[Van]

They only thing that matters when evaluating a presidential candidate is his fiscal/economic policies and, to a lesser extent, his foreign policy. Everything else is a distraction.

Exactly.

There have been times when I may have reversed those two in order of importance, but that's about it. Those really are the only things that matter.

[mvscal]

The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. ??

I think you know it as toothpaste.

[War Wagon]

take out of context

so exactly what was the context?
he's not worried about the poor because they've got safety nets he's determined to gut in order to shovel more money to those that need it the least?

well, what he said was that if the safety net had holes, he'd fix them. The context was that he was more concerned with the plight of the middle class.... not that you really care what the context was since it's obvious you're creating your own.

[Felix]

The context was that he was more concerned with the plight of the middle class....

are you high on fucking drugs? if you think mittens gives two fucks about you, me, or anyone else in the middle class you're an idiot....

he's interested in lowering taxes for his buddies, while raising them on you, gutting social programs, rattling swords and ramping up the fear about the next great boogeyman (Ahmadinejad is the likely target), he'll spend money like a drunken sailor, but then the republicans will revert back to their "deficits don't matter" mantra while running up the national debt, he has no leadership skills, he's disconnected from the everyday populous...he'll probably get us into another war....

but other than that, he'd be probably be a below average to poor president....

[poptart]

he's interested in lowering taxes for his buddies, while raising them on you, gutting social programs, rattling swords and ramping up the fear about the next great boogeyman (Ahmadinejad is the likely target), he'll spend money like a drunken sailor, but then the republicans will revert back to their "deficits don't matter" mantra while running up the national debt, he has no leadership skills, he's disconnected from the everyday populous...he'll probably get us into another war....

Will you please list the top 3 things you want the new (or continuing, if it's Barry) president to pursue.

1.
2.
3.

[bradhusker]

The context was that he was more concerned with the plight of the middle class....

are you high on fucking drugs? if you think mittens gives two fucks about you, me, or anyone else in the middle class you're an idiot....

he's interested in lowering taxes for his buddies, while raising them on you, gutting social programs, rattling swords and ramping up the fear about the next great boogeyman (Ahmadinejad is the likely target), he'll spend money like a drunken sailor, but then the republicans will revert back to their "deficits don't matter" mantra while running up the national debt, he has no leadership skills, he's disconnected from the everyday populous...he'll probably get us into another war....

but other than that, he'd be probably be a below average to poor president....

Felix, you are a lying dellusional FUCK tard.

YOU GOT IT WRONG AGAIN. Its Obama who is against the middle class, NOT ROMNEY or any republican.
The Bush tax cuts were for EVERYONE, rich and poor alike, and everyone in-between.

Obama lies, he says he will ONLY raise taxes on the super super rich, BIG BIG LIE. Every single expert has clearly shown that Obama will indeed raise taxes on folks making 50, 60, grand a year.
Meaning, middle class hard working folks will see more taxes.

ALMOST every word out of Obama's mouth is a lie, YET, you Felix think that Mitt and the repubs are the only liars. YOU ARE DELLUSIONAL.

I am sick and tired of you and your bullshit lies.

[poptart]

Obama lies, he says he will ONLY raise taxes on the super super rich, BIG BIG LIE.

Yes, a blatant lie.

ObaMao, in under four years, has added 5 trillion to our debt and proposes adding another 2 trillion+ over the next two years.

That is a tax on everyone and it is a tax on our children and grandchildren.

That is immoral.



The only current candidate who is talking about making real cuts into this obscene deficit is Ron Paul.

[Felix]

Will you please list the top 3 things you want the new (or continuing, if it's Barry) president to pursue.

1. Job Creation
2. Budget Reduction
3. Health Care Reform

of course to accomplish any of these would require cooperation on both sides of the floor, which will never happen....there is a divisiveness in this country that is palatable....the democrats have no intestinal fortitude, and the republicans are obstructionists.....politicians don't work for the people any more, they work for corporations and special interest groups.....

my political give a fuck meter is just about flat lined....

The Bush tax cuts were for EVERYONE, rich and poor alike, and everyone in-between.

tax cuts don't create jobs....

The only current candidate who is talking about making real cuts into this obscene deficit is Ron Paul.

turn about is fair play....name the three most important measures that must be taken to reduce the deficit....

[poptart]

Will you please list the top 3 things you want the new (or continuing, if it's Barry) president to pursue.

1. Job Creation
2. Budget Reduction
3. Health Care Reform

Job creation how?
Budget reduction by spending cuts?
Health care reform? Didn't Barry give you that?









The answer is...

1. Balance the budget now.
2. Secure the borders now.
3. Get our troops home from places they don't belong... now.

Bwye Bwye...

[Felix]

1. Balance the budget now.
2. Secure the borders now.
3. Get our troops home from places they don't belong... now.

1. What cost cutting measures must be taken?
2. How do you propose to secure the borders?
3. And how are we going to do that without Afghanistan falling back under the control of those that would do us harm?

[Terry in Crapchester]

I hope you were trying to play devil's advocate on some level with Van. If not, that's an entirely weak argument.

I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents you from killing your wife or next door neighbor. Does that mean you have the freedom to do that?

And no, I'm not equating prostitution with murder, except to the extent that both are criminalized (albeit to very different degrees) by nearly every penal code in existence in the U.S. As I've said before, the Constitution is, by definition, the supreme law of the land. But it is not, nor was it ever intended to be, the only law of the land.

All of that having been said, there's actually an argument to be made in favor of legalizing prostitution, but it is a policy argument rather than a Constitutional argument. In order to sustain a conviction for prostitution, it usually is necessary for the police to put in a considerable amount of man-hours. Almost always, an undercover police officer is a decoy, used either as a prostitute or as a "john." It sometimes involve the undercover police officer being placed alone in potentially dangerous situations. By contrast, prostitution or patronizing a prostitute is usually a relatively low-level misdemeanor. And, if by criminalizing prostitution, it was our intent to legislate it out of existence, then in that regard we have failed miserably. Perhaps at this point it is better to admit that and move on then to continue to throw more public money at what has been, so far at least, a futile attempt to legislate prostitution out of existence, not to mention exposing more police officers to potential danger.

Good Lord, Terry. You apparently forgot that the Constitution does not grant any rights. It prohibits the federal government from trampling on freedoms and rights the People already have. Accordingly, the Constitution does not include a penal code. That is what States legislatures are for. The U.S. Constitution merely defines how the federal government is organized, and what power the three branches of it are permitted to exercise. Every other right is reserved to the States and to the People.

Whether to permit or not to permit prostitution is a question of State or Local law. Nevada permits local governments to allow prostitution on certain conditions, so I understand. Most states prohibit it. The point I was making to Van is that while I personally think prostitution is a bad idea and a bad choice, and I would use the office of President to express my personal opinion that it is a bad idea. But I would vote to permit it if I was a legislator. I do not think it is my job to substitute my judgment for that of other consenting adults. I would try to persuade them from doing something I personally think is a bad choice. But I would not attempt to utilize the power of government to interfere with their ability to make what I regard as a bad choice. I think that is what Santorum is saying insofar as contraception is concerned.

I wasn't suggesting that the Constitution grants any rights which the People don't already have. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

I understood your point to suggest that laws prohibiting prostitution were unconstitutional. Quite clearly, they aren't.

There is an argument to be made that laws that prohibit prostitution (or, for that matter, gambling or possession and/or consumption of marijuana) are a bad idea. But that's a policy argument, not a Constitutional one.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Why should contraceptives be covered under any insurance policy?

Considering that The Pill is only available by prescription, and practically all other prescription medication is covered under insurance, why not?

[smackaholic]

Why should contraceptives be covered under any insurance policy?

Considering that The Pill is only available by prescription, and practically all other prescription medication is covered under insurance, why not?

WTF does it being a prescription have to do with anything?

My wife took 200 dollar a pop injections when we were doing the invitro thang.

Do you think those injections were OTC?

Nope, they were for a strictly elective procedure, conception of a cockblocking little so and so.

Wanna know how much of that was paid by somebody other than us?

Not a fukking nickle, as it should be.

Are there cases where I might think birf control should be subsidized?

Yes.

I am for norplant treatment for chicks on welfare. Infact, I wouldn't be against making it mandatory. I would go so far as to say if a woman on welfare has more chilins while on welfare, she should be required to have her tubes tied as a condition of receiving further welfare payments.

A bastard factory is one type of factory I'd like to see shuttered a little more often.

[Goober McTuber]

....there is a divisiveness in this country that is palatable....

Hey, look. A Whitey Wagon wannabe.

[The Seer]

1. Balance the budget now.
2. Secure the borders now.
3. Get our troops home from places they don't belong... now.

#3 takes care of #2

[BSmack]

1. Balance the budget now.
2. Secure the borders now.
3. Get our troops home from places they don't belong... now.

#3 takes care of #2

And gets us pretty close to #1.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A bastard factory is one type of factory I'd like to see shuttered a little more often.

Then you're in agreement that The Pill ought to be covered by health insurance?

[Goober McTuber]

My wife took 200 dollar a pop injections when we were doing the invitro thang.

God was trying to tell you something. You should have listened.

[Felix]

....there is a divisiveness in this country that is palatable....

Hey, look. A Whitey Wagon wannabe.

maybe pervasive would have been a better choice here...in any event, the point remains the same....

[Goober McTuber]

....there is a divisiveness in this country that is palatable....

Hey, look. A Whitey Wagon wannabe.

maybe pervasive would have been a better choice here...in any event, the point remains the same....

I think the word you were looking for is “palpable”, and yes, the point does remain the same. You all need to stop trying to impress us with your fabulous vocabularies.