U.S. politics isolation tank

[Netzach]

We could give a tax credit to democrat congressmen to stay home and get a Twitter when a vote is up and vote by email. I know you people think tax credits are the same as tax cuts so that would be a good thing.

Nothing is going to pass the House anyway in the next two years that isn't going to meet the veto pen. No real point in having an office staff in Washington either. For what? Speeches on C-Span that no one in their right mind gives a shit about? In fact, I agree with Jindal that the House could be a part time job. Like it is in Georgia. 40 days out of the year. Build military barracks and house them two to a room for 40 days. That would bring some humility to them, anyway. Maybe they would retire at 65 instead of "working" until they were 123.

The hill used to basically be glorified civil service. They lived like mid level newspapermen, but that was during the Eisenhower tax brackets you think were invented by Karl Marx.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Finally!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_in_military

WASHINGTON – In a landmark for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to let gays serve openly in the military, giving President Barack Obama the chance to fulfill a campaign promise and repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

Obama was expected to sign it next week, although the change wouldn't take immediate effect. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.

"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said in a statement after a test vote cleared the way for final action. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."

The Senate vote was 65-31. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-175, on Wednesday.

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

 

[midwestyankee]

I wonder who has the franchise rights for exploded brain collection in the southeast. I think they could have a boom year next year when the military doesn't collapse because teh gays get to shoot the bad guys too.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Now pass the fucking 9/11 First Responders bill you assholes!

 

[WriterDom]

I wonder who has the franchise rights for exploded brain collection in the southeast. I think they could have a boom year next year when the military doesn't collapse because teh gays get to shoot the bad guys too.

No worse than Chicago. There are more gays in Atlanta than any other city in the country according to some. Everyone puts Atlanta in the top three. Even in this little town there are gay professional people who seem to be doing ok with no burning crosses in their parking lots.

The hardcore combat units aren't happy about it but they think the entire air force and navy are gay, metaphorically speaking. The only ones that will quit over it might be the Baptist chaplains. And there are a shitload of them in the military. But if they need more chaplains they can just dangle 50,000 dollar bonuses at them.

We had a gay E-6 in our little division on the ship back in the 80s. He kept to himself in port. I guess doing whatever gay people do. Not a problem really.

 

[JMohegan]

Yesterday was a very good day/ very bad day combo.

Hats off to those who busted their asses working to repeal DADT - including, of all people, Joe Lieberman! Amazing.

Shame on the cowards and bastards who shot down the Dream.

Oh, and John McCain - fuck you. But thanks for the reminder that elections really do matter.




.

 

[teknight]

Keeping America Safe (x-posted with the let's compromise thread...'cause....)

Monitoring America
Just a snippet from the contents:

The months-long investigation, based on nearly 100 interviews and 1,000 documents, found that:

* Technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America.

* The FBI is building a database with the names and certain personal information, such as employment history, of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents whom a local police officer or a fellow citizen believed to be acting suspiciously. It is accessible to an increasing number of local law enforcement and military criminal investigators, increasing concerns that it could somehow end up in the public domain.

* Seeking to learn more about Islam and terrorism, some law enforcement agencies have hired as trainers self-described experts whose extremist views on Islam and terrorism are considered inaccurate and counterproductive by the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies.

* The Department of Homeland Security sends its state and local partners intelligence reports with little meaningful guidance, and state reports have sometimes inappropriately reported on lawful meetings.

 

[Netzach]

Hey look - who needs revenue from corporations or the top 1 percent- shiny shit! Santa!

I'm a very unhappily happy about DADT. I don't feel like I should be partying in the streets because we're being dragged unwillingly into the Western world, and I don't see the common asshole getting more pie.

There's no "there" there when both of Heather's mommies unemployment runs out and one of them gets cancer with 2 months to go on COBRA.

 

[WriterDom]

Yesterday was a very good day/ very bad day combo.

Hats off to those who busted their asses working to repeal DADT - including, of all people, Joe Lieberman! Amazing.

Shame on the cowards and bastards who shot down the Dream.

Oh, and John McCain - fuck you. But thanks for the reminder that elections really do matter.




.

Try holding hearings and allowing amendments and making it part of total immigration reform. You you, democracy kind of stuff? Besides, its time for this congress to go home.

 

[Homburg]

I wonder who has the franchise rights for exploded brain collection in the southeast. I think they could have a boom year next year when the military doesn't collapse because teh gays get to shoot the bad guys too.

You would probably be surprised at how few heads are actually going to explode down here. The military is largely southern and the majority of the military really doesn't give a fuck about gays in uniform. That attitude tends to spread at least in the major military communities.

Now, not to pick on the midwest, but I have noticed some rumblings out that way, y'know, in the "heartland". Around here, not so much.

Admittedly though, I do like the cognitive dissonance that could be brought on by the rabid "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" mentality crashing into "GOD HATES FAGS".

"Thank you for your service, you dirty, um, faggot."

--

Hey look - who needs revenue from corporations or the top 1 percent- shiny shit! Santa!

I'm a very unhappily happy about DADT. I don't feel like I should be partying in the streets because we're being dragged unwillingly into the Western world, and I don't see the common asshole getting more pie.

There's no "there" there when both of Heather's mommies unemployment runs out and one of them gets cancer with 2 months to go on COBRA.

Dude, be happy. More than one massive societal change in the way of extending rights was prefaced by the military deciding that it was time to change.

And think about it for a second. If someone gay is allowed to serve openly, and, say they were from California and were married legally, the military would be forced to extend benefits to that person's spouse. Literally all we need to see this particular change are gay people from states that allow gay marriage joining the military or getting married while serving. Dependents have rights, and the military is highly likely to extend them regardless of gender to any legally married couple.

If the military does it, civilian workplaces will follow.

 

[midwestyankee]

You would probably be surprised at how few heads are actually going to explode down here. The military is largely southern and the majority of the military really doesn't give a fuck about gays in uniform. That attitude tends to spread at least in the major military communities.

Now, not to pick on the midwest, but I have noticed some rumblings out that way, y'know, in the "heartland". Around here, not so much.

Admittedly though, I do like the cognitive dissonance that could be brought on by the rabid "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" mentality crashing into "GOD HATES FAGS".

"Thank you for your service, you dirty, um, faggot."

--

I don't doubt that the presence of military bases might mitigate certain attitudes.

But then the southeast also serves as fertile ground for the likes of the American Family Association, whose Bryan Fischer had this to say:

"The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours. ... Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all,"

 

[teknight]

How do people get to be that...stupid? (I am referring to Bryan Fischer and his ilk)

 

[WriterDom]

10 million people in Georgia and you might find a dozen that give a shit about gays in the military. I realize that on this particular board the sun rises and sets over gay rights but the vast majority of people don't really care unless you force them to cast a vote on it. And even that is passe in 2010. Now we can have a binding vote on gay marriage if you like but it will be defeated 75% to 25%.

I'm rather fond of don't ask, don't tell, and don't discharge myself. Keep your private life, private, in other words.

 

[ImOnIt]

I'm rather fond of don't ask, don't tell, and don't discharge myself. Keep your private life, private, in other words.

They don't want pink camoflage or anything, the point is having the legal status recognised. Which, incidentally can't be done if you aren't allowed to speak of the matter.

 

[intothewoods]

They don't want pink camoflage or anything, the point is having the legal status recognised. Which, incidentally can't be done if you aren't allowed to speak of the matter.

Well, obviously there's a difference between talking about what happened in your bed last night and just acknowledging that you have a girlfriend.

 

[JMohegan]

How do people get to be that...stupid? (I am referring to Bryan Fischer and his ilk)

He read the Bible, that's how. See, for example....


The Feminization of the Medal of Honor

The blowback to my column of two days ago, in which I argued that we seem to have become reluctant to award the Medal of Honor to those who take aggressive action against the enemy and kill bad guys, has been fierce. It has been angry, vituperative, hate-filled, and laced with both profanity and blasphemy.

What is striking here is that readers who have reacted so viscerally to what I wrote apparently didn’t read it, or only read the parts that ticked them off. I’m guessing a fair amount of the reaction has come from those who didn’t actually read the column, but read what others said about the column. It’s been fascinating to watch.

For clarification, here are excerpts from my first column in which I clearly state that it is altogether right that we honor heroism and bravery when it is expressed in self sacrifice:


"The Medal of Honor will be awarded this afternoon to Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta for his heroism in Afghanistan, and deservedly so. He took a bullet in his protective vest as he pulled one soldier to safety, and then rescued the sergeant who was walking point and had been taken captive by two Taliban, whom Sgt. Giunta shot to free his comrade-in-arms.

This is just the eighth Medal of Honor awarded during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sgt. Giunta is the only one who lived long enough to receive his medal in person.

Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, 'Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends' (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings."


I’m not sure there is a clearer or more forceful way for me to say it than I did right there, that we surely ought to continue doing what we have done, which is to grant our highest award for valor to those who risk their lives and even forfeit them, as our Lord and Savior did, in defending the lives of their friends.

Some have accused me of denigrating awards for such valor, which is nonsense, as the words above attest. I can hardly be rightly accused of denigrating an award given to those who I believe exemplify the courage and self-sacrifice of the Savior of the world. I have no doubt that I will continue to be accused of this, but such accusations are entirely without merit.

I’m not saying that our soldiers have become feminized in the least, especially those who have earned the Medal of Honor. It’s not our soldiers who have become feminized, it is the awards process that has become feminized.

What I am saying is that I am observing a trend in which we single out bravery in self-defense and yet seem hesitant to single out bravery in launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers.

I never even remotely suggested that we should stop honoring exceptional bravery in defense of our own troops; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, as the above excerpts show. To borrow a phrase from Jesus, I say, “You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former” (Matthew 23:23).

It is striking that a certain amount of the criticism I have received actually verifies my thesis. In response to my call to also honor those who have killed bad guys in defense of our country, I have been called everything from savage to brute to bloodthirsty to anti-American to un-American to traitor to “expletives deleted” to the antichrist himself.

Surely some of this supports my contention that we have become too squeamish to honor such valor. It’s almost as if it embarrasses us, as if we feel there is something inappropriate about awarding our highest honor to those who kill the enemy in battle. It is as if our culture has become so soft and so feminized that it makes us enormously uncomfortable to think about praising such actions. It’s like we know such warfare needs to be waged, but we’re hoping we don’t have to find out very much about it.

It apparently is easier for us to honor valor when exhibited in self-defense, but we find ourselves reluctant to honor killing the enemy when we are the aggressor in a military setting.

By my rough count, about 25% of the Medals of Honor during the Vietnam War were granted to soldiers who showed unusual bravery and courage in assertive military action against the enemy. So far, according to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, we have yet to do so even once in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely there have been exceptional acts of bravery of those kinds in these wars, and yet we have failed to grant our highest honor for gallantry to any of them.

The Scriptures certainly know nothing of such squeamishness. Remember what drove King Saul into a jealous rage was when the women of Israel commemorated David’s exploits in song:

“Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).

And this was not the last of David’s exploits in just wars. He went down to the town of Keilah where he “fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow” (1 Samuel 23:5).

Then he went after the Amalekites, and we are told that “David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and fled” (1 Samuel 30:17).

Again, “David did as the LORD commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba to Gezer” (2 Samuel 5:25).

Further we read in 2 Samuel 8, “David defeated the Philistines and subdued them...he defeated Moab...David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah...David struck down 22,000 men of the Syrians...and the LORD gave victory to David everywhere he went...and David made a name for himself when he returned from striking down 18,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt...and the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went” (vv. 1,2,3,5,6,13,14).

And this, remember, was “the man after (God’s) heart” (1 Samuel 13:14).

Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).

War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.

The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again.

 

[teknight]

"What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again."
Nuclear pillars of fire for all.

At least Christians aren't pacifist pussies.

 

[Netzach]

Dude, be happy. More than one massive societal change in the way of extending rights was prefaced by the military deciding that it was time to change.

And think about it for a second. If someone gay is allowed to serve openly, and, say they were from California and were married legally, the military would be forced to extend benefits to that person's spouse. Literally all we need to see this particular change are gay people from states that allow gay marriage joining the military or getting married while serving. Dependents have rights, and the military is highly likely to extend them regardless of gender to any legally married couple.

If the military does it, civilian workplaces will follow.

I am happy about it, I'd be insane not to be. I just - kitchen table stuff. Straight people, you know, them too.

 

[Netzach]

He read the Bible, that's how. See, for example....


The Feminization of the Medal of Honor

The blowback to my column of two days ago, in which I argued that we seem to have become reluctant to award the Medal of Honor to those who take aggressive action against the enemy and kill bad guys, has been fierce. It has been angry, vituperative, hate-filled, and laced with both profanity and blasphemy.

What is striking here is that readers who have reacted so viscerally to what I wrote apparently didn’t read it, or only read the parts that ticked them off. I’m guessing a fair amount of the reaction has come from those who didn’t actually read the column, but read what others said about the column. It’s been fascinating to watch.

For clarification, here are excerpts from my first column in which I clearly state that it is altogether right that we honor heroism and bravery when it is expressed in self sacrifice:


"The Medal of Honor will be awarded this afternoon to Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta for his heroism in Afghanistan, and deservedly so. He took a bullet in his protective vest as he pulled one soldier to safety, and then rescued the sergeant who was walking point and had been taken captive by two Taliban, whom Sgt. Giunta shot to free his comrade-in-arms.

This is just the eighth Medal of Honor awarded during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sgt. Giunta is the only one who lived long enough to receive his medal in person.

Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, 'Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends' (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings."


I’m not sure there is a clearer or more forceful way for me to say it than I did right there, that we surely ought to continue doing what we have done, which is to grant our highest award for valor to those who risk their lives and even forfeit them, as our Lord and Savior did, in defending the lives of their friends.

Some have accused me of denigrating awards for such valor, which is nonsense, as the words above attest. I can hardly be rightly accused of denigrating an award given to those who I believe exemplify the courage and self-sacrifice of the Savior of the world. I have no doubt that I will continue to be accused of this, but such accusations are entirely without merit.

I’m not saying that our soldiers have become feminized in the least, especially those who have earned the Medal of Honor. It’s not our soldiers who have become feminized, it is the awards process that has become feminized.

What I am saying is that I am observing a trend in which we single out bravery in self-defense and yet seem hesitant to single out bravery in launching aggressive attacks that result in the deaths of enemy soldiers.

I never even remotely suggested that we should stop honoring exceptional bravery in defense of our own troops; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact, as the above excerpts show. To borrow a phrase from Jesus, I say, “You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former” (Matthew 23:23).

It is striking that a certain amount of the criticism I have received actually verifies my thesis. In response to my call to also honor those who have killed bad guys in defense of our country, I have been called everything from savage to brute to bloodthirsty to anti-American to un-American to traitor to “expletives deleted” to the antichrist himself.

Surely some of this supports my contention that we have become too squeamish to honor such valor. It’s almost as if it embarrasses us, as if we feel there is something inappropriate about awarding our highest honor to those who kill the enemy in battle. It is as if our culture has become so soft and so feminized that it makes us enormously uncomfortable to think about praising such actions. It’s like we know such warfare needs to be waged, but we’re hoping we don’t have to find out very much about it.

It apparently is easier for us to honor valor when exhibited in self-defense, but we find ourselves reluctant to honor killing the enemy when we are the aggressor in a military setting.

By my rough count, about 25% of the Medals of Honor during the Vietnam War were granted to soldiers who showed unusual bravery and courage in assertive military action against the enemy. So far, according to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, we have yet to do so even once in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely there have been exceptional acts of bravery of those kinds in these wars, and yet we have failed to grant our highest honor for gallantry to any of them.

The Scriptures certainly know nothing of such squeamishness. Remember what drove King Saul into a jealous rage was when the women of Israel commemorated David’s exploits in song:

“Saul has struck down his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7).

And this was not the last of David’s exploits in just wars. He went down to the town of Keilah where he “fought with the Philistines and brought away their livestock and struck them with a great blow” (1 Samuel 23:5).

Then he went after the Amalekites, and we are told that “David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men who mounted camels and fled” (1 Samuel 30:17).

Again, “David did as the LORD commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba to Gezer” (2 Samuel 5:25).

Further we read in 2 Samuel 8, “David defeated the Philistines and subdued them...he defeated Moab...David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah...David struck down 22,000 men of the Syrians...and the LORD gave victory to David everywhere he went...and David made a name for himself when he returned from striking down 18,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt...and the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went” (vv. 1,2,3,5,6,13,14).

And this, remember, was “the man after (God’s) heart” (1 Samuel 13:14).

Christianity is not a religion of pacifism. Remember that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers who came to him to lay down their arms, even when they asked him directly, “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).

War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.

The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again.

I think sacrifice has been feminized. If you compare the actions of the single mothers returning from these wars to face homelessness for them and their children and the percentage of them compared to the percentage of women involved in the wars overall - we're going full on Mother Mary.

Fuck him in the ear.

 

[Netzach]

10 million people in Georgia and you might find a dozen that give a shit about gays in the military. I realize that on this particular board the sun rises and sets over gay rights but the vast majority of people don't really care unless you force them to cast a vote on it. And even that is passe in 2010. Now we can have a binding vote on gay marriage if you like but it will be defeated 75% to 25%.

I'm rather fond of don't ask, don't tell, and don't discharge myself. Keep your private life, private, in other words.

I'm ok with it if it expands to include the idea that talking about your sex life if you are any sexuality while active duty and on the job is creepy, TMI, harrassment like and should be completely evenly applied. No one should know anyone else's business and the environment should be professional.

Maybe then there'll be less sexual assault. You'll probably say boys will be boys. Maybe everyone will actually chill out more so they don't have to know as much about each other's dick adventures.

 

[Homburg]

I don't doubt that the presence of military bases might mitigate certain attitudes.

But then the southeast also serves as fertile ground for the likes of the American Family Association, whose Bryan Fischer had this to say:

"The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours. ... Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all,"

The southeast is to blame because a few dickheads live here? Why not Arizona, with John McCain, the flag-waver for the "Keep on DADT'ing" crowd?

Seriously, I'm not saying we are some enlightened pro-gay mecca. I'm just saying that this particular stereotype is just not borne out as often as you think in at least the areas I'm used to. Admittedly, those are mostly areas around military bases, but that's a significant portion of the south anyway

--

I am happy about it, I'd be insane not to be. I just - kitchen table stuff. Straight people, you know, them too.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being naive, but I can look back in history and see times when the military's decision to change heralded the coming of societal change overall. It's potent, simply because the govt handles the military in a particular way, and will bull-headedly protects soldier's rights for the simple reason that the military granted them, dammit. The organisation is certainly imperfect, but it is a start that may well be very aggressive once it is in place.

--

I think sacrifice has been feminized. If you compare the actions of the single mothers returning from these wars to face homelessness for them and their children and the percentage of them compared to the percentage of women involved in the wars overall - we're going full on Mother Mary.

Fuck him in the ear.

The MoH issue is complex and ugly, and has as much to do with politics and PR as anything else. It's tough for people of today to accept the sort of actions that might warrant an MoH in a war that has very little public support. Since 91 there have been a little over 50 MoH's awarded. Eight have been for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've been there about seven years. We were in WWI for a little more than half that length of time, admittedly with far more men, but still less time, and the stats for medals awarded in WWII are huge.

Additionally, we, as a culture, are honestly not accepting of aggressive actions like we were in other wars, and I think that has less to do with some sort of cultural intolerance as it does political will in this particular conflict. It is impossible to deny the heroism of a man that saves a half dozen of his fellow soldiers while under intense fire and still carrying the fight to the enemy. Even if you don't care for the war, Sgt Giunta's actions, for example, are laudable. But to give a medal to someone that charged a bunker and killed or wounded 25 enemy combatants when there is sympathy at home for said enemy combatants? Not so likely.

I don't agree with Fischer's reasoning particularly (he is looney douchewit), but there are some odd factors going on in regards to MoH awards.

Still, attaching feminization to the process as if it was at fault? Fucking insulting. To quote Henry Rollins, "Revolting on a epic scale."

 

[midwestyankee]

The southeast is to blame because a few dickheads live here? Why not Arizona, with John McCain, the flag-waver for the "Keep on DADT'ing" crowd?

Methinks thou doth protest too much, in much the same way that my hackles rise up when anyone trots out the stereotype of corrupt Chicago politics. That Louisiana and New York both have measurably much worse corruption matters not.

That said, the bulk of the votes against repeal came from the southeast, which ought not to be a surprise since that's where so much of the Republicans' electoral strength is based.

John McCain is a special case, though lately Arizona seems quite willing to turn itself into Mississippi with cactus trees.

 

[WriterDom]

Methinks thou doth protest too much, in much the same way that my hackles rise up when anyone trots out the stereotype of corrupt Chicago politics. That Louisiana and New York both have measurably much worse corruption matters not.

That said, the bulk of the votes against repeal came from the southeast, which ought not to be a surprise since that's where so much of the Republicans' electoral strength is based.

John McCain is a special case, though lately Arizona seems quite willing to turn itself into Mississippi with cactus trees.

Blame it on all those Dixie queer hating Rebels in Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Idaho, and Arizona.

Thank god the sensible Yankees pushed it through in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia!

 

[intothewoods]

"What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again."
Nuclear pillars of fire for all.

At least Christians aren't pacifist pussies.

My money is on closet case who is afraid of his own shadow. I mean, haven't we been down this road before?

 

[Homburg]

Methinks thou doth protest too much, in much the same way that my hackles rise up when anyone trots out the stereotype of corrupt Chicago politics. That Louisiana and New York both have measurably much worse corruption matters not.

That said, the bulk of the votes against repeal came from the southeast, which ought not to be a surprise since that's where so much of the Republicans' electoral strength is based.

John McCain is a special case, though lately Arizona seems quite willing to turn itself into Mississippi with cactus trees.

"Not that I've seen" = "protest too much"?

Hunh?

And it's still weird to me to see the South as a republican stronghold.