The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='dmaul1114']http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/03/and-sometimes-code-isnt-even-necessary.html

Wow. Just wow.[/QUOTE]


Scary stuff.

-

More scary stuff.

https://twitter.com/#!/Jonny_Wags/status/181427916041752576

Now, I think cable news is sensationalist trash. CNN, MSNBC, FOX. It doesn't matter. But Fox News has to be the worst offender with the worst audience.

Prime example of why Fox News is trash: They fired Judge Andrew Napolitano for not toting the Fox News shit-for-brains company ideology.

When someone as bat-shit crazy as Glenn Beck quits your company, you know there's something wrong.
 
all hail president buttsects mess and his desire to prevent you from watching buttsects!

As much as I hate to do it, I'm almost looking forward to talk radio tomorrow to watch this one get examined. On one hand, the christian right, on the other hand, limited government. Where does it stop? I think Larry Flint just needs to make a donation to a PAC on the right just to watch them squirm.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Limited federal government, eh?[/QUOTE]

The guy who home schools his kids so they don't get brainwashed by liberals doesn't know how to use parental blocks? Sheesh.
 
Who needs net nanny when you have BIG BROTHER?

You gotta admit, at least this guy is totally upfront, and not hiding behind any silly pretenses like other (R) candidates. I always wondered how the afterlife would be for the (R) candidate who elects to impose religious policies but refuses to acknowledge them as such.

"Hey, remember that time you imposed my will on the people of the United States, but were too ashamed to admit to it? Not cool, bro. Not cool."
 
Rick Santorum is apparently not your free market conservative candidate. But really, don't you WANT a catholic taliban for america?
 
Wait.....Dont Re-Nig in 2012........uhhh correct me if I am wrong but wouldnt that mean please vote for Obama? He is already in office so reneging would mean to take him out....not reneging would keep him in.

Or am I confused.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who needs net nanny when you have BIG BROTHER?

You gotta admit, at least this guy is totally upfront, and not hiding behind any silly pretenses like other (R) candidates. I always wondered how the afterlife would be for the (R) candidate who elects to impose religious policies but refuses to acknowledge them as such.

"Hey, remember that time you imposed my will on the people of the United States, but were too ashamed to admit to it? Not cool, bro. Not cool."[/QUOTE]

yeah, I kinda want Sanitorum to win so there would be a clear divide between the two and what they want.

However, if he wins I worry that it could give more credence to his outlandish ideas. People saying "Well, if that many pepole support the guy he can't be all wrong......."
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Not surprising. First thing a number of first time GOP senate winners from 2010 did was make a trip to Israel.[/QUOTE]
I think

Asked what the donors are getting out of the weekend, Lindsay replied, "They're getting a Republican House next year."
Click to expand...

says it all.
 
Yeah, funny how someone thinks they're clever with the play on words of renegging, but then turns out to shoot themself in the foot with engrish.

Hannity lies yet again, he just mentioned that he paid $5.09 per gallon for gas in Armonk, NY this weekend.
http://www.newyorkstategasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=C&area=Armonk&dl=Y&intro=Y
$4.59 on the low end and $4.91 on the high end and prices haven't dropped per the chart.

Sadly nothing on Rick "Say no to pornum" yet.

Also, hand wringing over Michelle Obama going on Letterman after his Bristol Palin comments from 3 years ago.
 
I feel like conservatives are just dying for a funny, conservative comic, sadly it seem that Dennis Miller is the closest thing they have, and that's stretching the definition of funny. You'd think humor and wit would flourish under such staunch conservatism, but no....
 
[quote name='Clak']I feel like conservatives are just dying for a funny, conservative comic, sadly it seem that Dennis Miller is the closest thing they have, and that's stretching the definition of funny. You'd think humor and wit would flourish under such staunch conservatism, but no....[/QUOTE]

[quote name='nasum']Really? I always thought he was 2nd only to Norm MacDonald for Weekend Update.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with his current political views but I've always thought that Dennis Miller was funny.

For a conservative I don't think any of his ideas are too outlandish, but I'll admit that there are probably some quotes out there that I would find shocking/distasteful.
 
[quote name='nasum']Really? I always thought he was 2nd only to Norm MacDonald for Weekend Update.[/QUOTE]
Have you seen him lately? Seriously, put him up next to Stewart or Colbert and there is no contest. But like I said, he's the best they seem to have. Every one else seems to be a variation of a redneck character.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Wait.....Dont Re-Nig in 2012........uhhh correct me if I am wrong but wouldnt that mean please vote for Obama? He is already in office so reneging would mean to take him out....not reneging would keep him in.

Or am I confused.[/QUOTE]

I think expecting the people that embrace this kind of racist filth to have any sense of logic or a reasonable grasp of the English language is horribly optimistic.
 
[quote name='62t']Santorum: 'Issue in this race is not the economy'

lol[/QUOTE]

Santorum is running as the Religious Crusader. It makes sense he doesn't see the economy as the main issue when there's pornography and abortion and contraception and Muslims in the White House!! to deal with. Of course, probably has nothing to do with the fact that, if Santorum gets the nomination, the economy is going to be one his weaknesses, especially since signs are pointing to an improving economy under Obama. While this comment is likely to play well to the Religious Right, I don't really see how it benefits him getting the conservative vote, which is why I expect to see a backtread on that comment any second now.
 
[quote name='lilboo']All Republicans are awful. Anyone with an (R) next to their name is the devil.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/mobi...kers-make-case-against-same-sex-marriage.html

OK, most of them are nuts. But I just think it's important to know that there are some good people in the party. But since they have an R next to their name, most people won't even give them a benefit of the doubt. Shame, really.[/QUOTE]


I would go so far as to say anyone with a (D) or an (R) next to their name are nuts. Well most of them anyway.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Constitution Party member?[/QUOTE]

No. I am not a member of any political party.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']No. I am not a member of any political party.[/QUOTE]
Do you vote
did anyone you vote for have a letter next to their name
What was the letter that showed up most - if you vote I'm guessing it was R. AMIRITE
 
[quote name='camoor']Do you vote
did anyone you vote for have a letter next to their name
What was the letter that showed up most - if you vote I'm guessing it was R. AMIRITE[/QUOTE]

Yes I do vote and have served in the miltary and state and federal government as I see/saw it as my duty.

I vote for the person that will best represent me, my beliefs, my rights, my profession, my family, my neighborhood, my city my state etc etc. I vote for the person that I want to vote for not what a party, union or someone else tells me to vote for.

As I just said in another thread. I can tell that you DO NOT vote D since you said this....

"I don't like this "abuse the freedom of speech" talk. First off I think it's ridiculously nanny-state to have the government criminalizing internet conversations and debates that indulge in ad hominems. But beyond the penny-ante stuff, I see it being used by politicians to shut down political views they don't like, or corporations to shut down websites that show them in a negative light."

I just say it because you seem to cross party lines. Or do you just vote the way you are told?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Yes I do vote and have served in the miltary and state and federal government as I see/saw it as my duty.

I vote for the person that will best represent me, my beliefs, my rights, my profession, my family, my neighborhood, my city my state etc etc. I vote for the person that I want to vote for not what a party, union or someone else tells me to vote for.

As I just said in another thread. I can tell that you DO NOT vote D since you said this....

"I don't like this "abuse the freedom of speech" talk. First off I think it's ridiculously nanny-state to have the government criminalizing internet conversations and debates that indulge in ad hominems. But beyond the penny-ante stuff, I see it being used by politicians to shut down political views they don't like, or corporations to shut down websites that show them in a negative light."

I just say it because you seem to cross party lines. Or do you just vote the way you are told?[/QUOTE]
Your entire framing paints you as a card-carrying teabagger that votes R only because there isn't another teabagger on the ticket.

I always find it hilarious when dumb cons talk about LIEberals voting for Ron Paul because he superficially supports two big things that are only seemingly liberal and that he'd bring important issues to the national stage...as if they'd support Bernie Sanders because he brings up ignored issues as well. Crossing party lines to you means voting conservative in whatever guise they may take as long as it isn't a D.

Also, you stated that you agree that trolling should be a criminal offense if it was voted into law in the other thread. This directly contradicts your post in this thread.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Yes I do vote and have served in the miltary and state and federal government as I see/saw it as my duty.

I vote for the person that will best represent me, my beliefs, my rights, my profession, my family, my neighborhood, my city my state etc etc. I vote for the person that I want to vote for not what a party, union or someone else tells me to vote for.

As I just said in another thread. I can tell that you DO NOT vote D since you said this....

"I don't like this "abuse the freedom of speech" talk. First off I think it's ridiculously nanny-state to have the government criminalizing internet conversations and debates that indulge in ad hominems. But beyond the penny-ante stuff, I see it being used by politicians to shut down political views they don't like, or corporations to shut down websites that show them in a negative light."

I just say it because you seem to cross party lines. Or do you just vote the way you are told?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty damn liberal and that's a pretty damn liberal position.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm pretty damn liberal and that's a pretty damn liberal position.[/QUOTE]

Actually it may be your view but not Obama's or dems that support his policies on that.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Your entire framing paints you as a card-carrying teabagger that votes R only because there isn't another teabagger on the ticket.

I always find it hilarious when dumb cons talk about LIEberals voting for Ron Paul because he superficially supports two big things that are only seemingly liberal and that he'd bring important issues to the national stage...as if they'd support Bernie Sanders because he brings up ignored issues as well. Crossing party lines to you means voting conservative in whatever guise they may take as long as it isn't a D.

Also, you stated that you agree that trolling should be a criminal offense if it was voted into law in the other thread. This directly contradicts your post in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Okay you lost me.

You really got alot out of my posts that wasn't there at all. I do see where some "followers" have problems understanding that a person can think on their own and vote accordingly to their beliefs thoughts needs etc.

Oh and I am not for "trolling" to be against the law. You really should read my posts instead of assuming and planning what you are going to say next.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Okay you lost me.

You really got alot out of my posts that wasn't there at all. I do see where some "followers" have problems understanding that a person can think on their own and vote accordingly to their beliefs thoughts needs etc.[/QUOTE]
Are you surprised that I consistantly beat your arguments to the punch?

Oh and I am not for "trolling" to be against the law. You really should read my posts instead of assuming and planning what you are going to say next.
Click to expand...

ORLY? Here's your exact quote, I knew it would come in handy:

[quote name='Pliskin101']We will agree to disagree. As I do not see it as censorship or anything more than stopping criminal activities. If you don't break the law then there isn't a problem (not you specifically).

I take it you are not voting for obama and are not a democrat since they go against your belief.

BTW I love the duke reference. I played the remake or new one and thought it sucked but I loved the original.:)[/QUOTE]
All of your posts in that thread are in support of that legislation because people "abuse free speech" and "hide in anonimity" and in this thread, you say that you're not for censorship. The same kind of censorship, of which you somehow strip the meaning of, that you're supporting in that other thread. Or do you expect people here not to be able to put those things together?

edit: And of course, "trolling" wouldn't be illegal; just being mean, obtuse, argumentative, insulting, and other troll-like behavior.

edit2: About the "breaking the law part." I guess that if it became law, just don't break it and there won't be any problems right?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Are you surprised that I consistantly beat your arguments to the punch?



ORLY? Here's your exact quote, I knew it would come in handy:


All of your posts in that thread are in support of that legislation because people "abuse free speech" and "hide in anonimity" and in this thread, you say that you're not for censorship. The same kind of censorship, of which you somehow strip the meaning of, that you're supporting in that other thread. Or do you expect people here not to be able to put those things together?

edit: And of course, "trolling" wouldn't be illegal; just being mean, obtuse, argumentative, insulting, and other troll-like behavior.

edit2: About the "breaking the law part." I guess that if it became law, just don't break it and there won't be any problems right?[/QUOTE]

No I am not surprised that you constantly read things that are not there because you have a narrow mind that also aides in your tunnel vision of people in which you form your assumptions and beliefs around. Since you are limited or limit yourself then it is no surprise that you are constantly wrong.

(the following is more for other folks reading all of this as you do not have the capability to understand anything outside you and your disorder) As for the rest as I said I am not for trolling becoming illegal. You should familiarize yourself with what the term means. The law as I also said if refined is not censorship.

[quote name='Pliskin101']not sure if you are being serious...

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and to a free press. 1 However, these rights are regularly proscribed when applied to certain forms of speech that have been held to have no, or less than absolute, First Amendment protection. 2 Speech that is indecent, 3 incites unlawful action, 4 and "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" 5 represents three areas where a constant tension exists between the First Amendment's protection of speech and the Government's responsibility to the public to protect it from substantial harm.



It looks a little broad right now. But overall I am in favor of curbing and holding responsible those that abuse the freedom of speech. Another problem I have is the anonymity in which it can be done.

Are you against the law or a similar but not so broad law being enacted?[/QUOTE]

Then someone asked if what i have against anonymity. To which I corrected my wording as it sounded like I was against it all together but I am not.

[quote name='Pliskin101']I don't have a complete problem with anonymity and I understand the need for it to be protected as far as it is not breaking the law or hurting someone. I get frustrated by it and the way it is used on the internet but I am not against it. I quoted dmaul because that is mainly where my frustrations come from. Sites like Topix that have no moderation or registration. So no I am not against anonymity but see the evil as much as the good that it serves.

As far as censorship I do not see that in AZ law but as I said it IMO needs to be refined as it said on the link "offend and annoy" seems to broad. As far as the rest I think it should be a crime (except maybe profanity) and I don't see why anyone would not want it to be except those that are doing those activities.

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person."[/QUOTE]

So terrifying, intimidating, threatening people on the internet is okay by you? It seems to be. I will stand by what I said I would support it if it is refined and I would not see it a censorship but a fair and just law.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm pretty damn liberal and that's a pretty damn liberal position.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, after all, we don't have many liberals on a crusade against porn, which of course is going to involve the internet in a large way. Censorship isn't usually a liberal position, it's just that conservatives see it that way when it comes to things like hate crimes, because they're the ones most often involved in them.

I always think it's funny when people say they vote for whoever best represents them, not one some mean ol' party tells them to vote for. That implies that advertising has no effect,m which is bull. That also basically means that as long as that candidate is screwing everyone else and not you, you'd vote for them. fuck everyone else, right?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']No I am not surprised that you constantly read things that are not there because you have a narrow mind that also aides in your tunnel vision of people in which you form your assumptions and beliefs around. Since you are limited or limit yourself then it is no surprise that you are constantly wrong.[/QUOTE]
AhAHaHaha...says the person that accuses me of having an "agenda" and being a "radical" without defining either. Not to mention that you saying that I'm consistantly wrong doesn't make it so.

(the following is more for other folks reading all of this as you do not have the capability to understand anything outside you and your disorder) As for the rest as I said I am not for trolling becoming illegal. You should familiarize yourself with what the term means. The law as I also said if refined is not censorship.
Click to expand...
How about you go into more detail about my "disorder?" I'd love for you to tell me more about myself. I'm quite serious about this.

You also don't get to refine and redefine words without giving good reasons for it. How is it not censorship? Compare and contrast trolling with the law as proposed. Where do the items, that you don't have a problem with, are included in your definition of trolling?

See, lots of questions here, but judging from your previous threadshits, I don't expect any serious answers beyond you calling me a "radical" and having a "disorder."

Then someone asked if what i have against anonymity. To which I corrected my wording as it sounded like I was against it all together but I am not.
Click to expand...
You mean you're not completely against anonimity; just for those that you dislike.

So terrifying, intimidating, threatening people on the internet is okay by you? It seems to be. I will stand by what I said I would support it if it is refined and I would not see it a censorship but a fair and just law.
Click to expand...
You can't separate the law from it's consequences. So if you think a law like this is just and fair, should sites like Breitbart, Drudge, Stormfront, freepress, etc be shut down and owners be prosecuted under it? They way you so broadly use language, almost anything could be defined as terrifying, intimidating, and threatening unless you're referring to yourself, in which case, only very narrow interpretations apply.

Lay off the Just World Theory koolaid for just a minute.

I'm still hoping against hope that I'll get some serious and nuanced answers out of you. But I know I'm going to get more of the same. You disappoint.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah, after all, we don't have many liberals on a crusade against porn, which of course is going to involve the internet in a large way. Censorship isn't usually a liberal position, it's just that conservatives see it that way when it comes to things like hate crimes, because they're the ones most often involved in them.

I always think it's funny when people say they vote for whoever best represents them, not one some mean ol' party tells them to vote for. That implies that advertising has no effect,m which is bull. That also basically means that as long as that candidate is screwing everyone else and not you, you'd vote for them. fuck everyone else, right?[/QUOTE]

oh to be young and dumb.....Is it true that ignorance is bliss?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']oh to be young and dumb.....Is it true that ignorance is bliss?[/QUOTE]
Now tell us why his statements make him a young and blissful ignoramous.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Now tell us why his statements make him a young and blissful ignoramous.[/QUOTE]

no!!
 
[quote name='dohdough']post 3799[/QUOTE]

Just another post showing that you have a disorder and I am done with you. I tried to help you and then placate you and even give you a chance but no longer.
I will not play into your hallucinations any longer.

Do you need that defined? Noun..An experience involving the perception of something not present.


BYE BYE NOW
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']no!![/QUOTE]
And this explains, quite precisely, all we need to know about you.

I guess it's a good thing you don't live in Arizona if Brewer signs the bill because then you'd be a criminal too.

[quote name='Pliskin101']Just another post showing that you have a disorder and I am done with you. I tried to help you and then placate you and even give you a chance but no longer.[/QUOTE]
Describe the disorder. What are the symptoms? What kind of disorder is it? What types of treatment have you suggested? How did you try to "placate" me?

I will not play into your hallucinations any longer.
Click to expand...
Yeah...there's no such thing as subtext right? You might know it better as "reading between the lines." It's something that you do all the time, but can't seem to acknowledge it. I think that's also called "projection" because you find it too difficult to be upset as yourself for it.

Do you need that defined? Noun..An experience involving the perception of something not present.
Click to expand...
At least you've given a definition of something. Too bad you haven't defined the other things like "radical," "agenda," etc.

BYE BYE NOW
Click to expand...
I've heard that before, but I'm guessing you have a compulsion to address points with vagueries and obfuscation because not only do you only have a superfcial understanding of the concepts you espouse, but you know that any detailed description you attempt would play out as how others interpret them. This is exactly why you don't answer my simple questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Pliskin101']oh to be young and dumb.....Is it true that ignorance is bliss?[/QUOTE]

Isn't this what that Arizona law was intended to repress.

Weren't you the one that liked criminal charges for posts like this.

This board has some world-class hypocrites but damn you blew them right out of the water
 
[quote name='camoor']Isn't this what that Arizona law was intended to repress.

Weren't you the one that liked criminal charges for posts like this.

This board has some world-class hypocrites but damn you blew them right out of the water[/QUOTE]

If it was passed the way it is/was possibly.


Oh please do quote where I said posts "like this" should be criminal. Please also point out where I am being a hypocrite on this.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm pretty damn liberal and that's a pretty damn liberal position.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you do some research.

Here is a clue...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318823&page=2

[quote name='Pliskin101']Just to clarify as the linked story is partially wrong.... The bill was never transferred to the governor. The bill was amended before it passed the Senate meaning it was returned to the House where it has stopped.

Also this is a bipartisan bill. It has D's and R's sponsoring it, co-sponsoring it and supporting it.

Terrifying, intimidating and threatening people on the internet is not a right IMO. If the bill gets refined I would not see it a censorship but a fair and just law that I would back if I lived in AZ.

edit: Besides Arizona many states with bipartisan support are working to or have enact/enacted similar laws. Federal and State laws are not enough for the medium. Old laws will have to be updated or new ones enacted. They are going about it clumsily, with laziness and they are usually sloppily written but the need is there.[/QUOTE]

I live in a "liberal" state and this az bill is/has being echoed by this 50 year democrat ran state. My state is not the only one.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't care if Jesus Christ himself comes down and backs the bill. It's still stupid as hell.[/QUOTE]

So are you conceding that your view is not a position that liberals have on this type of law?

If not you should as liberal and conservatives alike are backing it and other laws like it.

.
 
Who was the dude a few weeks back who was telling me that it's not racist to want to stay out of black neighborhoods - or that it was appropriate to fear for your safety in black neighborhoods? Yeah, he'd enjoy that link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top