Nice,Palin cant win this arguement

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
Nice we have gone from retarded people trashing Palin to liberal bias in college. Wow and I did not even start it this time. That has to be a first for me. :)

Can we all agree that Palin is a hottie, and if elected president would be the best looking president we ever had? Even a lib dude could live with that:eek:
 
J

James NM

Audioholic
Virtually every college I've ever encountered or attended, have pushed the liberal left side since the late 60's. Having talked to their students/graduates, they have been so inculcated with left-wing liberal pablum that it's a miracle any free thought survived ...
I'd be interested to know the college as well. Higher education is dominated by liberals, and I've never heard anyone say that they were indoctrinated with conservative values while attending college.
 
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
I'd be interested to know the college as well. Higher education is dominated by liberals, and I've never heard anyone say that they were indoctrinated with conservative values while attending college.
Conservative bias in college. Ahh if it were only the norm.:D
 
Matt34

Matt34

Moderator
Oldie but goodie(it's been edited so it's relevent to today's issues) on the entire political mess we find ourselves in and why:

545 vs 300,000,000

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
 
Nemo128

Nemo128

Audioholic Field Marshall
As for your job, you said work for the government, don't you? If so, that would be a matter of survival. Would you really bite the hand that feeds you?
I went to NJIT. While I'm sure there are more instructors that push left-wing agendas employed there, I made it a point to take people who don't push their agendas in class. The second someone would say "we're destroying the planet" or "abortion is wrong because god says so" or "dey took ar jarbz" or "we have a responsibility to create opportunities", I would walk away.

As for my job, I really don't get what you mean, but I'll address what you want to know.

Can we all agree that Palin is a hottie
She's pretty MILFtastic, she (I think) knows how to handle a rifle, and she's willing to kick some tail. Everyone has their good qualities, I'm sure she has more, and I don't care what she's got written on her hand. :D
 
Nemo128

Nemo128

Audioholic Field Marshall
Oldie but goodie(it's been edited so it's relevent to today's issues) on the entire political mess we find ourselves in and why:
It's all true, but in the end, those 545 people would be replaced by another 545 self-serving nitwits. You could pick them from any place you want, the fact is people server their own interests first and the interests of other second IF at all. The only real solution?....................

anarchy. :D
 
Nemo128

Nemo128

Audioholic Field Marshall
At the risk of pissing off some libs, I say AMEN!!! to that brother.
You did notice he used the word "all", right? I don't see any party bias there. Voting them out would be kind compared to the things I consider...
 
J

James NM

Audioholic
It's all true, but in the end, those 545 people would be replaced by another 545 self-serving nitwits. You could pick them from any place you want, the fact is people server their own interests first and the interests of other second IF at all. The only real solution?....................

anarchy. :D
I think you could go to a mall or a major sporting event and randomly pick 545 office eligible citizens and it would be an improvement over what we have now. Would they eventually become corrupted like the present batch of vermin? Maybe ... probably. But that problem could be solved with two little words:
Term Limits
 
J

James NM

Audioholic
You did notice he used the word "all", right? I don't see any party bias there. Voting them out would be kind compared to the things I consider...
Hell yes I noticed the word "all". Party bias? I guess I don't understand what you are saying. I'm not a party hack. Get rid of all of them, and good riddance.
 
Nemo128

Nemo128

Audioholic Field Marshall
Term Limits
Term limits would guarantee the nitwits get removed eventually, BUT hypothetically speaking, let's say you get a representative that ideally represents you. That is the point of elected representatives, to represent the people, and whether we individually like it or not, some of our elected representatives represent some of our people. But I digress...

So, how would you feel about term limits at that point if in the next election, the candidates for replacing that rep are by your definition completely unacceptable? I'm not denouncing or advocating either approach, just food for thought. The moment I accept one way of functioning as gospel, I'll go skydiving without a parachute.

Get rid of all of them, and good riddance.
Hell yeah. But I'd love to see it taken even farther. :p

EDIT: Another thread I'm in is making me consider the use of killer whales...
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Oldie but goodie(it's been edited so it's relevent to today's issues) on the entire political mess we find ourselves in and why:
I think they should be made to clean up their own mess by a specific deadline and of not, they're gone.

I also think more people need to know that Congress' approval rating is about 10%. Then, more discussion needs to be held about why they're still in office if we approve of so little of them and what they do.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It's all true, but in the end, those 545 people would be replaced by another 545 self-serving nitwits. You could pick them from any place you want, the fact is people server their own interests first and the interests of other second IF at all. The only real solution?....................

anarchy. :D
Not if the voters make it known that they need to watch their azz. The problem with this is that nobody will want to be elected if they can't get all of the perks that have been available, historically. The ones who go out and say "I'm here for you, the American public" will be basically ineffective or totally clueless about how the system works. Not that how the system works is good, but they have to understand that in order to get anything done while they're still young enough to remember what they said they would do.
 
J

James NM

Audioholic
... BUT hypothetically speaking, let's say you get a representative that ideally represents you.
I have a really good imagination, but you lost me with that one!;) Wouldn't that be like going to the local convenience store, buying a cup of joe, and winning the MegaMillons lottery, without buying a ticket?


So, how would you feel about term limits at that point if in the next election, the candidates for replacing that rep are by your definition completely unacceptable?
I think some people reject term limits (I know I used to - before I became so jaded) because they are afraid they might loose a good politician (funny, but I haven't seen those two words used together like that lately - I think it would be considered an oxymoron currently). Look at the ridiculous elected officials we currently endure without term limits. Because of this, people are afraid if they accidentally found a good one, they might loose them to term limits. But if we had term limits, I believe it would improve the quality of our elected officials - across the spectrum.

What we need are citizen legislators - just like the founder's wanted.

In short, I believe term limits would make it more likely our elected politicians would serve the people, rather than themselves and their parties.


Another thread I'm in is making me consider the use of killer whales
Sounds like animal cruelty to me.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Ninja
Is there anyone here that wouldn't jump to the defense of their mother, daughter, or their child?
And the former Governor of Alaska with an adult DS child should consider defending them as soon as Family Guy says something bad about them.

The adult woman with down-syndrom who voiced the character has not had her mother say anything I am aware of.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Ninja
Term limits would guarantee the nitwits get removed eventually, BUT hypothetically speaking, let's say you get a representative that ideally represents you. That is the point of elected representatives, to represent the people, and whether we individually like it or not, some of our elected representatives represent some of our people. But I digress...
When I come to power: I'm outlawing concecutive terms. It allows long-term service, but discourages campaigning while on-the-job and reduces the incumbent-problem.

EDIT: Another thread I'm in is making me consider the use of killer whales...
I hope Palin doesn't have a child that's a killer whale... she'll have to speak out about your post now.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
I like Palin. I think she's a very nice lady just trying to help where she can. Nobody's perfect, but she's clearly been overly attacked by the liberal part of our media. She was kind of dragged into the limelight before she was ready, but unlike the other guy(who's in office) she gets attacked on stuff that isn't our business. Teenagers have a mind of their own and routinely do stupid things. Still I'd like to see her kids get a chance to get a little older before mommy becomes a presidential candidate. I have a feeling she'll be the main opponent in 2012 and she'd be far better than any other person mentioned on that side of the isle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top