The Next Four Years

[ConservaDerrps]

Wow... fucking bizzaroworld here.

Fisking the fisking it seems is in order.

So explain to me how the modern democrat party and their allied association of collectivist ideologues is any of those definitions. I've provided FACTUAL examples of what is done in the name of modern Liberalism that is directly contrary to those definitions save for it being applied to a group CLAIMING to be a liberal party. Spin spin spin and the only one dizzy is you. The rest of the world sees you as the idiot you are.



Liberals perverted the idea of Liberalism known by our Founding Fathers by co-opting the ideas of marxism, collectivism and progressivism. Our founding fathers were specifically against collective rights, but for individual rights. Nothing of the democrat platform, save for sexual perversion is for individual rights. Since the founding fathers were the ones who forged what was liberalism, it has come to a group to CONSERVE those ideals against the increasing corruption of what has become known as modern Liberalism as you practice it.

#2, failed.



So you say nobody has private property rights? Okay, what's your bank account number, fuckball? I want some money and you're it. So fork it over. Your house too while you're at it. And I'll be taking your wages as well since you don't have a right to it either. That's how absurd your re-definition for political short-sightedness is. The abuse of Eminant Domain has actually caused Chief Justice Kennedy to have his very home threatened, because a private developer demanded it be ceded to them for hotel development. I'm sure he regrets that vote now.

You desire to eliminate individual private ownership as exemplified in collectivism and modern liberalism is on full display. Just because it's now legal, does not make it ethical or right. Or do you agree with the 3/5ths compromise and Jim Crow? How about Sedition laws? They were once legal too, you know. Existence is now being taxed. Our nation rebelled over a 1 penny tax on tea. How well do you think THIS is going over and how does it expand freedom?

Level 3, Failed. Restart? Yes/No?



If I make too much, I cannot get them. That's economic discrimination.
If I am unable to get pregnant, no child assistance, sexism defined discrimination.
If I am too young, I can't get social security. Age discrimination.
If I am not disabled, I cannot get many grants or assistance. That's discrimination.
If I am not of a particular race, I cannot get special treatment for quotas in government work or education.

A government program is not supposed to discriminate yet liberal policies make it the norm. You've too much hate for those who succeed and condesention for those you see needing help to see it.

#4, needs editing.



Fucking hypocritical racist sexist bigoted heterophobe prick? Why do you hate white straight Christian men?

Sensitivity is a bullshit standard with no credibility or basis for existing. Life's a bitch. If you can't get used to it, blow your brains out and save us the whining. You whine about the hard times other races have had? Yeah, life's a bitch. I'm oppressing no one, but liberals want to oppress me because an ancestor (and which you don't have the slightest fucking clue when mine came here, so shove those assumptions up your ass sideways lubed in turpentine) of someone oppressed another because they were another color. The Native Americans are a conquered people and it's over. The war's are done, and reparations are bullshit. Merit is what matters. Cold hard achievement, sympathy and sensitivity doesn't feed the bulldog.

"The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first." Mark Twain

#5, failed... to give a fuck.



Hey kid. Try this crack. Sure have a free hit. Come back later, bring a friend. Government handouts, since the Great Society proved do NOTHING to improve the lives and welfare of those on it. In fact, the opposite has shown to be true. Why get married when you can fuck a woman, leave her and the kids and let Uncle Sugar take care of them and pay to be daddy? Why get a job when you can apply for EBT, WIC, Foodstamps, Welfare of ALL sorts? Why achieve? Who the fuck cares? Deal some on the side and hang out with the hoochies all you want because nobody thinks you can do shit.

Welfare destroys by eroding the family. It enables bad behavior and criminal enterprise. Ben Franklin said that we should always have poverty uncomfortable enough as a force to drive people to achieve and get out of poverty. Since the 60's, we forgot that, got rid of the safety net and created the safety hammock.

Empty Rhetoric my ass.

#6 Oh shit that didn't work, did it?



#7 Swing and a miss!

Talk about a red herring. Who the fuck is talking about vigilante justice? I'm talking about telling parents how to discipline their children and 'empowering' children into thinking their parents are their servants, turning the relationship upside down because they can run to the government to punish the parent for being responsible. It perverts the family unit and destroys society.

You and your fish packed ass doesn't seem to get that. Then again, it's plain to see you hate American culture.



That level of medication and delusion must make anyone feel great. You didn't even come close to the topic. You just say I'm racist for pointing out treating people by their skin color as a group is racist identity politics.



#9 here the whine.

So Obamacare does not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies? really?

You keep thinking that till the day they decide it's time to start eugenics to control population growth for the sake of the planet. Progressives have done it before, they will again.



#10 fail.

As the Thompson Twins said "Lies lies lies yeah... They're going to get you."

More than enough evidence and news stories of lawsuits from atheists suing to keep Christianity out of sight. Valedictorians and athletes sued for praying, school prayer banned. Yet we're to go out of our way to tolerate celebrating Islam at ground zero. Sorry, the factual news is against you. Deny it all you want, but there are thousands of stories otherwise.



Whoops. Why's heaven on fire?

Pelosi’s Obamacare: Pay up or pay fines, jail time | You Decide Politics



Then why do they fight against waivers for property tax used to support public schools for those who do not use it?

Why do they want to prevent parents from homeschooling?

Why do they fight against privatizing public school that has become unaffordable for the community?

Politics and power. They want union teachers so they can maintain political power in voting blocks and lots of money in a corrupt system of public sector unions creating an untouchable government class.

#12, yes you do suck at this.



CAFE standards call you a fucking liar. New demands for impossible standards have been put out on efficiency using technology that doesn't exist. You can find that in the last few energy bills. Mandates for energy that is just as damaging if not more so than proven methods while being unable to meet the needs of the nation even if we spot it 40 years. Of course we can't have what has worked and still works traditionally. That doesn't advance the political cause and keeps capitalism first world nation status going. Successful prosperous people don't need your kind.



Talk about rhetorical bullshit. Basic law of economics. If it is not profitable it cannot be sustained. If the profit cannot be high enough to protect the company from a downturn, it will fail catastrophically sooner or later (often sooner). If you can't grasp basic econ, you need to educate yourself in reality.

Dynamite? Try wet party popper.



So people cannot be trusted to make what you consider 'good choices' so you must take away their freedom lest they hurt themselves? Thank you mommy. Can I run with scissors now? So much for being a 'freedom loving liberal'. And guess what! If you didn't have government paying for health care, their health issues would be their own and not affect you AT ALL! WOW! What a concept. Apparently privatizing the health industry saves you from having to be responsible for another human being while providing more freedom and all you have to do is pay your own way! Who knew!?!

And with that, my IQ is considerably higher than yours.



Gotcha. More "you can't be trusted to" totalitarianism. What are you running for? King? You got nothing. Here's your dunce cap.



Link?

Oh.... OH! You think the founding fathers said "Separation of Church and State"? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! I'll give you 20 bucks if you can find that stated EXPLICITLY in the constitution. But to save you the stroke from thinking too hard, I'll 'splain it to you.

The first amendment prevents the creation of a state religion and forbids the infringement of religious speech by government. By allowing religious speech the government is not endorsing anything except a person's right to express that religion. (Something Obamatax is trying to eliminate by forcing abortion regs down religious hospitals). The concept of a separation between church and state comes from Federalist 40 wherein there is ONE paragraph that warns against creating a state religion that the government can force people to worship at.

Church of fail, party of one?



Find me the "Right to not be offended" in the constitution. You cannot legislate away people's right to be assholes. Sorry, Dr. Cocteau.

Failure is worth it? Okie dokie. I forgot I was addressing a liberal.

Yep, Derpiepoo, you certainly faded to black. Rarely have I seen a collection of fail so deep as to cover the top of someone's head like you did. But congrats, you managed.

Tl;DR;ISYA;AYHIRABS

(Too long; didn't read; I already schooled your ass; All You Got is Rhetoric And Bullshit)

Seriously, FezFuck, I have no desire to get into this further. You're a drone, and that's cool and all, but not my thing. Just know that to anyone observing this exchange you got schooled on point after point and all you did is come back with more of the same bullshit I already schooled you on.

You're seriously not worth my time, or really anyone's time. So toodles, noodles.

You flung feces right and left, he answered you point by point, and its' "too long?"

Dumb fucking twat says what?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Tl;DR;ISYA;AYHIRABS

(Too long; didn't read; I already schooled your ass; All You Got is Rhetoric And Bullshit)

Seriously, FezFuck, I have no desire to get into this further. You're a drone, and that's cool and all, but not my thing. Just know that to anyone observing this exchange you got schooled on point after point and all you did is come back with more of the same bullshit I already schooled you on.

You're seriously not worth my time, or really anyone's time. So toodles, noodles.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCq7oQ-dZE"]Brave Sir Robin Fled - YouTube[/ame]

Don't forget to declare victo... oops you already did.

And here I took all that time to answer every one of your blitherings. Well that's a craven liberal for you.

<you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Big Fitz again>

Twat the fuck are you twatting about now, Twat?

 

[Si modo]

Tl;DR;ISYA;AYHIRABS

(Too long; didn't read; I already schooled your ass; All You Got is Rhetoric And Bullshit)

Seriously, FezFuck, I have no desire to get into this further. You're a drone, and that's cool and all, but not my thing. Just know that to anyone observing this exchange you got schooled on point after point and all you did is come back with more of the same bullshit I already schooled you on.

You're seriously not worth my time, or really anyone's time. So toodles, noodles.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgCq7oQ-dZE"]Brave Sir Robin Fled - YouTube[/ame]

Don't forget to declare victo... oops you already did.

And here I took all that time to answer every one of your blitherings. Well that's a craven liberal for you.

<you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Big Fitz again>

C-derp says he wins!

 

[Murf76]

Christ, where do you people get this shit? Learn to evaluate the veracity of the bullshit you're being fed before you regurgitate it.

Go look it up. The Reid/Pelosi Congress passed legislation requiring that medical records for all citizens be electronic by 2014 and gave themselves access ostensibly for "Comparative Effectiveness Research" and Barack Obama SIGNED it into law. That all went down in the Porkulus bill right after he took office.

The HITECH Act doesn't require "that medical records for all citizens be electronic by 2014" (the only such requirement in the United States is a state-level mandate in Minnesota that providers adopt electronic health records by 2015). What HITECH does is allow the federal government to act in its capacity as an insurance company to provide financial incentives--bonus payments--to providers who accept a certain threshold of Medicare or Medicaid payments and start using electronic health records.

It doesn't roll back existing federal or state privacy restrictions on health information.

Here are the words printed in the bill:

(3) STRATEGIC PLAN-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following:

`(i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.

`(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.

(cont...)
Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Oh... and in regulations passed since, they'll be including your BMI. Because the federal government REALLY needs to know how fat you are.
Every American to have an electronic health record with BMI and demographic information - Honolulu health and happiness | Examiner.com

 

[Big Fitz]

Brave Sir Robin Fled - YouTube

Don't forget to declare victo... oops you already did.

And here I took all that time to answer every one of your blitherings. Well that's a craven liberal for you.

<you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Big Fitz again>

Twat the fuck are you twatting about now, Twat?

Him sad. Brain broken.

Edit: I guess he ran away and that means I can use this.

 

[Rinata]

It's the boogeyman, and he is vewy, vewy, scawy.

Been spending time with Willow and Steph???

Are you afraid of the boogeyman, too? It wouldn't surprise me at all. Hacks always are, especially hacks who are morons.

Save your imagined witty comments for the people that appreciate you. All 3 of them. I think you're lame.

 

[Si modo]

Been spending time with Willow and Steph???

Are you afraid of the boogeyman, too? It wouldn't surprise me at all. Hacks always are, especially hacks who are morons.

Save your imagined witty comments for the people that appreciate you. All 3 of them. I think you're lame.

Ah, your blood sugar is low again. Eat some more Twinkies, lardass. Nothing worse than a bitter fatass.

 

[Big Fitz]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

 

[candycorn]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

 

[Si modo]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

You're still afraid of the boogeyman?

God, you are so pathetic. Get a fucking grip, weenie. You must be afraid of your own shadow.

 

[Big Fitz]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

It's that big? Pfft... For radical single issue voters focused like a laser on abortion from both sides.

Fact... it's a minor issue less than 10% of all voters really care about at this time, and is barely a top 10 concern at that.

 

[JoeB131]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

I'm the last person that's going to be defending Romney, whom I think is reprehensible. But I don't think for a moment that at age 60, he came to an epiphany that abortion is wrong. I think that like Bush-41 and Reagan, he simply is playing people and his appointments are just as likely to be moderate on the issue of Roe as not.

Second point- While Scalia and Thomas are likely to see this as a good chance to retire and enjoy their wonder years, Ginsburg and Breir won't. The only real question mark would be Kennedy.

Third- even if Roe were overturned, so what? Do you really think after 40 years of abortion on demand, they are going to shut down all the abortion clinics? Seriously? Abortion is big business. and if Romney is anything, he's never met a big business he didn't like.

 

[candycorn]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

It's that big? Pfft... For radical single issue voters focused like a laser on abortion from both sides.

Wrong...I'm not a single issue voter. I chose to make this a focal point for 2 reasons:

1). It's the truth.
2). It highlights that the Republicans are anything but "hands off" when it comes to personal liberties. They want to regulate the most basic human rights.

There are several other reasons to vote for Obama; this is just one of them.

Fact... it's a minor issue less than 10% of all voters really care about at this time, and is barely a top 10 concern at that.

That's likely because a number of reasons.

Governor Romney is unlikely to be President of anything this time next year.
Nobody really knows where the Governor will land on an issue and are likely unaware of his stance since he's changed it before in the past.
There is, a cause-and-effect dimension to this.

But what it boils down to is this:

If you favor a woman being in charge of her re-productive rights, vote for Obama.
If you favor some law maker somewhere being able to rob a woman of her liberty; you should vote for the Governor.

 

[candycorn]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

I'm the last person that's going to be defending Romney, whom I think is reprehensible. But I don't think for a moment that at age 60, he came to an epiphany that abortion is wrong. I think that like Bush-41 and Reagan, he simply is playing people and his appointments are just as likely to be moderate on the issue of Roe as not.

Second point- While Scalia and Thomas are likely to see this as a good chance to retire and enjoy their wonder years, Ginsburg and Breir won't. The only real question mark would be Kennedy.

Third- even if Roe were overturned, so what? Do you really think after 40 years of abortion on demand, they are going to shut down all the abortion clinics? Seriously? Abortion is big business. and if Romney is anything, he's never met a big business he didn't like.

Ginsburg is 79 and is a cancer survivor.

The GOP tried to outlaw all funding for Title X this past session of Congress. It's rather incongruent to think that gee, the GOP will call off the dogs after they get control of the White House.

 

[Si modo]

Candycorn is sooooo askeered of the Boogeyman!

What a pathetic life she must have.

 

[Big Fitz]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

I'm the last person that's going to be defending Romney, whom I think is reprehensible. But I don't think for a moment that at age 60, he came to an epiphany that abortion is wrong. I think that like Bush-41 and Reagan, he simply is playing people and his appointments are just as likely to be moderate on the issue of Roe as not.

Second point- While Scalia and Thomas are likely to see this as a good chance to retire and enjoy their wonder years, Ginsburg and Breir won't. The only real question mark would be Kennedy.

Third- even if Roe were overturned, so what? Do you really think after 40 years of abortion on demand, they are going to shut down all the abortion clinics? Seriously? Abortion is big business. and if Romney is anything, he's never met a big business he didn't like.

I see. republicans are insincere when they have a change of heart, while when liberals do the same it's a 'natural evolution'.

Nope... no hypocrisy here.

 

[Big Fitz]

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

I'm the last person that's going to be defending Romney, whom I think is reprehensible. But I don't think for a moment that at age 60, he came to an epiphany that abortion is wrong. I think that like Bush-41 and Reagan, he simply is playing people and his appointments are just as likely to be moderate on the issue of Roe as not.

Second point- While Scalia and Thomas are likely to see this as a good chance to retire and enjoy their wonder years, Ginsburg and Breir won't. The only real question mark would be Kennedy.

Third- even if Roe were overturned, so what? Do you really think after 40 years of abortion on demand, they are going to shut down all the abortion clinics? Seriously? Abortion is big business. and if Romney is anything, he's never met a big business he didn't like.

Ginsburg is 79 and is a cancer survivor.

The GOP tried to outlaw all funding for Title X this past session of Congress. It's rather incongruent to think that gee, the GOP will call off the dogs after they get control of the White House.

and poster child for mandatory retirement ages for justices.

 

[candycorn]

I'm the last person that's going to be defending Romney, whom I think is reprehensible. But I don't think for a moment that at age 60, he came to an epiphany that abortion is wrong. I think that like Bush-41 and Reagan, he simply is playing people and his appointments are just as likely to be moderate on the issue of Roe as not.

Second point- While Scalia and Thomas are likely to see this as a good chance to retire and enjoy their wonder years, Ginsburg and Breir won't. The only real question mark would be Kennedy.

Third- even if Roe were overturned, so what? Do you really think after 40 years of abortion on demand, they are going to shut down all the abortion clinics? Seriously? Abortion is big business. and if Romney is anything, he's never met a big business he didn't like.

Ginsburg is 79 and is a cancer survivor.

The GOP tried to outlaw all funding for Title X this past session of Congress. It's rather incongruent to think that gee, the GOP will call off the dogs after they get control of the White House.

and poster child for mandatory retirement ages for justices.

Now that I can agree with. It needs to be implemented in the future so nobody knows who the POTUS would be when it's enacted.

But back to the point; There will likely be 2 vacancies (at least) this upcoming 4 years. Roe is in jeopardy with Romney in the White House.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wrong...I'm not a single issue voter. I chose to make this a focal point for 2 reasons:

1). It's the truth.
2). It highlights that the Republicans are anything but "hands off" when it comes to personal liberties. They want to regulate the most basic human rights.

Don't like the accusation, quit acting like one. Secondly, I can't stand pro-lifers of the same bent who would vote for satan himself if it meant repealing abortion.

The issue for me is simply this. I think abortion is wrong unless it is to protect the life of the mother regardless of the cause of pregnancy. I think it is unconstitutional to mandate this at the FEDERAL level. I believe it is constitutional and up to every state to decide it's own abortion standard on whether it's legal or not. Repealing Roe v. Wade would kick this back down to the states to decide as it should have always been.

That's likely because a number of reasons.

Governor Romney is unlikely to be President of anything this time next year.
Nobody really knows where the Governor will land on an issue and are likely unaware of his stance since he's changed it before in the past.
There is, a cause-and-effect dimension to this.

But what it boils down to is this:

If you favor a woman being in charge of her re-productive rights, vote for Obama.
If you favor some law maker somewhere being able to rob a woman of her liberty; you should vote for the Governor.

I don't see this as likely to happen even IF Romney replaces Kennedy and Ginsburg with conservative judges. They're not going to just pick it up and ram it through without damn good reason. I also think that even if they DID overturn it, it's for the benefit of this nation as it corrects a permitted unconstitutionality, the same way they did when they overturned Jim Crow.

It boils down to this if you want to be glib.

If you believe in constitutionality and states rights, vote for Romney.
If you believe in conception to grave government tyranny in all areas of your life, vote Obama.

 

[Samson]

Damn. Thought I killed this thread when Cderpicus ran for the hills tail between his legs.

Despite the rhetoric; the simple truth remains:

Fact: Governor Romney wishes to overturn Roe. He said so on his website.
Fact: If elected, a President Romney will be likely able to appoint judges who can and will overturn Roe. The liberal and swing-vote on the court that ensure this liberty are advanced in age and will likely be retiring or dying soon.
Fact: If you value a woman's reproductive rights, you should vote for President Obama this November.

It's that simple, and it's that big.

"It's that big" compared to what? Impending economic disaster?

The question is not that pointy headed liberals believe that abortion is a "right" that not only exists, but also is something that deserves to be funded at the federal level: The question is what do Independent voters believe?

Frankly, I haven't seen a groundswell of support among this voting bloc, one way or another regarding the subject.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, then the only person who thinks "it's that big" might be you and a few other's that wish to distract from Obama's record as the biggest amature in office since Jimmy Carter.