The General Politics Thread

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:04 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Yeah, conservatives really care about cutting the debt and reducing the size of government.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/15/30 ... grant.html

Quote:

“When it benefits their philosophical ideology, everything is fine,” Hensley said. “Where it doesn’t fit in or goes against them — either from a policy or political standpoint — then the federal money isn’t OK.”

Honestly, I just find the program fucking stupid. If a couple can't get their act together enough to decide on their own that they want to get married or afford the $90 certificate maybe they aren't ready to be married. Why use federal money for a stupid program while also losing out on the revenue which the licenses provide?

On the other and, if a couple can't get their act together enough to have a decent income, the savings and assets necessary to purchase a home, maybe they aren't ready for home ownership.

Trying to improve people's lives and encourage the economy, albeit ill-advised and poorly timed, is different than simply passing an agenda to reinstate or call forth some bygone age where marriages thrived and everything was peachy. Encouraging marriage to battle poverty is a non sequitur. Encouraging women to marry men or men to marry women whom they don't get along with for financial reasons could only be ideological.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:06 pm

Speaking thereof, this made me curse earlier this evening -

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0 ... 70,00.html

Rather than one partner be miserable, why not make both miserable, just so your outdated ideology is satisfied!

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:17 pm

Goat wrote:

Speaking thereof, this made me curse earlier this evening -

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0 ... 70,00.html

Rather than one partner be miserable, why not make both miserable, just so your outdated ideology is satisfied!

Fucking stupid.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:17 am

Yes, but nobody is forcing them to get hitched.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:22 am

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

traptunderice wrote:

Yeah, conservatives really care about cutting the debt and reducing the size of government.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/15/30 ... grant.html

Quote:

“When it benefits their philosophical ideology, everything is fine,” Hensley said. “Where it doesn’t fit in or goes against them — either from a policy or political standpoint — then the federal money isn’t OK.”

Honestly, I just find the program fucking stupid. If a couple can't get their act together enough to decide on their own that they want to get married or afford the $90 certificate maybe they aren't ready to be married. Why use federal money for a stupid program while also losing out on the revenue which the licenses provide?

On the other and, if a couple can't get their act together enough to have a decent income, the savings and assets necessary to purchase a home, maybe they aren't ready for home ownership.

Trying to improve people's lives and encourage the economy, albeit ill-advised and poorly timed, is different than simply passing an agenda to reinstate or call forth some bygone age where marriages thrived and everything was peachy. Encouraging marriage to battle poverty is a non sequitur. Encouraging women to marry men or men to marry women whom they don't get along with for financial reasons could only be ideological.

Yeah, and look where that got us...

Why do you assume that it is an "agenda"? I see nothing wrong with trying to bring parents together as a family.
When it is somethimng that you like it is "trying to improve people's lives", but when it is something that goes against your belief system it is an "agenda"... why do you assume that the intentions are not good intentions in the marriage deal?
Or is it just the notion of the traditional, nuclear family that chaps your hide?

stevelovesmoonspell · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:51 am

What does comrade have against the nuclear family, I understand gay marriage and that- but what the hell is the issue with the average American family? Does Trapt want state regulation of children now?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:55 am

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

What does comrade have against the nuclear family, I understand gay marriage and that- but what the hell is the issue with the average American family? Does Trapt want state regulation of children now?

What's funny is that the state apparently refused $31.5 million (actually, it refused Obammycare) and accepted $6 over three years, and the byline is "Yeah, conservatives really care about cutting the debt and reducing the size of government"... well, the difference between 31.5 and 6 is 25.5, so...
:lol:

Not that I think the federal gov should be funding any of this, but I'd rather see it go towards promoting the nuclear family than it being flushed down the toilet via some failed social leg-up program.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:46 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

What does comrade have against the nuclear family, I understand gay marriage and that- but what the hell is the issue with the average American family? Does Trapt want state regulation of children now?

What's funny is that the state apparently refused $31.5 million (actually, it refused Obammycare) and accepted $6 over three years, and the byline is "Yeah, conservatives really care about cutting the debt and reducing the size of government"... well, the difference between 31.5 and 6 is 25.5, so...

Claiming the debt needs to be eliminated while accepting six million is hypocritical. It doesn't matter if they took less money. They took money in light of railing against spending altogether.

I have nothing against the nuclear family. I just think that sometimes women get pregnant by men that aren't good for them. There is no reason to try to force a marriage which neither individual benefits from solely for the idea of marriage as being what God wants.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:21 pm

traptunderice wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

stevelovesmoonspell wrote:

What does comrade have against the nuclear family, I understand gay marriage and that- but what the hell is the issue with the average American family? Does Trapt want state regulation of children now?

What's funny is that the state apparently refused $31.5 million (actually, it refused Obammycare) and accepted $6 over three years, and the byline is "Yeah, conservatives really care about cutting the debt and reducing the size of government"... well, the difference between 31.5 and 6 is 25.5, so...

Claiming the debt needs to be eliminated while accepting six million is hypocritical. It doesn't matter if they took less money. They took money in light of railing against spending altogether.

I have nothing against the nuclear family. I just think that sometimes women get pregnant by men that aren't good for them. There is no reason to try to force a marriage which neither individual benefits from solely for the idea of marriage as being what God wants.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:22 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTcPLQ7MorA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP44ngv9hZI

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. ... uses-obama

:lol:

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:41 pm

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is barnstorming the heartland to boost US jobs in a taxpayer-financed luxury bus the government had custom built -- in Canada, The Post has learned.

The $1.1 million vehicle, one of two that Quebec-based Prevost sold the government, has been tricked out by the Secret Service with state-of-the-art security features and creature comforts.

It's a VIP H3-45 model, the company's top of the line, and is used by major traveling rock bands.

"That's the more luxurious model," Christine Garant of Prevost told The Post

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/c ... KNS4B7Qp7O

Goat · **Posted:** Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:46 pm

Being fair,

Quote:

The Secret Service says the buses will be available to other protectees who travel by bus, which could include the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

Pretty ridiculous in any case. Make them drive around in the back of a van! Less of a terrorist target that way, if that's what they're afraid of.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:19 am

Goat wrote:

Being fair,

Quote:

The Secret Service says the buses will be available to other protectees who travel by bus, which could include the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

Pretty ridiculous in any case. Make them drive around in the back of a van! Less of a terrorist target that way, if that's what they're afraid of.

The difference being that one is actually responsible (or supposed to be) for policy as a sitting president, while the other candidates (who may or may not even use them) had nothing to do with the purchase.

Anyway, the main point was the fact that the assclown in chief is campaigning on jobs while tooling around in a foreign-made bus.

Goat · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:27 am

Oh, indeed, not defending it. The fault ultimately seems to be the Secret Service's, although I'm sure Obama could have overruled them.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:39 am

Goat wrote:

Oh, indeed, not defending it. The fault ultimately seems to be the Secret Service's, although I'm sure Obama could have overruled them.

Of course he could have.

Not that any republican theocon / neocon nominee the GOP puts forth will not be much of an improvement.

I say that with the likelihood that it will not be Ron Paul, whom I really can't see riding around in one of these foriegn made monstrosities in any case.

Neither side gives a rat's ass about the country or her people, all they care about is maintaining their wealth and power... and their friends and their masters' wealth and power, of course.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:02 am

cry of the banshee wrote:

Goat wrote:

Oh, indeed, not defending it. The fault ultimately seems to be the Secret Service's, although I'm sure Obama could have overruled them.

Of course he could have.

Not that any republican theocon / neocon nominee the GOP puts forth will not be much of an improvement.

I say that with the likelihood that it will not be Ron Paul, whom I really can't see riding around in one of these foriegn made monstrosities in any case.

Neither side gives a rat's ass about the country or her people, all they care about is maintaining their wealth and power... and their friends and their masters' wealth and power, of course.

Did you catch Jon Stewart's coverage of the media talking about the Iowa straw poll and pretending that Ron Paul didn't exist?

Goat · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:42 pm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSvKWVp-kY

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:15 pm

Goat wrote:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSvKWVp-kY

"In the year 2008/The economy was great"

Really?

traptunderice · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:31 pm

cry of the banshee wrote:

Goat wrote:

Oh, indeed, not defending it. The fault ultimately seems to be the Secret Service's, although I'm sure Obama could have overruled them.

Of course he could have.

Man, if Obama seriously was making all these minute decisions maybe it would actually explain what he has been doing these last three years. However, I just don't think he is. The fault lies in the Secret Service's actions which I don't think Obama had any involvement in besides saying I'll sign off on it because I trust you with my protection.

Quote:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/black-caucus-tired-making-excuses-obama

Not sure why this is lolworthy for you but the articles isn't really news and people have been saying shit like this for two years.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:33 pm

Cú Chulainn wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

Goat wrote:

Oh, indeed, not defending it. The fault ultimately seems to be the Secret Service's, although I'm sure Obama could have overruled them.

Of course he could have.

Not that any republican theocon / neocon nominee the GOP puts forth will not be much of an improvement.

I say that with the likelihood that it will not be Ron Paul, whom I really can't see riding around in one of these foriegn made monstrosities in any case.

Neither side gives a rat's ass about the country or her people, all they care about is maintaining their wealth and power... and their friends and their masters' wealth and power, of course.

Did you catch Jon Stewart's coverage of the media talking about the Iowa straw poll and pretending that Ron Paul didn't exist?

I don't watch TV.

Metal Reviews

The General Politics Thread

Who is online