|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"Bachmann (Romney's butt buddy or just looney tunes?)"
On 9/17/2011 at 11:58:30 PM, QuickComment started the thread:
One of the reasons I rarely post about politics here anymore is that I find the topics typically so frustrating that I've lost the will to put anything about them down by the time I get home from work.
One thing that is driving me bonkers is Michelle Bachmann's insane focus on Perry's desire for HPV vaccinations, especially after he flat out said that he was wrong.
Here's a link if you have no idea what I'm talking about. The last two debates have pretty much turned into let's all try to knock off Perry who jumped to the front of the pack. Perry instantly absorbed about two thirds of Bachmann's supporters (tea party types) and she's all slash and burn now. It's either angling to be Romney's VP or just an inability to go out quietly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20106996-503544.html
Msg #1: On 9/18/2011 at 9:08:43 AM, raptor2000 replied, saying:
Yeah, it's sad to see all the Republicans going on smear campaigns against each other on the most trivial of things in order to get ahead in the polls, when they should be working together to select the person most qualified and suited to go up against Obama and then hammer out a plan of attack so they can actually have a shot at winning the election next year. As bad a President as Obama is, it really would not take much to beat him, but they have to find somebody that would not only be an improvement (which shouldn't be hard to do) but would actually be a good President once in office.
Msg #2: On 9/18/2011 at 11:35:02 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
I'm just not excited by any Republican candidates at this time. They're all extremely religious and yes, they do deny evolution. I don't mind if a candidate is religious or even doesn't believe in evolution in private, but the second they spew such nonsense publicly is when they lose my vote.
Sadly, there's really no one I can vote for anymore. My vote will still probably go to Obama, as per my Facebook promise.
Replies: 4
Msg #3: On 9/18/2011 at 12:58:09 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
My socialist leanings are well known here, so I want to preface this statement carefully by saying that, while I will not vote for any of the current candidates and disagree with them on most issues, the question I'm about to ask is one of pure curiosity:
How do non-religious conservatives justify, contest, or otherwise cope with the overwhelming prominence of evangelical Christians in the GOP's stable of candidates, for the 2012 presidential election and otherwise? Trainwreck kind of already answered this, but certainly voting for a Democrat is no real option save out of pure desperation and cynicism for a real conservative. I mainly wonder because, even though I understand his appeal as a mainstream Republican candidate, Rick Perry considers himself an evangelical Christian and does, as Trainwreck said, deny evolution, at least enough to say that science classrooms should "teach both sides."
Personally, I see a huge divide between the values of evangelical Christianity and genuine conservatism, or even neo-conservatism (or is it conservativism? I can never figure out which to use), both ideologically and in practice, yet the only prominent candidate the Republicans have to offer who isn't openly religious is a libertarian.
Replies: 5
Msg #4: On 9/18/2011 at 1:00:09 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #2, saying:
TW, you're now a one issue voter, the most ignored and rightly maligned segment of the political population. Also, your devotion to it has you trickling down a Monki-esque path. Enjoy that!
As far as the Republicans go, Perry suffers from an addiction for hyperbole but this last few weeks has shown that Bachmann is the looney tune that the media painted her as (she originally got some burn from Sarah Palin hate overflow, not that I adore Sarah Palin...) and that Romney is the flippy-floppy opportunist he's always been painted as. He used rhetoric just as strong about Perry did about SS not a year ago but now is distributing flyers in Florida saying Perry wants to kill it, painting him as unelectable -- which is Romney's only real trick after Romneycare.
Replies: 6
Msg #5: On 9/18/2011 at 1:06:21 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #3, saying:
The vast majority of conservatives see religious freedom as a bedrock of their political philosophy. Be it Evangelical, Jewish or even Islam (which the majority of conservatives do differentiate between moderate Islam and that which would enforce a liberty crushing Sharia either at home or in the statehouse) they embrace faith, even if they don't have it themselves. It's seen as something the founders fought for and as a net positive influence on society to have religion. They also are sensitive to the artificial "separation of Church and State" that has been pushed so heavily in the last few decades, so even if Evangelical voters are over the top sometimes, any religious faith starts from a point of being seen on the right as being persecuted.
The point is also that even those who aren't Evangelicals see beyond single issue differences. The vast majority of non-Evangelical Republicans know there are much more important things at play here and there always have been.
Msg #6: On 9/18/2011 at 4:26:29 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #4, saying:
TW, you're now a one issue voter, the most ignored and rightly maligned segment of the political population. Also, your devotion to it has you trickling down a Monki-esque path. Enjoy that!
I'm not one issue, but creationism and public religion in general needs to die in this country, and I can no longer support it. And face it, there is no way you would vote for a Scientologist candidate who publicly goes to Scientology gatherings and suggests that Xenu should be taught in history class.
Replies: 7
Msg #7: On 9/18/2011 at 6:27:05 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #6, saying:
You are the exact definition of a single issue voter. The most obvious lazy definition. You have thrown every other political sentiment and conviction you have out the window over one issue. Ostromite pegged it without even trying. What you're doing isn't rational or viable. It isn't worth engaging beyond this:
Scientology is not a religion. You cannot find another organized religious group with the fraud, structuring or legal trouble of that bunch. No other religious group can claim to be the largest infiltrator of the Federal government by a private criminal ring to damage their enemies. The closest to being just 'out there' that a legitimate religious group comes is the Mormons and I would happily vote for Romney and his magic underpants. I also have no problem with someone throwing a paragraph or single page in a biology textbook stating that evolution does not explain the origin of life.
This country was founded on religion in the public square. You're a single issue voter. Now either talk about the horrors of Gardasil and Perry needle raping little girls or the social security crisis... or go start your own anti-religion thread and don't derail mine. ;)
Replies: 8
Msg #8: On 9/18/2011 at 6:50:46 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #7, saying:
Well, I still disagree that I'm a single issue voter; however, a politician that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and publicly declares evolution a heresy is about as qualified as one who claims that stars must be hundreds of miles away and that the earth is flat. It demonstrates to me a clear lack of critical thought has been applied to what they (by virtue of faith) believe to be the most important question in the universe. In what other areas, then, do they make such rash, emotional judgments? It's not my only issue, it's simply one that is very important to me. I don't want Republicans to be the party of dimwits and religious zealots, and I fear that they're now openly trying to appeal to the Keystone Light drinkers, ever since the Tea Party starting going nuts. I now live in a state in which the government reminds people every now and then to pray for rain. That needs to stop.
Once we get beyond the creationism insanity, I would be likely to vote for almost anyone but Obama. But you tell me, QC: how, exactly, would the nation benefit from a President Perry or other Republican hopeful?
It doesn't really matter, as these and other issues have really turned me off to Republicans as well as Democrats. In eight years, I'm going to run on a Trainwreck-Monkipzzle ticket as an independent just to please you, QC. :)
Replies: 9
Msg #9: On 9/18/2011 at 6:57:27 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #8, saying:
End of regulatory creep.
Continuation of the (barely) conservative Supreme Court majority.
The reintroduction of the term "Islamic Jihad" and the dropping of the phrase "overseas contingency operations."
Stopping Obamacare or at least gutting parts of it.
Decreasing the massive welfare rolls inflation.
Stopping class warfare.
Tort reform.
Tax reform.
Stopping the politicization of entities like NASA.
Reducing the radical expansions and ideological bullying in the EPA and the NLRB.
Reducing tax rates across the board.
Social security reform.
Border enforcement.
Ending clusterfucks like Solendra and Lightsquared.
I got bored of listing things. And you are a single issue voter whether you like it or not based on your intentions.
Replies: 10
Msg #10: On 9/18/2011 at 7:08:34 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #9, saying:
This is off topic, but what do you mean by "the politicization of NASA," QC?
Replies: 11
Msg #11: On 9/18/2011 at 7:23:50 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #10, saying:
I'm surprised you didn't hear about it.
Edit: Also, the cancelling of the flights to the Moon and also the use of major NASA resources to justify economic redistribution as a result of purported anthropogenic global warming.
Msg #12: On 9/18/2011 at 7:49:02 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Lmfao at Republicans stopping class warfare.
QC, honestly, I used to think you were the best Republican debater here, but lately you just seem to pressure liberal users here into thinking all of your points are obviously correct, that their thinking is wrong or misinformed (example, telling Ostro he comes from a "liberal clique", which is funny because he's the one seeking our your conservative opinions and yet I've never seen you give liberal ideologies any credit), and that debating from a liberal standpoint is absolutely futile (you don't do this directly, it's just a subtle thing you do, you come across as if everything you say is matter of fact. I don't know if you do this intentionally, this is just how it looks to me). It's not encouraging for active debate and recognizing that the other person has made solid points. And some of your points here are.. ehh. Prime example being, attacking TW for being a single issue voter, as if it's a bad thing.
Everyone has an internal system for rating candidates and puts weights on issues important to them. TW has just placed a lot of weight on religion and the role it plays in the critical thinking of Republican candidates (and it's wide array of influence over MANY issues).
Also, increasing taxes is a necessary step for reducing national debt.
Also, I don't know how any informed voter can even vote for Republicans at this point. Do you not see how they're destroying the political process? Obama makes concessions with them all the fucking time, then they turn around and say "Obama shouldn't have used those policies, what a fucking idiot. America is getting worse under his presidency, and we have absolutely nothing to do with it!" Give me a fucking break.
In fact, I'd say you're far less commendable for trying to stick to conservative values instead of evaluating how fucking stupid, hateful, and disruptive most Republican candidates are. I mean, they held the debt ceiling issue hostage just to get what they fucking wanted, acting like nobody's ever raised the debt ceiling before and that it was like some huge crisis, causing massive instability in the markets. Fuck those assholes for ruining my investments. Anyway, sometimes I will vote for a local conservative if I think they are a genuinely good person that cares about the community. Ask yourself, would you ever vote for a Democrat, no matter how bad the Republican or Independent candidates are as long as their platform is agreeable to you? To me that is morally wrong.
Great article that illustrates all of this.
On the flipside, it's too bad most Democrats are barely any better though. Maybe then the choice would be far more obvious. Anyway, Obama isn't nearly as bad as Republicans paint him, it's just that he can't do a fucking thing with the conservatives running the house and repeatedly blocking any and all action that isn't beneficial for their cause, even if passing it is good for the country (see: debt ceiling fiasco).
And yes I'm Canadian, but I stay up to date on American bullshit seeing as it affects us almost as much as it affects the US.
Replies: 13
Msg #13: On 9/18/2011 at 8:28:30 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #12, saying:
It's hilarious that you come in here stating I'm not taking opposing opinions seriously and then make a slew of ideological policy statements that you toss out as declarative facts, which they aren't. You may keep up with something but whatever it is, it isn't the truth about American politics.
You just linked to a progressive org that is running ads for that stupid "occupy wall street" nonsense. It's about as unbiased as Dick Cheney.
I don't take that seriously and I don't take people who quote sources like that while touting they are "in the know" even though it isn't their country.
Msg #14: On 9/18/2011 at 8:28:54 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Also, feel free to criticize me and call me an asshole in response for posting this. I probably deserve it.
EDIT: Judging from your response, yep.
EDIT: Read the content, not the site. It's like if I dismissed your views automatically for posting on Dan's site when he's a biased liberal. Or if you dismiss my views just because I'm Canadian.
Replies: 15, 18
Msg #15: On 9/18/2011 at 8:31:13 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #14, saying:
I didn't straight out call you an asshole but you do deserve it. You just lifted a list of grievances from the most far left field of American political talking points.
Edit: Are you even aware that Obama had two years where he had majorities in both the House and Senate?
Replies: 16
Msg #16: On 9/18/2011 at 8:33:05 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #15, saying:
It's funny how "far left" in America is just "centrist" globally. Lol.
Msg #17: On 9/18/2011 at 8:33:51 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Yes, and most of his plans were impeded by internal politics. As I said, even the democrats are idiots. Just the lesser of two evils imo.
Replies: 19
Msg #18: On 9/18/2011 at 8:34:31 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #14, saying:
The content you just posted is the most generic incorrect stuff I could find in a six second google search. I really don't care to engage you on it. Are you really open to changing your mind? At least I don't cloud my political opinions and policy preferences as declarative facts like this:
"Also, increasing taxes is a necessary step for reducing national debt."
That's demonstratively false.
Msg #19: On 9/18/2011 at 8:35:38 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #17, saying:
Really? So he didn't pass two two-thousand page bills written exclusively by Democrats, to the point that they literally locked any Republicans out of the process on occasion? It's stuff like that why it isn't worth engaging.
Msg #20: On 9/18/2011 at 8:35:56 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Well it's either that, or cut back on massive expenditures like military spending. LOL at that ever happening.
Replies: 21
Msg #21: On 9/18/2011 at 8:38:45 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #20, saying:
Military spending account for about 17% of the directed spending in the budget, which is actually down historically. Also, you do realize that automatic $400 billion (edit to correct) in defense cuts will happen if the super committee doesn't come up with something else, right? How is it laughable if it's already in place to occur?
Done. (Couldn't resist)
Msg #22: On 9/18/2011 at 9:17:00 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
Everyone has an internal system for rating candidates and puts weights on issues important to them. TW has just placed a lot of weight on religion and the role it plays in the critical thinking of Republican candidates (and it's wide array of influence over MANY issues).
^ THIS, at least as far as my view on the matter. I just hate how, when conservatives/libertarians finally get a huge rally going such as Glenn Beck's 8/28 thing last year, they destroy all hope by talking about God all the time. The message it sends is clear: this is the party and movement of GOD, and if you don't believe, you are part of the problem. I mean, seriously: if these political leaders don't want me to feel marginalized or sometimes outright demonized because I don't give two shits about religion, they shouldn't constantly put their own faith on display where it isn't appropriate.
Unfortunately, I disagree on every other point Vinny makes, but hey, he is Canadian. ;)
I think we should massively cut back on military spending, but as QC points out, it is a pretty small part of a massive and wasteful budget, and also one of the very few legitimate functions of the federal government. And yes, the size of our military today is less than half of what it was in 1990.
Replies: 23
Msg #23: On 9/18/2011 at 9:37:59 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #22, saying:
And in what way has either of the top two candidates (Perry or Romney) made it a point to cram their religion in as part of the campaign? Everything I've seen from Perry, besides that prayer rally he held apart and on its own as an event, has been in response to people trying to bait "gotcha" questions. Especially that lady throwing her little girl at him and trying to get the kid to ask "why do you hate science?" I fail to see the militant drive on the part of Republican candidates to do anything to force Religion into government beyond established party positions for decades such as a constitutional amendment to define marriage as man/women (which I disagree with but people like Obama haven't even come out against yet out of political cowardice precisely because it isn't out of the mainstream) or attempt to reduce the availability or federal funding of abortions.
Replies: 25
Msg #24: On 9/19/2011 at 4:37:18 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
I would not mind John Huntsmann as president. He's fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Unfortunately he doesn't have an ice-cube's chance in Hell of getting the nom with wackjobs like Perry and Bachmann pretty much securing the religious right voters(which a large percentage).
I honestly feel bad for right leaning voters like TW. He's a man without a party. The republican party is COMPLETELY different than what is used to be; a zany collection of fundies that are more concerned about running a modern country with old age barbarism morality than actually helping and making the country function.
Msg #25: On 9/19/2011 at 5:27:14 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #23, saying:
I actually appreciate Romney's position on religion and evolution. I hope he gets the nomination; I haven't been following the news very much at all for the past couple years, and last I heard it was all about Perry vs. Bachmann.
besides that prayer rally he held apart and on its own as an event
That alone is enough for me to become hesitant to vote for a politician. I simply believe it's time for our political leaders to keep religion out of the public square. If they are asked about religion and wish to discuss it, that's fine. But holding a prayer rally? That is not becoming of a political office holder, particularly on the national level.
But yeah, undermining science the way Perry and Bachmann do is unacceptable.
Replies: 26
Msg #26: On 9/21/2011 at 10:04:20 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #25, saying:
Hey, didn't Obama make you shower with gay guys?
... just sayin'.
Replies: 27
Msg #27: On 9/22/2011 at 2:08:37 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #26, saying:
No, I volunteered.
Wait, what?
Msg #28: On 9/22/2011 at 3:06:49 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
To go back to something Trainwreck said earlier, I don't think a politician holding a prayer rally or a press conference calling for their state's citizens to pray for rain can ever be a "private" act. If you are an elected official and you hold a large public gathering where you speak about your personal beliefs, reach out to people to engage with them ideologically, and discuss the matter with the media, you are acting as a public figure. This kind of behavior is only separable from "actual" political campaigning on paper.
Msg #29: On 9/22/2011 at 8:45:34 PM, Varan101 replied, saying:
I don't think Trainwreck is overreaching on an issue here. To him, these people clinging to their Bibles and religion look like lunatics i n the same fashion that a lot of Christians view Mormonism as a lunatic cult. Its obviously hard to take a candidate seriously who puts these things out into public view and makes a big spectacle of them.
Msg #30: On 9/22/2011 at 10:11:14 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
It isn't whether he is overreaching. He is a single issue voter. That isn't debatable. Whether you phrase it as "he sees this as more important than anything else or not" it remains what it is.
Americans overwhelmingly have no issue with politicians expressing themselves religiously, even bringing it into the public forum. No one has made a big spectacle of them. TW even admitted he doesn't even really have examples (save for the bone I tossed him while asking the question) and instead is going off someone's belief alone. He's projecting his dislike for people like Monki, who are an extreme minority, onto anyone religious.
It's hard to bother with this because he is so maligned and so out of touch with the country. That the people siding with him are some of the most liberal members of the board, and that TW stated point blank that Vinny was wrong about everything else supports this.
Also, no one really has an issue with Romney's Mormon faith. He still is right up there in the Republican primary and there's a recent gallup poll showing more Americans are open to considering him than either of the other two major candidates. And I'm not endorsing the poll results, I'm just providing them to refute the notion that Mormonism is seen as a disqualifier.
Replies: 31
Msg #31: On 9/22/2011 at 10:33:10 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #30, saying:
You seem pretty determined to prove to the board that I'm some idiotic, hateful simpleton, QC. the things that bothered me about Perry are his little religious gathering (I knew about that before you pointed it out, BTW) and his support of fundamentalist religious teachings in publicly funded and accredited schools. As I said, Romney's views are more acceptable to me on this very important matter, so I hope he gets the nomination so I don't have to vote for Obama (which in all likelihood I won't anyway; I might have to just vote third party/libertarian).
Anyway, I'm not a single issue voter. And is that really any worse than a single party voter (which you clearly are)?
Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 9/22/2011 at 10:43:09 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #31, saying:
I'm not calling you a simpleton, if anything I would be calling you a bigot. I'm not really because I don't think there's any malice behind your actions regardless of the most basic definition. If you weigh the importance of a single issue above all the rest that exist, you are a single issue voter. I'm just expressing reality there. You're the one who brought it up in this thread.
It isn't even comparable to the a single party voter, which I wouldn't be if there were a single Democrat in my area that shared more in common with my beliefs overall than the Republican. Parties are made up of a large ideological coalition that shares at least a majority of convictions where multiple issues are weighed to create an affiliation.
Msg #33: On 9/22/2011 at 10:52:19 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
I don't know how much plainer to make it, regardless of your protests.
You weight one issue more than anything else, that issue directly dictates your voting choice, therefore it is the only that matters to you. You're a single issue voter.
Edit: Again, I didn't make some thread calling you out. I'm not trying to be a dick. You offered it up. I'm fine dropping it.
Msg #34: On 9/22/2011 at 11:36:59 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
You weight one issue more than anything else
I don't weight it more than the sum total of every other issue, so no, I am not a single issue voter. I simply weigh it a lot more than many others, and when a candidate inappropriately uses their faith as a political tool or attempts to jam it down the public throat, I won't apologize from removing said candidate from electoral consideration. Are you seriously telling me that if Perry were an extremely religious Muslim - to the point that he holds Islamic faith rallies and wants science class in public schools to carry blurbs in their textbooks about how the Koran's creation myths are on equal ground with evolutionary theory - you would still consider him a viable candidate for your vote? Of course you wouldn't! You would be insane to do so.
if anything I would be calling you a bigot
It's good you're not trying to call me a bigot, since I'm not even prejudiced against the religious. Some of my best friends are creationists; I just don't want their faith taught in public school.
Msg #35: On 9/23/2011 at 2:17:37 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Regardless of what else they believe and do, I won't vote for anyone who denies the Holocaust. I guess I'm a single issue voter.
Replies: 36, 37
Msg #36: On 9/23/2011 at 2:48:51 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #35, saying:
Teach the controversy, bigot.
Msg #37: On 9/23/2011 at 3:52:46 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #35, saying:
You would be, if that was actually a relevant area of differing opinion among the candidates at whatever level of office you're talking about.
Replies: 38
Msg #38: On 9/23/2011 at 6:58:23 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #37, saying:
You've essentially rendered the term meaningless when you have to add such qualifiers to stay consistent.
Replies: 39
Msg #39: On 9/23/2011 at 7:10:01 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #38, saying:
To put it more plainly given the false hyperbole, if all the candidates agree on something, it isn't an issue.
Replies: 40
Msg #40: On 9/23/2011 at 7:31:57 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #39, saying:
More directly: you label is useless and stupid if you denigrate someone for being a single issue voter if they wouldn't vote for a Holocaust denier.
Replies: 41
Msg #41: On 9/23/2011 at 7:37:00 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #40, saying:
Name any American elected official that is a Holocaust denier? It's an absurdest fallacy. The comparison fails because it's no position that our society deems reasonable.
Edit: You've already backed off the ultimatum you injected here and elsewhere, described by Ostromite (since I'm the jerk) as "no real option save out of pure desperation and cynicism" so how much longer until you drop it altogether? Then again, good luck with your third party vote.
Msg #42: On 9/23/2011 at 7:45:49 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
Then again, the whole thing completely ignores that the issue here also is that you agree with the overwhelming majority of policy positions otherwise, amplifying the weight of the issue. I understand Ostro's attempt at hyperbole but it doesn't work. You might as well as "when did you stop beating your wife?" This whole thing is getting close to Godwin's law.
Msg #43: On 9/23/2011 at 8:13:09 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
The point is that I'm sick of voting for overtly religious candidates and will no longer do it. As stated, if there is a religious Republican candidate who doesn't push for public teaching of evolution and who doesn't hold mass prayer rallies or do similar things, he'll instantly get my vote over almost any Democrat. That specifically and literally makes me not a single issue voter. Again, would you vote for an outwardly religious Islamic candidate who held mass Islamic rallies and pushed for the teaching of Muslim creation myths in public science class? No, you wouldn't. I guess you're a single issue voter.
I don't even know why this discussion is still going, considering everybody else seems to understand this.
Replies: 44
Msg #44: On 9/23/2011 at 8:26:15 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #43, saying:
"Again, would you vote for an outwardly religious Islamic candidate who held mass Islamic rallies and pushed for the teaching of Muslim creation myths in public science class?"
If they believed in everything else I did? Yes, I would. I didn't bother answering it before.
Replies: 45
Msg #45: On 9/23/2011 at 8:36:41 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #44, saying:
I really, really doubt that. But I have no choice but to take your word for that, so I will. I certainly would not, and neither would most Americans.
Anyway, can we at least move on from this topic instead of getting bogged down with such semantics? I'm sure there are more productive discussions to be had.
Replies: 46
Msg #46: On 9/23/2011 at 8:47:57 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #45, saying:
NO, WE MUST REPEAT THIS FOREVER. IT IS OUR DESTINY.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. I said that back up on #33.
And I definitely would vote for them. If I'm going to be willing to vote for a Republican who believes in anthropogenic global warming and the devastating regulatory indulgences that come along with it, why would I care if someone believes their religion and wants a paragraph cliff note of the outline of their creation myth in a textbook if they agree with everything else? If someone is convinced by that, they're going to be convinced by something else next week.
Msg #47: On 9/29/2011 at 3:18:31 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
BUMP
I AM NOT A SINGLE ISSUE VOTER!!1
|
|
