Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Uh, wasn't there a user called Russ Powers? If so, then Russ Powers.

[Maxwell]

You know, I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I don't get why everyone's focused on such trivial social issues like 'group marriage' or 'extraterrestrial rights.'  I mean, really.  Regardless of whether or not they're acceptable for us to embrace, when is our government ever going to have to deal with situations that warrant these policies?

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

[Goldwater]

I've always found this a bit odd. Consider the top-grossing movies of 2013 (US):

1. The Hunger Games: Jennifer Lawrence leads the rural working class in resisting a government dominated by cosmopolitan elites.

2. Iron Man 3: A young Romney-esque protagonist uses his wealth to save the world from terrorists.

3. Frozen: Climate change denial cloaked as a children's movie. Enough said.

4. Despicable Me 2: Dramatic tension stems from the main character's struggles as a single parent. Clearly, children need both a mother and a father.

5. Man of Steel: An adventure ripped straight from the tales of Edward Nietzsche.

6. Gravity: Either Cuarón was trying to make 90-minute special effects demo, or this is an extended metaphor for the life of Christ.

7. Monsters University: Satire of liberal academe.

8. The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug: Sequel to Rick Santorum's favorite movie.

9. Fast & Furious 6: Celebration of masculinity.

10. Oz the Great and Powerful: Don't leave the United States, because you'll run into all kinds of wacky characters and uncomfortable situations.

You might object that I haven't actually seen any of these movies. IRRELEVANT, I say, because HOLLYWOOD'S CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE IS THAT CLEAR.

One of the funniest things I've seen on this forum.

[Potatoe]

Gotta love the mind that is quantum mechanics.

[tik 🪀✨]

This.

Normally I don't really understand the "Dominos" comparison, but considering how much progress has been made, the hate is falling, and soon, may be gone, though that may be wishful thinking, a world without hate, is a great world indeed.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The worst thing about the vaccination "debate" (that, by the way, is certainly not "great") is how it stigmatizes autism in a backwards way.

Even if it did cause or contribute to the development of autism, how is autism so bad that it's worse than your child dying of an easily preventable disease? How is it worse than your child potentially becoming the source that spreads an easily preventable disease to other people who then become terribly ill and possibly die? If your child did develop autism, how would you feel if they knew you'd rather they potentially died of an illness most people are immune to? I doubt that they intended that message, of course, but what is so awful about having a living child who is autistic that you'd choose the risks of the alternative?

Just.. ugh.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

From a recent edition of - of all things - Süddeutsche Zeitung. No comment is necessary here.

[Goldwater]

Small government at work.

[Flake]

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.

The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, what you are saying, is that group marriages have a different set of standards than other marriages, as it requires, in your words, a different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, by this logic, group marriages are not treated the same as other marriages, as they require a different set of rules and regulations, your words.   

...Yes? I'm not really sure what your point is. Group marriages are different monogamistic marriages, that should be obvious to everyone. The argument is about whether or not these different groupings should have the same legal rights as traditional monogamistic marriages.

[Napoleon]

The important object I lost in the dump was my virginity.

You lost your virginity at a waste management facility?

[Senator Spiral]

The aliens should attack atlasia and destroy everything.

[Goldwater]

Thinking of someone who is an immigrant to this country and a Bosnian Muslim as a nativist and an Islamophobe is a little amusing to me

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Need to be permanently banned from public office (sane).

You and I have very different ideas of "sane". Of course, I suppose that's why I have a blue avatar and you have a red one.

[tik 🪀✨]

Hurray for out of context quotes!

you are so sexy.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The worst thing about the vaccination "debate" (that, by the way, is certainly not "great") is how it stigmatizes autism in a backwards way.

Even if it did cause or contribute to the development of autism, how is autism so bad that it's worse than your child dying of an easily preventable disease? How is it worse than your child potentially becoming the source that spreads an easily preventable disease to other people who then become terribly ill and possibly die? If your child did develop autism, how would you feel if they knew you'd rather they potentially died of an illness most people are immune to? I doubt that they intended that message, of course, but what is so awful about having a living child who is autistic that you'd choose the risks of the alternative?

Just.. ugh.

[Potatoe]

A cancer.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

On the Monkey Business Yacht, somewhere in 1985

"Oh hey there Miss, how are you?"

"I'm doing okay, 'bout you?"

"Oh crap, sorry, I have to go, my wife's called, bye"


CBS News Report, June 25 1988

"And we can confirm that Former Colorado Senator Gary Hart has entered the Democratic race for President, and when asked about his ambitions and goals, he said, quote, that the Reagen era hurt America, end quote"


Events:Late 1987 (June to December)

• 1987-Gary Hart announces a Presidential run.

• 1987-Bill Bradley declines a Presidential run.

• 1987-Senator Ted Kennedy declines a run for the Presidency, but calls for President Reagen to resign, saying that he had "Broken the Constitution"

• 1987-The DOW Industrial Complex drops by 30 Points.

• 1987-President Reagen's approvals dart down by 3%

• 1987-After Justice Lewis Powell's retirement, President Reagen decides to put up California Governor George Deukmejian, who reluctantly accepts the appointment, the Senate is hesitant, though Deukmejian makes it through the Confirmation Hearings, the Senate is stuck at 50-50, with Democrats Ernest Hollings(D,SC), David Boren(D,OK), Richard Shelby(D,AL), Howard Heflin(D,AL), and Dennis DeConcini (D,AZ), with Republican Lowell Weicker voting against, VP Bush casts a tie breaking vote and Deukmejian narrowly makes it.

• 1987-Former Senator Birch Bayh declares that he will also run for the Presidency, saying "The Reagen stench of Corruption will be rectified under me"

• 1987-Maine Senator William Cohen declared that he will challenge sitting VP George H.W Bush for the Republican Nomination, saying in an interview that the "Republican Party has drifted way too far to the right", Cohen receives a bump in Michigan due to an endorsement from former President Ford.

• 1987-Evangelist Pat Robertson declares a run for the Presidency, saying that it is "God's Wish"

1987-Senator Bob Dole declines a challenge to Bush in the Republican Primary, instead giving Cohen an Endorsement.

• 1987-Rep. Dick Gephardt rules out a Presidential run

• 1987-Texas Governor Mark White declares a run for the Presidency, fellow Governor Michael Dukais endorses White in a press conference.

• 1987-Fmr. Senator Howard Baker endorses William Cohen.

• 1987-Senator Paul Simon declines a run for the Presidency and endorses Gary Hart

• 1987-Justice Sandra Day O'Conner declines a run for the Presidency, she does not endorse, saying "I don't wanna get messed up in this business"

• 1987-Rep. Jack Kemp endorses William Cohen, saying "He should be the future of the Party"

• 1987-Reverend Jesse Jackson launches his second campaign for President, repeating Robertson's line that it is "God's Wish"

• 1987-Senator Bradley commits a gaffe when he calls Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a "Slacking Vulture"

• 1987-Wall Street Crashes, with the DOW dropping 300 Points and unemployment rising to 8.6%, President Reagen's approval rating skidding down to 37/63.

Thoughts so far?

looks pretty good actually, i'd be interested in reading more.

[windjammer]

even if the "true left" had any sort of power, it would still be infinitely preferable to the tea party.

[JerryArkansas]

Cook was the most accurate pollster in 2012 (not difficult when you have a lot of toss up).

[Antonio the Sixth]

FH, but it's not what I like.

Here is what my one of my dream houses would look like,



and the other.

[Maxwell]

Here's the thing: it's okay to be a far left crazy person, but when push comes to shove you better damn well get in line and support The President, else you're as good as supporting the teabaggers.

Uh, no dude, sorry, that's just wrong. You sound like the caricature of what True Leftists think we Smart Leftists* are.

*Can I give my contribution to expanding the Atlas vocabulary?

[Goldwater]

We all learn differently. Not sure how it's beneficial to uniform and teach math this way and only this way, but I'm sure some people learn it this way.

Yeah, I can understand how the expanded form in addition might help someone, at least when they are starting out.  But at some point, especially with the clunky terminology as shown here, a new approach becomes more confusing and just generally worse than the perceived need for improvement.

I don't disagree with that. And I don't know why there's such a need for this one miracle method of teaching people. People learn in all of sorts of ways, so these one shoe fits all education solutions are garbage.

[ElectionsGuy]

So Republicans from 1998 to 2001 valued the environment over economic growth? I never would have guessed that...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I actually do have 4 people on ignore, all of whom are rude tedious hacks:

Link
Landslide Lyndon
Lief
Invisible Obama

I should probably remove Lief, as he's more just a liberal bot more than anything else. I will also be adding Non Swing Voter after this. But yes, you have to be pretty bad to be on my ignore list.

+JoshGreen

[Goldwater]

Very few outside of Ron's few rabid supporters will vote for Rand after Ron begins making ridiculous comments on the campaign trail.

Have you watched any interview involving Ron Paul in the last few years? The man is obsessed with his son's future. He will censor himself when Rand jumps in.

Liability because Rand gets way too angry everytime a reporter mentions him.

Because Rand is far more established and serious than his ideologue father. That doesn't make Ron Paul a liability.

The truly hilarious thing is that Ron Paul is probably the most sincere politician in America. It has only been relatively recently that conservatism was associated with strong military and expansionary policy. For a very long time in this nation, conservatism was non-interventionist.

Amen.  And the GOP establishment went out of its way to make sure he didn't get the nomination.

As a Ron Paul supporter, I look back at the 2011-2012 campaign and now realize that the Paul campaign had no chance in hell, but the establishment seemed to have had a plan B to deal with Paul. I think they will accept Rand in 2016, however.

Lol at him being a liability. Ron Paul is the only way Rand can maintain his libertarian base if he keeps appealing to the Neo-cons so much.

He's been clever though in using Reagan to package his rhetoric on foreign policy.

I think the much bigger problem with Ron Paul is the anti-Semitism and obsession with fringe issues like gold as sound money and the Federal Reserve. Rand himself has been smart enough to avoid making those things an issue and has targeted issues with broad non-partisan public concern like the deficit, debt and wars.

Those voters won't care about the racist newsletters. Obama being associated with a racist didn't stop him from winning.

Obama's father wasn't racist.

Yet, Rand Paul has still remained true to his father's ideals on the issues involving gold and the Fed, just less centered on them. And I don't know where you get the idea that Ron Paul is anti-semite, unless you actually believe he wrote the newsletters or that his refusal to go along with the AIPAC line constitutes that....