So far I meet all of my criteria. So if you want to be an insulting little #######, you better try again.
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
Your plumbing doesn't meet the criteria.
"Men" can be a gender-neutral term, and I assumed whats-his-face meant it in that capacity.
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
:gotcha:
despite the intended goals, i think that anarchy is what you would get with a violent overthrow of the government.
Anarchy is a kid term and there's no reason why overthrowing the government has to be "violent" - we have an opportunity to "overthrow" the government every 2, 4 and 6 years. We have laws in this country and we have a Constitution that has been serving us well since 1787. What we need is a leader, and so far nobody has stepped up to the plate.
And by "leader", I mean a feasible leader who can actually implement changes and get people onboard with it. Barack Obama has done that with the radical Left, so where is the person who will do it for the moderates and the conservatives? Don't look to the GOP because they're a bunch of cowards and don't honor the Constitution any more than Nancy Pelosi does.
Personally, I think the country has gone Left for good and it's too late to turn it back.
firstroundko
Registered Devil Dog
Much talk of revolution and breaking the system.......hmmm.......
I guess it will wait until Monday?
I guess it will wait until Monday?
ylexot
Super Genius
What I'd like to see is a dedicated cable channel...not a news channel, a conservative political channel (you lefties can make your own if you wish). One that is slanted right and not apologetic about it. Talk about what is happening in government...what is right and what is wrong with it.
Have a debate show...not a discussion, a debate. Time limits on what you can say and you can say whatever you want. Time's up, you're cut off (unlike Presidential debates). Your mike is turned off when it's not your turn. Heck, put the two sides in sound-proof boxes so that nobody can hear them when it's not their turn. See if you can get some lefties brave enough to have an actual debate about topics.
Have a Constitution show...pick a piece of the Constitution and discuss it. The history and reasoning behind it as well as the meaning and how it has been twisted/ignored.
Oh, and give the channel a catchy name that dates back to Revolutionary times. Maybe something like the "Sons of Liberty Channel"
Maybe I should suggest that to Steele...
Have a debate show...not a discussion, a debate. Time limits on what you can say and you can say whatever you want. Time's up, you're cut off (unlike Presidential debates). Your mike is turned off when it's not your turn. Heck, put the two sides in sound-proof boxes so that nobody can hear them when it's not their turn. See if you can get some lefties brave enough to have an actual debate about topics.
Have a Constitution show...pick a piece of the Constitution and discuss it. The history and reasoning behind it as well as the meaning and how it has been twisted/ignored.
Oh, and give the channel a catchy name that dates back to Revolutionary times. Maybe something like the "Sons of Liberty Channel"
Maybe I should suggest that to Steele...
Zguy28
New Member
You can do better than that. It wasn't an insult.
No, I meant men. I'm not sure how it can be taken in any other way in the context I was speaking.
I mean, I guess there is a slight chance a woman as politically aware as yourself hadn't ever heard of women's suffrage. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
Indeed you did.:gotcha:
firstroundko
Registered Devil Dog
Everything is left or right on this forum. Am I the only moderate?
ylexot
Super Genius
Everything is relative. You may consider yourself to be a "moderate", but the person just to your left of you might consider you to be a right-wing nutjob zealot and the person to your right might consider you to be a lefty pinko socialist. Nobody knows where the "center" is.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Now, see Larry, when you think of people who are appeasers, this is what you're describing.....
firstroundko
Registered Devil Dog
otter
Nothing to see here
Zguy28
New Member
True.
I've been labeled as both a liberal and a conservative on here by folks. Each time was just for trying to bring clarity and objective fact into the conversation. But hey, I should know better right? After all I grew up here.
chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
I'd like to see and election where people only get 1 vote and you actually have to be alive to have your ballet cast. And don't get me started on ACORN, campaign finance fraud, as well as Main Stream Media manipulating the voting process through personal attacks, smear campaigns, and suppression of questionable information.
Tilted
..
In a specific instance, that may be the case - but I was just explaining the philosophy of our forefathers. And, that wasn't the result the last time around.
ylexot
Super Genius
True, but last time around, people were able to survive on their own. There are a whole lot of people with zero survival skills right now.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You've entirely misrepresented her point, which seems to be your forte.Vrai cant help it, she likes to complain about lack of representation by her Government while in the same breath thinks its a good thing to remove representation for everyone that doesnt drink the same flavor koolaid as herself.
There is no such thing as a "wrong" candidate in our political system. The people that finally appear on the ballot in November have spent years trying to get their names on there. An excellent politician may have common sense and good diplomacy skills and may not be the brightest bulb in the box.
An IQ test would be the quickest way to ensure that the nation gets fired up about voting- after all, many of the people don't realize the rights they could enjoy until they get taken away. If you hold an IQ test, or rather any kind of test, people will be in the streets staging a coup against the elitist group that thought it up.
Which brings up the point- how would you feel if there was a test set up to keep you from voting? Or a fee? Or a fine? What leads people to believe that they are better than anybody else, and that their opinion is worth more?
This has nothing to do with robbing representation, nor a fee, and how in the world did you come up with a fine?
Your skills at misdirection of people's points is beyond compare. This doesn't even have anything to do with believing one point of view is better than another nor that hers is worth more than someone else's.DJ, I'm sorry if I'm speaking out of turn here, but I believe that your point was that people should have a clue of both how government works and what's going on before they should be allowed to have a hand in it.
Take, for example, Chris Matthews laughing at Gov. Palin for suggesting that the Constitutionally stated purpose of the Vice President is to be President of the Senate. I mean, after all, he's CHRIS MOTHER####ING MATTHEWS, for goodness sake, and she can't run that BS past him!! Well, except that she's right. And, if you notice, no liberally biased reporter corrected him - only conservative and independantly minded ones.
Meanwhile, the majority of voters who knew so little about how things work, and what was the current state of the nation, voted one way, while the people who had a clue voted another.. This implies that there is a direct corrolation between knowledge of government and current governmental affairs and how one votes.
What I understood Vrai to be suggesting is that voters should have a clue before voting. Not a test to keep people from being represented, but a test to ensure that people are voting for the representation, not the hype.
I don't personally see a problem with it. We have amendments to the Constitution to ensure that age, gender, race, and income cannot be a bar to voting, but not ignorance. Ignorance SHOULD BE a bar to voting, IMHO.
otter
Nothing to see here
You've entirely misrepresented her point, which seems to be your forte.
This has nothing to do with robbing representation, nor a fee, and how in the world did you come up with a fine?
DJ, I'm sorry if I'm speaking out of turn here, but I believe that your point was that people should have a clue of both how government works and what's going on before they should be allowed to have a hand in it.
Take, for example, Chris Matthews laughing at Gov. Palin for suggesting that the Constitutionally stated purpose of the Vice President is to be President of the Senate. I mean, after all, he's CHRIS MOTHER####ING MATTHEWS, for goodness sake, and she can't run that BS past him!! Well, except that she's right. And, if you notice, no liberally biased reporter corrected him - only conservative and independantly minded ones.
Meanwhile, the majority of voters who knew so little about how things work, and what was the current state of the nation, voted one way, while the people who had a clue voted another.. This implies that there is a direct corrolation between knowledge of government and current governmental affairs and how one votes.
What I understood Vrai to be suggesting is that voters should have a clue before voting. Not a test to keep people from being represented, but a test to ensure that people are voting for the representation, not the hype.
I don't personally see a problem with it. We have amendments to the Constitution to ensure that age, gender, race, and income cannot be a bar to voting, but not ignorance. Ignorance SHOULD BE a bar to voting, IMHO.
You forgot to give him the 