What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Rover said:
As I said to maybe Shirtless Guy, if you feel really strongly pro-life, it is far more effective to volunteer at a crisis hotline or work with a ministry or adoption agency to reach out to these women in this situation than it is to support Rick Perry while he tries to burnish his credentials with the social conservative crowd with legislation that the courts will most likely block anyway. Sometimes politics aren't the best place to go if you want to have an actual impact.
Click to expand...

In addition to gaining support among social conservatives, he's also making his wife a wealthy woman. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Priceless said:
In addition to gaining support among social conservatives, he's also making his wife a wealthy woman. Isn't it a wonderful coincidence?
Click to expand...
Assuming that her organization actually does start offering abortions, which certainly isn't a given. (I mean, knowing Perry's ethics, I kinda expect that she will, but I still prefer to wait until someone actually commits the crime before I convict them for it.)
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Craig P. said:
Assuming that her organization actually does start offering abortions, which certainly isn't a given. (I mean, knowing Perry's ethics, I kinda expect that she will, but I still prefer to wait until someone actually commits the crime before I convict them for it.)
Click to expand...

Isn't it great that she has the choice whether to do an abortion or not?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Priceless said:
Isn't it great that she has the choice whether to do an abortion or not?
Click to expand...

Choices about sex are unacceptable. Free will is chastity belts, no birth control, no sex ed, and no abortions. Anyone who thinks otherwise can feel free to move somewhere where they have that European Socialism. Here in America we have true freedom.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

If we're going along the same road as a certain movie, abortion will be illegal, and so will pregnancy if you don't have a license. Not to mention those sickening fluid transfers... :eek::p
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

As far as I know, the public reaction to the Trayvon "Obama" Martin verdict has been pretty calm and responsible other than a few of the usual suspects rabble rousing a little bit. But I thought it was funny how if you go over to Slate, they have a story about how since there was no rioting, it proves that the African-Americans are a gentle, loving people and we should maybe let them come indoors at mealtime if they wash. Then you go over to Drudge and the headline is, "America Gripped By Second Night of Fury." :p
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

geezer said:
As far as I know, the public reaction to the Trayvon "Obama" Martin verdict has been pretty calm and responsible other than a few of the usual suspects rabble rousing a little bit. But I thought it was funny how if you go over to Slate, they have a story about how since there was no rioting, it proves that the African-Americans are a gentle, loving people and we should maybe let them come indoors at mealtime if they wash. Then you go over to Drudge and the headline is, "America Gripped By Second Night of Fury." :p
Click to expand...

No rioting? Wrong. http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaki...sco-oakland-gather-denounce-zimmerman-verdict
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Whenever I hear some rightly politician (or poster for that matter) start ranting about abstinence and all that I always wish someone would ask them if they got laid before they were married. Because if they did (and I'm guessing that's 99.9% of them) aren't they pulling the ol' "do as I say not as I do" trick?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

Rover said:
Whenever I hear some rightly politician (or poster for that matter) start ranting about abstinence and all that I always wish someone would ask them if they got laid before they were married. Because if they did (and I'm guessing that's 99.9% of them) aren't they pulling the ol' "do as I say not as I do" trick?
Click to expand...
Some of them yes, and some no. Some of the abstinence only crowd who were having sex prior to marriage may have created issues for themselves because of it, teaching their child to abstain is as much a hope that their child doesn't make the same mistakes they did. With some others, you're right. They're just being hypocrites because they know the dirty, dirty things they did to someone else's little girls and don't want the same fate for their own princesses.

At the same time, I do know a number of people who've abstained altogether prior to marriage. Some people really do follow the Bible's teachings closely and not just when it's convenient. I'm not one of those people.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

FlagDUDE08 said:
The last time this discussion happened, the other side was talking about it, and then they subsequently lost the majority in the next election. Could we be seeing history repeat itself? http://www.syracuse.com/news/index...._will_the_senate_change_filibuster_rules.html
Click to expand...
These rule changes are all well and good until you're in the minority party, being run roughshod over by the majority. Because we are now at a place in history where if extraordinary power is given to one party within a body of Congress it will not be returned.

I've always been of the impression that the reason the Senate is two-per state and filibuster was created is so that the minority had a strong enough voice that we could avoid mob rule and protect the rights of all Americans.

Senator Reid isn't just trying to open Pandora's box here, he's going to open it with a jackhammer.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

St. Clown said:
I've always been of the impression that the reason the Senate is two-per state and filibuster was created is so that the minority had a strong enough voice that we could avoid mob rule and protect the rights of all Americans.
Click to expand...

We have a two-per-state Senate so the populous states can't run roughshod over the smaller states by sheer volume. The filibuster was originally setup so that one senator (or a group) could speak at length until the other side gave in or they needed to sleep, whichever happened first. Now you only need to threaten a filibuster and the majority caves. No need to change the rules...just go back to the way it was intended in the first place.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

St. Clown said:
These rule changes are all well and good until you're in the minority party, being run roughshod over by the majority. Because we are now at a place in history where if extraordinary power is given to one party within a body of Congress it will not be returned.

I've always been of the impression that the reason the Senate is two-per state and filibuster was created is so that the minority had a strong enough voice that we could avoid mob rule and protect the rights of all Americans.

Senator Reid isn't just trying to open Pandora's box here, he's going to open it with a jackhammer.
Click to expand...

I'm not big on getting rid of the tool. But what if it shuts down the function of govt.

Problem is the GOP is using filibusters during the last few years at double the pace of the previous record. Its to the point of being abused:

aviary%20(1).jpg


WaPo
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

5mn_Major said:
I'm not big on getting rid of the tool. But what if it shuts down the function of govt.

Problem is the GOP is using filibusters during the last few years at double the pace of the previous record. Its to the point of being abused:

WaPo
Click to expand...

Some see it as an issue with the person doing it. Some see it as an issue with what is trying to be passed. Skyrocketed under Nixon, went up dramatically again under Clinton, and once again under Obama. Perhaps there's truly something wrong with what y'all're putting up?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

I enjoy knuckledraggers posting stupid statements as much as anybody, but someone thinking that GOP obstructionism in the Senate is all about not liking the nominees is too stupid to breathe. Republicans are upset that they keep losing elections. It ain't any more complicated than that. Finally Useless Harry Reid found his balls, only 4 years too late.

Regarding the Senate, and "oooh, wait until the Republicans gain control"...do the math. Lets say the GOP runs the table on Senate seats next year and wins every race realistically on the board (while losing NJ special election coming up). Now they have a +6 or 52 Senators. Which means...what exactly? They can try to obstruct Obama's agenda? Umm....they're trying to do that anyway. They can repeal Obamacare? Ummmm...not while Obama is in office.

So now its 2016 elections. IF we are to assume that all seats go GOP in 2014 due to the states being contested, then we in fairness can also assume all Dem leaning states will replace Republicans with Democrats in the 2016 elections, meaning Kirk, Toomey, Johnson, Ayotte, and Portman will be looking for jobs and the possible Grassley retirement opens up another seat. So, whether they win or lose the Presidency, most likely the Dems can find the 2 or 3 seats they need to regain the Senate. So again, no danger from changing the Senate rules until at least the 2018 elections, and only if the GOP wins the WH in 2016 which is a less than 50/50 prospect right now.

This is a pretty good summary:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/senate-republicans-give-in-nuclear-crisis-averted/
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 5: Big Brotha

5mn_Major said:
Or perhaps with the fact that its not country first.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's entirely possible, even on both sides. For example, a certain senator vehemently opposing action in the Middle East, but once he gains control, decides that it's OK to be there. Sadly, I don't think I can name a representative in the House, Senate, or Executive Office that is not trying to make a move into the history books as being credited with specific actions, and instead is actually putting the country first and progressing for the sake of actual growth rather than progressing for the sake of progressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top