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.

The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

John Kline is playing with fire by voting for that. I don't care if he's from a solid red district in Minnesota.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

dxmnkd316 said:
John Kline is playing with fire by voting for that. I don't care if he's from a solid red district in Minnesota.
Click to expand...

He's retiring, not running for re-election, so he doesn't much care about playing with fire.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

dxmnkd316 said:
Fine, then he's just a run-of-the-mill piece of sh^t
Click to expand...

Perhaps worse, since it means he actually believes that crap. Not sure which is more deserving of a punch in the face: craven cynicism or bona fide hatred.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
Perhaps worse, since it means he actually believes that crap. Not sure which is more deserving of a punch in the face: craven cynicism or bona fide hatred.
Click to expand...

John Kline is drip slime. Always has been.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

This seems unlikely.

Paul Nehlen, a Wisconsin businessman and one-time Ryan supporter, found himself so aggrieved by the Speaker’s endorsement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that he’s now hoping to take control of Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district in the August primary. The TPP is a trade agreement that seeks to stoke economic growth among the 12 countries involved, though critics say it will harm U.S. workers by moving jobs to developing countries.

In the video, the sleeveless shirt-wearing, woman-toting, motorcycle-cruising Nehlen offers Ryan the chance to “come back to Wisconsin and debate me man to man, face to face, on the realities of TPP. And if you don’t want to debate me, maybe we can arm wrestle.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Oh please, please, please...

Tim Canova, the upstart liberal who’s challenging Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her congressional seat, is about to become a million-dollar candidate.

Fueled by small-dollar donors who give to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Canova said that, by the weekend, he’ll be on pace to have raised $1 million since he officially entered the race Jan. 7.
Click to expand...

DWS must go down, and she must go down hard.

What I would not give for a post-DWS DNC.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

dxmnkd316 said:
I despise the symbolism behind this, but I despise the ban on it even more:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...Confederate-flag-in-national-cemeteries-video

ETA: To clarify, I don't think the government should be placing the flags in cemeteries, but if someone wants to do it themselves, we're crossing into dangerous freedom of speech issues here.
Click to expand...

I think the ban is wrong unless we actually go the whole way and ban the flag like the Germans banned the swastika (and I don't think we should do that, unless we ban the old union flags as they were also associated with slaveholding).

I can see not having the states have the symbol in their modern flags. But if it's a confederate soldier's grave, and the flag is not illegal, then this regulation seems unconstitutional to me, or at least A Bad Idea.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
I think the ban is wrong unless we actually go the whole way and ban the flag like the Germans banned the swastika (and I don't think we should do that, unless we ban the old union flags as they were also associated with slaveholding).

I can see not having the states have the symbol in their modern flags. But if it's a confederate soldier's grave, and the flag is not illegal, then this regulation seems unconstitutional to me, or at least A Bad Idea.
Click to expand...

I don't think the government should be in the business of banning any form of speech. It just makes my skin crawl.

That last paragraph is exactly the scenario I was picturing.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I don't think the government should be in the business of banning any form of speech. It just makes my skin crawl.

That last paragraph is exactly the scenario I was picturing.
Click to expand...

To the extent the government both owns the cemeteries and cemeteries not being traditional places of public expression (like say, a state capitol), it has the right to express its own speech or limit the expression of contrary speech.

This was the issue in the license plate case that came up a year or two ago before SCOTUS. The Court found that license plates were the government's speech, not the driver's, and the state could limit, our allow, pretty much whatever it deemed appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top