Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... Last
[#] Wed Sep 04 2013 15:54:37 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

Subject: Sic transit glorria mundi...

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Wed Sep 04 2013 12:34:23 PDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

So ... where are all the self-righteous anti-war types who lambasted George Bush over Iraq? Why are they not surrounding the White House with torches and pitchforks to protest Ba'raq Saddam Hussein Osama Obama Hitler's invasion of Syria?

The kenyan muslim is sending other people's kids to die in his jihad, and the media, academia, and hitlerwood are giving him a free pass?

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???

Here are the rules:

1. if you criticize Obama  you are obviously a racist.

2. if you criticized George W. Bush you were obviously a member of the Intelligent Elite.

The lib-turds are on the verge of stealing the United States, with a "Republican" party that is becoming more spineless by each passing day.

I have but one thought that comforts me:

"The Second Amendment is the Warranty in case the First Amendment breaks!"



[#] Wed Sep 04 2013 17:04:11 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It is different when the democrats do it. You don't understand Obama's nuance.
John Kerry was for the Iraq war before he was against it, naturally he is going to be for the Syrian war before
he will be against it.

[#] Wed Sep 04 2013 18:00:09 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In a couple of months, MSNBC will be telling us that the war in Syria has always been unpopular with the American people and it is clearly George Bush's fault. Because, y'know, he started the war without congressional backing, in 2013 when he wasn't even President anymore.

The liberal media needs to be rounded up and burned alive, followed by everyone in liberal academia.

[#] Wed Sep 04 2013 18:00:49 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Now, for the 14 Trillion Dollar Question:

** WHAT ARE THEY DISTRACTING US FROM? **


[#] Wed Sep 04 2013 18:52:46 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Everything the government does is a distraction from everything else the government does.

[#] Wed Sep 04 2013 20:31:57 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sep 4 2013 3:00pm from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics
& Propaganda>

Now, for the 14 Trillion Dollar Question:

** WHAT ARE THEY DISTRACTING US FROM? **




1. Benghazi and Hillary.
2. The impending full implementation of O-Bammy-Care
3. The IRS scandal
4. Snowden, the NSA, and the associated controversies

It is ALL about the midterm elections. Period. The Democrap hold on the Senate through 2014 is, at best, tenuous and that scares the shit out of them. The thought of a Republican House, and a Republican controlled Senate throws all sorts of panic attacks into the West Wing.

You see, there are just enough disgruntled Democrats in the Senate that O-Bammy just might *not* survive an impeachment trial.

So the remaining Democrap "leaders" in the Senate might get to make that visit to the White House to give O-Bammy that "Richard Nixon" Come-To-Jesus talk...

Yeah.

I know.

Wishful thinking...

[#] Thu Sep 05 2013 16:04:43 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It is ALL about the midterm elections. Period. The Democrap hold on
the Senate through 2014 is, at best, tenuous and that scares the shit

out of them. The thought of a Republican House, and a Republican
controlled Senate throws all sorts of panic attacks into the West Wing.



You see, there are just enough disgruntled Democrats in the Senate
that O-Bammy just might *not* survive an impeachment trial.

The democrap hold on the senate in 2008 was perceived to be "tenuous at best" and yet they not only held on to the Senate, but also managed to keep Benghazi Barry in the White House. Voters are easily swayed by the socialist communist America-hating media -- lots of different figures on this but by some estimates the media commies can swing a vote by up to 40%.

Forget about impeachment. Truckloads of shame would be heaped upon anyone who even came close to suggesting it, asserting that they only want to impeach Obama because of his race.

[#] Thu Sep 05 2013 19:01:41 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Forget about impeachment. Truckloads of shame would be heaped upon
anyone who even came close to suggesting it, asserting that they only

want to impeach Obama because of his race.



Noting for the record that you conveniently did *not* quote my "Wishful thinking" final line in that message...

Forget about impeachment? Yes, I know that.
And I am full-on quite well aware that this president has the means, the motivation, and the desire to create his own version of the Reichstag Fire to perpetuate his hold on the reigns of power. My fear is not in whether the democraps will hold the senate, my fear is what we may end up having to do in order to remove this "president" once his current term is up. Mark my words, he will *not* leave voluntarily; he *will* conjure up an excuse for martial law prior to the next presidential election (Nov 2016) which will then be put "on hold."

Sic transit gloria mundi...

[#] Thu Sep 05 2013 20:54:42 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nah, I don't think Obamae ever wanted to be President. He was pushed into it by others or just wanted to see if
he could bullshit his way into it. He hates the job, the Michelle hates being first lady.

The left was saying that "King George" was going to create some event to hang on to power at the end of Bush's
term, it sounded silly to me. Obama creating some event to hang on to power sounds just as silly to me.

[#] Fri Sep 06 2013 12:13:28 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

term, it sounded silly to me. Obama creating some event to hang on to power
sounds just as silly to me.

Doesn't sound silly to me.

George W was painted as a power-hungry brute by the liberal media. Benghazi Barry actually *is* a power-hungry brute. This is the guy who brought Chicago style thuggery into the White House for the first time. He truly believes that it is his job to "fundamentally transform" America and he considers it perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal to get there.

He might cede the office to Hitlery Cunton, but if a Republican wins the election (which would mean that the American people had finally become so pissed off that the vote was won by a margin larger than the Democraps' ability to cheat, and larger by the media's ability to swing it) then it's certainly possible that Barry will pull out all the Chicago-style stops to make sure he doesn't have to step down.

And for that, he should be taken down in the same manner the Syrian rebels he's funding are taking down their unwanted officials: with chemical weapons.

[#] Fri Sep 06 2013 12:29:35 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


He might cede the office to Hitlery Cunton, but if a Republican wins

the election (which would mean that the American people had finally
become so pissed off that the vote was won by a margin larger than the

Democraps' ability to cheat, and larger by the media's ability to swing

it) then it's certainly possible that Barry will pull out all the
Chicago-style stops to make sure he doesn't have to step down.


As I said:

The Second Amendment is the Warranty in case the First Amendment breaks.

Here is a website that is truly worth a visit:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

[#] Sat Sep 07 2013 07:21:01 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Local politicians discuss their felony arrests:
http://goo.gl/JItjjj

Lying cheating and stealing is requirements of both jobs, is this a vertical or horizontal job change?

[#] Sun Sep 08 2013 19:56:01 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


They're all terrible.

We need voting reform. Significant voting reform.

[#] Sun Sep 08 2013 21:26:13 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sun Sep 08 2013 16:56:01 PDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

They're all terrible.

We need voting reform. Significant voting reform.

Perhaps not a reform, but a return to our roots.

In the early days of our Republic, in order to vote one had to have been an owner of real estate.

Sounds like a plan.



[#] Mon Sep 09 2013 00:09:00 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Someone I know once suggested that perhaps the right to vote should be associated with paying taxes -- everyone gets one vote per dollar of taxes paid that year.

Before rearing back with the "it favors teh rich!!!1" reaction, think about it.

* Elected officials approve taxation and decide how the money is spent, so shouldn't taxpayers be treated like shareholders?

* This seems like the only way to end the Tytler cycle. Parasites continuing to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury will eventually collapse any economy.

* Cheating on your taxes? Taking advantage of loopholes? Well you get less voting power then.


I like it. You either have skin in the game or you don't.

[#] Mon Sep 09 2013 00:45:10 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think my dad had it right:

"All politicians should be limited to two terms.

One in office followed by one in prison."



[#] Mon Sep 09 2013 07:42:54 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


No, I really mean it when I said voting reform.

Regardless of whether or not the people allowed to vote are land-owners or tax-payers in a weighted system, our current system mathematically leads to two parties and gerrymandering, and consequently fails to best represent the will of the people.

In fact, given the weird strategies our current system encourages, there is a chance it fails to even represent the general will of the people.

The last four presidential elections should be evidence enough of this.

[#] Mon Sep 09 2013 09:33:27 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Are you suggesting a system that leads to something other than winner-take-all, or a system other than one-voter-one-vote?

[#] Mon Sep 09 2013 12:30:12 EDT from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I have long thought (mostly to myself) that it might be a Good Thing if the US were to convert our legislative/executive system to something more akin to the British parliamentary form.

Here's the rough idea:

1. keep the existing President, convert the Presidency to a 12 year term, powers mostly ceremonial. Eliminate the Vice Presidency entirely - will not be needed.

2. House of Representatives to be modelled after the British House of Commons - majority party elects a Prime Minister - Prime Minister to hold the powers currently associated with POTUS (see item #1 for changes in that office). Election of House members to follow on a vote of No Confidence in the prime minister, as in Britain.

3. Senate - remains as is; roughly equivalent to British House of Lords, mostly ceremonial, but will retain the "Advise and Consent" role in the existing powers of the Senate specifically in re treaties and appointments, with the exception of the Prime Minister's Cabinet, which will NOT be subject to Senate confirmation.

Like I said - rough and off the top of my head - but it might be an improvement of the crap we currently have. And hopefully move the power in our federal government back to the people.

[#] Mon Sep 09 2013 15:49:07 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

Go to page: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... Last