ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
You ever think maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, even the republicans have had enough of the Bush's? No matter how much money he raises.

Now, hopefully the dems will follow and not fall for Clinton.

Still holding out hope for either Rubio or kasich to really make some inroads. And for walker to not go too damn crazy on the abortion talk (may be too late for that tho).
 
Clinton, GWB/Cheney, BO, Pelosi, McConnell, Biden, Reid, Boehner, Trump, HRC, Sanders, Cruz......and we are supposed to be the world leader.
 
Clinton, GWB/Cheney, BO, Pelosi, McConnell, Biden, Reid, Boehner, Trump, HRC, Sanders, Cruz......and we are supposed to be the world leader.
Kinda unfair to lump Boehner into that group. He's competent; his issue is all of the feral cats he's having to herd.
 
So a non-believer promotes this theory.

Interesting.

From CNN:

CNN: Why do people need religion?

De Waal: Well, that's a good question. I'm struggling with that. I'm personally a nonbeliever, so I'm struggling with if we really need religion. ... I'm from the Netherlands, where 60% of the people are nonbelievers. So in northern Europe, there are actually experiments going on now with societies that are more secular, to see if we can maintain a moral society that way, and for the moment I would say that experiment is going pretty well. ... Personally I think it is possible to build a society that is moral on a nonreligious basis, but the jury is still out on that.
What does his belief or lack there of have to do with what is observable behavior in primates?

Why do morals matter if not for religion?

Why not just do what you want and the heck with everybody else: ie, "I got mine"?
The articles are explaining why a society can't function that way.

Why can't religion have evolved from us evolving? It makes sense if you allow yourself to think about it.



And Trump won the debate.
 
Kinda unfair to lump Boehner into that group. He's competent; his issue is all of the feral cats he's having to herd.
I used to say that as well but he is NEVER on offense. Refuse to believe a chain smoker and really good golfer is much of a worker tbh.
 
So, is Ferguson gonna burn again?

Man critically wounded after protest marking 1 year anniversary of Brown's death. Man fired at police, but some protesters are not happy with how they escalated it by 1) being plain clothes (?) 2) how aggressive/abusive they were, and 3) lack of help provided afterwards.

I can understand 3, but not the other 2 (assuming the perp did fire at the police).
 
Last edited:
Trump is killing it and Republican establishment folks are whining that he is destroying the party...LOL.
I think the Donald ends up running as a third party...his ego will not be easily satisfied.
 
FALSE x1000.
The fact that he's held his party together over these past 6-8 years is nothing short of remarkable and he'll never get credit for it. Back in 2010, we were talking about the Tea Party becoming a legitimate, distinct political party that was going to supplant the Republicans as a whole and throw us into a new political era a la the Whig split/destruction. Not only has Boehner kept the TP caucus under the tent, he's actually kept the party as a whole in power.
 
John Boehner is a Moderate that dislikes Conservative Republicans just like the left. Screw him.
John Boehner also doesn't want the Republican Party to be out of power for the next 20yrs. You can send Rand Pauls, Ted Cruzes, and Michelle Bachmans to DC all you want, but you're not going to win chamber majorities, much less the WH, without guys like Boehner tugging on the reins
 
John Boehner also doesn't want the Republican Party to be out of power for the next 20yrs. You can send Rand Pauls, Ted Cruzes, and Michelle Bachmans to DC all you want, but you're not going to win chamber majorities, much less the WH, without guys like Boehner tugging on the reins
Lol, so if you want to stay in power act like a Democrat.... not really much of an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drawing_dead
John Boehner also doesn't want the Republican Party to be out of power for the next 20yrs. You can send Rand Pauls, Ted Cruzes, and Michelle Bachmans to DC all you want, but you're not going to win chamber majorities, much less the WH, without guys like Boehner tugging on the reins
Boehner is not a strong leader. Republicans needed both he and McConnell to lose their leadership positions, unfortunately that didn't happen. When Republicans in the House tried they felt his wrath. Personally don't see Boehner as that much of an asset when it comes to Republicans winning elections.
 
Lol, so if you want to stay in power act like a Democrat.... not really much of an option.
Wtf are you even talking about? How many Senators has the TP been able to get to DC? Hell, even their high-water mark was only 60 congressmen.

There simply are not enough states and districts willing to support a TP platform. The numbers aren't there, nor are they even close to being there.
 
Boehner is not a strong leader. Republicans needed both he and McConnell to lose their leadership positions, unfortunately that didn't happen. When Republicans in the House tried they felt his wrath. Personally don't see Boehner as that much of an asset when it comes to Republicans winning elections.

The conservative's biggest problem is being outnumbered given the current state of the national media and our education system. IMHO.
 
Trump is killing it and Republican establishment folks are whining that he is destroying the party...LOL.
I think the Donald ends up running as a third party...his ego will not be easily satisfied.

He and every candidate in the GOP is still head and shoulders above Bernie and Hillary in deserving of that office.
 
Jamo is very correct in Boehner keeping the caucus together, especially considering the GOP allows dissent much more than the dems (160k protest petition to Schumer, btw, for opposing the Iran deal). What Boehner, has not done is push legislation and ideas hard enough that have public support.
 
So I haven't listened to the news for a bit. Can someone catch me up on the new Ferguson stuff? From what I am hearing there was a protestor that shot at the police and the police shot him in return? Someone above me mentioned that the Justice Department condemned the Ferguson police for shooting someone else but didn't know that the protestor sot at the police first? Or did they know the protestor shot at the police first and still condemned it?
 
Jamo is very correct in Boehner keeping the caucus together, especially considering the GOP allows dissent much more than the dems (160k protest petition to Schumer, btw, for opposing the Iran deal). What Boehner, has not done is push legislation and ideas hard enough that have public support.
I don't disagree with that, however that PR problem is as much an RNC problem as a House problem. A lot of the worst press has come from Cruz and some of the now defeated TP candidates.

Edit: Misread that second part. What legislation are you referencing?
 
She didnt condemn the police, I don't think.

I heard a bite on the radio that sounded like she did. Reading it, however, cleared it up for me.

Something along the lines of I condemn the violence against the community, and the police officers. On the radio it sounded like I condemn the violence against the community and condemn the police officers.
 
They did interview a random protester who said having the police in plain clothing escalated the situation. I'm sure having them all decked out in riot gear would have been much better. /roll eyes/.

THere is also a video of the man on the ground with a women begging them to help him because he was/is still alive. I haven't watched it, so I'm not sure if they ever did help.
 
In unrelated news, action in Turkey continues to heat up. Four separate instances so far today (one against the US consulate in Istanbul), killing at least six police/military.
 
It will be horrible for the country, but when all is said and done, I think HRC will be the next President. First woman and first Santa Claus..

If this country is dumb enough to elect Clinton after everything she's done, we deserve whatever happens to us. This country seems more like the movie Idiocracy every day.

16 years of Obama and Hillary will be impossible to ever overcome.
 
If this country is dumb enough to elect Clinton after everything she's done, we deserve whatever happens to us. This country seems more like the movie Idiocracy every day.

16 years of Obama and Hillary will be impossible to ever overcome.
Agree totally, but when killing innocent life and selling the body parts dosen't turn stomach and make you angry what kind of country have we become...whatever happened to the party of JFK..
 
Again, what in the Bible do you find so offensive and gets such a hostile reaction with terms like "radical Christians" and right wing nuts?

I didn't say anything about using the Bible as law. I just want to know why there's such issue from the left when Christians come up. Is it strictly the gay and abortion issue because I fail to see anything else that can be considered "bad" by the left and I certainly don't think making sure 3% of the population feels validated over their sexual preference as reason to be so hostile.

I'm not on the traditional left, but my issue is many think we ALL should live by the rules in their magic book. I think the magic book is a pile of crap, so I don't really want my legislation based on it. I already know not to murder, rape and steal (Don't use the abortion excuse. I don't have a vagina, therefore I will abort zero babies) because I'm a decent dude. Not because I'm scared of an eternal lake of fire.

Marriage equality is one issue where Christians are trying to save everyone's soul. Just follow your rituals and not worry about what others do in their private lives. <--- bolded part is why I can't stand social conservatives.

Why do (some) Christians care where their neighbor puts his dick? If you don't like being gay, don't be gay.
Why do (some) Christians wanna promote abstinence only sex education? I wanna bang, and I ain't waiting until I'm stuck with her forever.
Why do (some) Christians wanna outlaw gambling and drinking? I wanna get shitfaced and play some blackjack, let me do it.
Why do (some) Christians wanna demonize people of other faiths or no faiths at all? Religious freedom, remember?
 
Last edited:
Do you mean like the things Isis & Iran (Obama's buddies) do?...Beheading children, women(raping also), killing people because they believe different...You mean those kinds of murders. I'm assuming you are saying America does this kind of stuff. Please tell me if America is so evil then why is it when there is a disaster or crisis in the world that those(even if they hate us) will call on this great country to bail them out? It is sad that evil exist in the world , but it exist because we have to choose where we stand. War is necessary sometimes in the face of this evil and innocent people die. But when things like 911...or this country is attacked...what do you want to happen?. If we hadn't dropped the bombs on Japan where do you think "your" country would be today?. That probably saved millions of lives.
The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam, ISIS, etc are all a result of previous and current administrations. We have been involved in the murder of millions of innocent lives either directly or indirectly going back as far as Eisenhower.
 
I was being a little heartless there myself. I'm sorry... I think abortion is murder and I simple can't understand that if you are smart enough to know what the act of sex can create then why not be RESPONSIBLE enough to go to PP and get FREE birth control in the first place.

I agree with you here. I always used protection (that I supplied) until I got married and was prepared for the possibility of having a child if I didn't wrap it up . I am not an abortion fan. I just know it will still happen even if "illegal"
 

DWS knows damn good and well what socialism is, as DNC chair she was trying to protect Sanders - hey that's her job and that's the ugly side of politics, but Chis was right for pushing the point with her.

At any rate what DWS says or doesn't say has nothing to do with the point I made that people on the right slinging the word "socialist" around have no clue as to it's meaning. The way they are using the word any type of government program such as social security, or unemployed is "socialism" of course by that definition, every industrialized country on the face of the earth is "socialistic".

The short definition of socialism is economic planning or IOW, an economic system whereby the government owns or controls the production facilities. A socialistic economic system such as what you have in Cuba is the antithesis of a free enterprise system like we have in the US, Germany, Japan, France, Australia etc. Neither Obama nor Clinton support that and be definition are not socialists. Sanders does want to move in that direction which is why I could never vote for him and why IMO he is unelectable in a general election.

All industrialized countries, even China feature a combination of a market based economy and government social programs. Some obviously are more oriented in one direction than the other. The U.S. is more oriented towards free enterprise than most if not all the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDcatfan13
From each according to his ability, To each according to his need . . . that's either a near quote or very low percentage paraphrase. Either way, interpreted from Father Marx's 19th century socialist dogma that has been applied in many forms and has failed, and failed, and failed, yet with no hesitation from future advocates that they will be the ones to get it right. My favorite presentation of this phenomenon is from the character James Taggart, Dagny's brother, who concedes the method's failure in Ms. Rand's epic work but not without defending his failed socialist actions by angrily demanding: We were trying to do the right thing anyway!!!

And so here we have in this amusing thread anonymous participants who challenge the ability to recognize or even define the existence of socialism. Sure thing - how neat. To the man who is hell bent in his life to depend on only himself the very basics of socialism is as easy to identify as the very nose on his own face. But to the man who is willing to depend, willing to concede that others must be in need to depend, willing to require others to depend, socialism is a part of his nature (not his enemy) and therefore identifying it as separate from his own existence is unnatural.

This Obama character, let's just be perfectly clear about this, he is bent on massing this population into dependency. You pathetic people need him and the shit he peddles. You aren't smart enough or capable enough to achieve the things that you require on your own, nor can you be counted upon to do these things for the people who depend on you. You need Obama to take from others according to their ability, and provide to each of you losers according to your need. (much cynicism in that last paragraph)

KopiKat - please refer to my reply to sluggercatfan above - same subject.
 
^I don't expect a president (or candidate) to know everything. In fact, I really dislike it when they don't know and start spouting off some tip-toe political answer just because they think they have to give you one.

For once it would be refreshing if a candidate said something like the following, "Hey, my background is as a lawyer....and as a former millitary personnel. I don't know a ton about healthcare but when president I am going to surround myself with a few prominent members of the healthcare community that can help steer me in the right direction......as a matter of fact, one guy that I like and trust is John Doe who is a surgeon at John's Hopkins. I would love for him to be a trusted advisor of mine because I think he has some great ideas about healthcare. Please view my website about some of his ideas that I would like to implement."

there was a candidate like that. his name was ron paul. sadly, he was not elected.
 
The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam, ISIS, etc are all a result of previous and current administrations. We have been involved in the murder of millions of innocent lives either directly or indirectly going back as far as Eisenhower.
What are your feelings about the hatred those people feel about America and the hatred they have for our way of life and the determination to wipe out Israel...Energy independence for America would go a long way to stop some of this stuff, but I'm guessing that unless it is green energy wouldn't be in favor of that
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingOfBBN
With what little I know now I would possibly vote for these candidates:

Rubio
Kasich
Trump
Fiorina
Carson



The best possibility as of now would probably be Kasich with VP Rubio.

Obviously early but that's where I stand now.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT