The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[Antonio the Sixth]

" after upsetting Ron Paul's Libertarian ticket in the 1988 election."

Dude, it was a joke.

[Mr. Smith]

No, Oldies, just because he hired jewish people, that does not mean he isn't anti-Semitic. Nixon hired the Stein family as speech writers, and it is quite hard to deny that Nixon was an anti-Semite.

I haven't seen any evidence that Nixon was anti-Semitic.

Jew-hating Nazi hack

You do realize he made anti-Nazi propaganda films during World War II, right?  I doubt the government would have made him do that if they thought he was pro-Hitler or anti-Semitic.

[Donerail]

" after upsetting Ron Paul's Libertarian ticket in the 1988 election."

Dude, it was a joke.

^Leinad's one of the sane L avatars.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Clinton can take the West, like California, and New York and the Industrial Midwest, she can win the nomination. If a Keith Ellison, Steve Bullock, or Evan Bayh jumps in, she'll have a brokered convention.

Jerry Brown, oddly enough, could take the entire West from Alaska to California to Montana to Arizona and give himself or Biden the industrial Midwest. If someone can keep anyone from emerging as the front-runner, it's Biden.

Someone's been living under a rock.

[YaBoyNY]

Overcrowded and bad pizza.

Chicago trumps.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Lol

Sanders doesn't appeal to anyone except for upper-middle class/rich white people.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The only sensible response is surrender. It's time to lay down and accept reality. The fight is over, and SSM should be treated as settled law for all eternity. It's sad that SCOTUS has chosen to endorse sin, but it's the way things are and the fact is that the world is not going to end and straight people are not going to be forced to marry gay people. It's time for complete surrender.

Ok, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this, but what is the scriptural basis for the idea that legalizing sin = endorsing sin?

1 Timothy 5:20 :

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Voting for a sin-favorable ruling, as 5 justices did here, is the exact opposite of rebuking.

You do realize that verse was discussing what a church should do with its members and not with how the church should react to society at large, don't you? Do you really want SCOTUS setting church policies?

No, I just don't want them to force change on an insitution mandated by God with the first humans - marriage between a man and a woman.

It's not just an assault on christainity, it's an assault on democracy. Leftists have decided to hide behind the supreme court rather than fight to change things through actual elected representatives, and it's just sickening.

Unless the leftist attitude changes, Polygamy will be next, which is far worse than SSM. Yeah, you can laugh at me today for saying that, but 30, 40 years from now, I'll be proven right. The Slippery slope is not a scare tactic, it's a fact, and Polygamy is exactly where it's heading.

[SWE]

My presence on the ticket might drag things down but seriously, how can anyone vote against Cathcon? 

Mung Beans is just simply cooler, that's why.

[Mr. Smith]

My presence on the ticket might drag things down but seriously, how can anyone vote against Cathcon? 

Mung Beans is just simply cooler, that's why.

Oh s*d off.

[free my dawg]

My presence on the ticket might drag things down but seriously, how can anyone vote against Cathcon? 

Mung Beans is just simply cooler, that's why.

Oh s*d off.

>s*d

[SWE]

s*d

?

[free my dawg]

s*d

?

"sod off". British for f**k off.

My only issue with it is the unnecessary censorship

[Mr. Smith]

I don't like cursing that much, so I naturally tend to censor myself with very very rare exceptions.

Anyway, a far "better" post would have to be:

Then why does he always talk like a teenager in every single interview he's ever given? Maybe he just plays stupid then? To me it's much more than a play though. I have absolutely no doubt that his IQ is even much lower than George W. Bush's. People say W's IQ is 125, well then Cruz's can definitely not be higher than 110-115, which explains why he always communicates like an obnoxious teenager. Obama's & Hillary's are both between 140 and 150.

Because you don't like or agree with Cruz and think he talks like a teenager when he actually does not.  Meanwhile, you like and agree with Obama and Hillary and therefore think they are smart.

Objectively, Ted Cruz is one of the smartest candidates on either side of the race right now.  I doubt his IQ is low or even just slightly above average.  Persons with low or average IQs don't graduate at the top of their class from Harvard Law School or clerk for the Supreme Court.

If he was so smart as you claim, he wouldn't have been the prototype of the US clown for the past 5 years due to his refusal to let millions of government workers do their job. It's quite incredible that one single person can paralyze a whole nation for weeks. Because of him, the US economy was seriously hurt for months. Sounds like the modern Einstein to me. I don't care if he's taken some random exam or has talked to some random Supreme Court justice. The fact that he is seen as the obsolute clown by 7 billion people around the world (and no, I'm not talking about Trump in fact!) should tell you everything you need to know. NO, obviously Cruz is not very smart.

Lots of things wrong with this, but first and foremost is the obvious "Far-right GOP = idiot/ Leftist Dems =Smart because that's who I agree with" fallacy. (Never mind Paul Ryan is definitely no dummy and Bruce Braley definitely didn't come off as very sharp)

More startling is the dismissiveness as stupidity rather than shameless pandering for power.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Fascist=HP. One star

[free my dawg]

Dude just admit the activist decision while getting you a net gain has cost you daddy's little girl, theres a good chance she would have lost reelection anyways

Deluged not for the content, but the misogyny.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even with the parenthetical disclaimer this is one of the worst sentences I've read in a very long time.

Having a lower infant mortality rate isn't a sign of better health care, it's a sign of less sh**tty mothers (not that having a baby die on you means you're a sh**tty mother, obviously).

[dead0man]

yeah, I'd like to retract that.  I was mistaken on both counts.  Infant mortality is a good measure of care (though obviously not the only one) and it happens to the poor and uneducated, not the sh**tty.  Especially world wide.


sh**tty mothers in the west still suck and are more likely to end up with a dead or funked up baby, but they are likely sh**tty, at least in part, because of poverty and a lack of education.  (though WIC and such do a decent job of shoving the most common causes of it down poor mother's throats, so really a lack of education isn't that great of excuse in the US at least, especially if the baby died because of one of those common causes)

[JerryArkansas]

According to this map, one real estate firm knows the average IQ by state: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/11/whats-your-states-average-iq-new-map-purports-to-have-the-answer/

Nevada: 96.5
Iowa: 103.2
New Hampshire: 104.2
South Carolina: 98.4

Given that Nevada has the population with the lowest IQ of these four, I'd say Nevada.

Yeah, but Nevada has a low average IQ due to the presence of large numbers of Mexicans, who are all supposed to be enthusiastic Bush supporters.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

context

why do you hate freedom

[free my dawg]

context: sarcasm

context

why do you hate freedom

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Jcl's quibbling here is hilarious in context.

Kewl concept but first, could you explain how Hillary managed to win two terms after the failed presidency of Obama and excellent campaign of the GOP Presidential ticket of Rand Paul/Carly Fiorina. Plus the Electoral College in the U.S. Constitution can only abolished by Constitutional Amendment and that is one of the hardest legal actions to possibly pull off. Especially with most of the state's being led by both GOP governors and legislators by numbers not seen since before FDR. The only way this could happen is a massive progressive wave next year IRL and while on marriage supremacy (national legalization of gay marriage in clear violation of the 10th Amendment), the left is doing fine there bypassing the will of the people and state legislatures, I don't see a 2010 type wave happening in favor of the left for at least the next 20 years.

Hillary can't abolish the Electoral College by executive fiat as I've explained above.

Clinton defeated Jeb Bush 385-153 in 2016 and, after a popular first term, defeated Chris Christie 374-164 in 2020. Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress in 2016 (they had an extremely small majority in the House and a comfortable majority in the Senate), lost the House in 2018, and regained it in 2020. The GOP retook the House again in 2022, though by this time, the Electoral College had already been abolished.

In late 2020, Senators Dick Durbin and Rand Paul introduced a constitutional amendment regarding electoral reform that eliminated the Electoral College and proposed that the winner of the popular vote wins the presidential election. Clinton and congressional leaders worked tirelessly to make the bill seem like a bipartisan effort, and by late 2021, were able to secure the Senate 71-39 and the House 293-142, with all Democrats and some Republicans (mostly moderates and libertarians) supporting the amendment. By September 2022, the necessary 3/4 of the states had ratified the amendment, with all blue states, most purple states, and some red states voting to approve the measure:

State governments reacted surprisingly well to the amendment compared to the federal government, with many state legislators in both parties voting to support the amendment due to its widespread public support (boosted by a well-orchestrated media and public awareness campaign). All leftist states immediately supported the measure, with the support of purple states coming not far behind. Due to the advocacy of many libertarian and moderate Republicans, some of the larger red states (Texas, etc.) eventually decided to support the amendment after realizing the Electoral College favors small states. The final state to vote in support of the amendment was Montana which, even though small and right-leaning, managed to squeeze out a thin Yea vote in both legislative chambers and sent the amendment to Governor Mary Caferro. The amendment was officially added to the United States Constitution on September 11, 2022.

This is really off-topic anyway.

Libertarians and Conservatives beat it. Indiana and Texas for sure will lead the opposition and this amendment fails. The Moderates/establishment wing of the GOPis not getting the nominee in 2016 or 2020.

While I like the concept, I have problems with the plausibility of first, Hillary getting elected president and Libertarian Republicans (of which I happen to be) supporting repealing the Electoral College.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

context: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

context: sarcasm

context

why do you hate freedom

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

context: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

context: sarcasm

context

why do you hate freedom

why do you hate freedom

[ElectionsGuy]

I would expect Walker's first 90 days to be similar to Castro's first days after taking over Havana in 1959. Expect mass political executions of any enemies on his list, starting with Richard Trumka and anybody who stands up for the working man against the randian Koch hell on earth.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Worst president in American history, bar none.

Nixon looked like a saint compared to him.

I almost stepped in a steaming pile of dog crap yesterday that had more integrity than Reagan.