Random Post: CCPJ
RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact Me
  • Admin
  •  

    Repugnican Voters Get Collectively Smarter

    Great news! According to Nanovirus, the Democrats now have a chance to capture that coveted voting constituency: total f****ing morons!

    (Yes, yes, I know that I am supposed to be posting only “original” material during the Weekend Without Echoes. I’ll get there, but this was just too damn funny…!)

    6 responses to “Repugnican Voters Get Collectively Smarter”

    1. James Young says:

      Really?

      And I was under the impression that being a ” total f****ing moron” was a prerequisite to voting Democrat.

    2. semi says:

      Moronic is voting for Repugs who promise to lower your taxes and who then drive the national debt so deeply into the ground that it actually breaks through the crust of the earth and emerges in China. Moronic is continuing to believe in a war that was clearly based on fabrications. Moronic is supporting a “President” who doesn’t understand that constitutional protections apply to all citizens and that constitutional limits apply to him. Moronic is supporting a party that claims “values” mean not letting committed couples get married and restricting women’s freedom to choose, and that “values” have nothing to do with assuring that workers get a decent paycheck or that we leave a decent environment for our children.

      You don’t have to be a moron to vote Republican, but it clearly helps.

    3. James Young says:

      The problem, semi, is that — at least on the spending issues — you’re confusing Conservatives with Republicans. Of course, if all Republicans acted like Conservatives, these wouldn’t be problems. But then, you’d probably just be condemning them as “far Right.” You are also apparently confusing your rather limited understanding of the Constitution with what it actually says and means, just as you apparently don’t understand the word “marriage.” That is the kind alternative; the other alternative is that you are so profoundly mentally disturbed that you believe that the world (and that word) should change to satisfy your perversions. And BTW, most women have the “freedom to choose” before they engage in the act which causes children. However, like most things in life, when another’s well-being is at issue, her freedom is and should thereafter be circumscribed. And if you’re so all-fired hot for abortion, why don’t you have the intellectual honesty to actually amend the Constitution, rather than pervert its clear words.

      As for whether “workers get a decent paycheck or that we leave a decent environment for our children,” when you divest yourself of your property and get rid of your car, then you can lecture others about the environment. Until then, stop restricting my freedom to choose how I live my life.

    4. semi says:

      James — First, let me say that I am a little stunned that you are actually taking the time to read my response to your comment and comment in return. If it were another day, I would love to get in a pissing match with you. Can we take a raincheck? Well, okay, I’m going to piss back just a little bit, shake, and then move on. But seriously, come back anytime.

      The problem, semi, is that — at least on the spending issues — you’re confusing Conservatives with Republicans. Of course, if all Republicans acted like Conservatives, these wouldn’t be problems.

      Okay, I’ll give you that. Under the guise of satire (this is mainly a political satire site) I took a swipe at “Repugnicans” and you returned with a swipe at Democrats. I don’t actually have a dog in this race since I am neither, but fair is fair.

      But then, you’d probably just be condemning them as “far Right.”

      Actually, if the Republican party returned to it’s classic conservative roots, instead of pandering on these “values” issues and driving up the national debt, I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for it.

      You are also apparently confusing your rather limited understanding of the Constitution with what it actually says and means…

      Ah, here we go. I’m just a dumb hick who thinks that just because I’ve read the Constitution, I must understand how our democracy is supposed to work. Clearly, there are layers and nuances to it that are beyond my abilities to comprehend. I wrote: “constitutional protections apply to all citizens and … constitutional limits apply to him (the ‘President’)“. Snce your understanding of the Constitution is clearly superior to mine, please explain how that is wrong.

      …just as you apparently don’t understand the word “marriage.”

      Hmm, according to my American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

      mar·riage, n.

      1.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
      2.The state of being married; wedlock.
      3. A common-law marriage.
      4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

      a) A wedding.
      b) A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
      c) Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

      Gad, you’re right. I had absolutely no idea that the king and queen could be married in pinochle. I am just as dumb as dirt!

      That is the kind alternative; the other alternative is that you are so profoundly mentally disturbed that you believe that the world (and that word) should change to satisfy your perversions.

      I liked it so much better when you were being “kind”, but I’ll take the bait. To which perversions are you referring, specifically? There are so many from which to choose…

      And BTW, most women have the “freedom to choose” before they engage in the act which causes children.

      Just to clarify, if a woman didn’t “choose to engage” (you know — rape, incest, that hunky Rick Santorum because he’s just too damn manly to resist…), is it okay with you if she vacuums out her womb afterward?

      However, like most things in life, when another’s well-being is at issue, her freedom is and should thereafter be circumscribed.

      I really need to go back and re-read that Constitution thingie, ’cause I sure don’t remember any references to “Circumscribed Freedom”.

      And if you’re so all-fired hot for abortion, why don’t you have the intellectual honesty to actually amend the Constitution, rather than pervert its clear words.

      Okay, now I think you’re just typing. Of all the things I am “hot” for, abortion doesn’t even break the top ten. Regarding your reference to amending the Constitution, I’m just going to take a stab and guess that you’re referring to then-Associate Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in “Roe v. Wade”, which, as we have established, I am just too thick to understand. I may shock you here, but I am actually troubled by the Constitutional implications of a Supreme Court decision which broadly invalidates state autonomy. I completely agree that this is an issue that could be addressed on a Constitutional level. Be careful what you wish for, however, because most voters approve of only a very limited role by the state in limiting reproductive rights, or what you like to call “Circumscribed Freedom”.

      As for whether “workers get a decent paycheck or that we leave a decent environment for our children,” when you divest yourself of your property and get rid of your car, then you can lecture others about the environment.

      Sorry, but now you’re sounding disturbed. Not that it’s any of your business, but I do ride a bike to work and to do errands around town. I also own a car, a cool red convertible which gets decent mileage and which I use most often to ferry my kids around town. (Actual biological children with my female wife, by the way. I realize that your eyes might have popped out of your head if you misread “ferry”). None of that is the point. I am not lecturing you, although you do seem awfully defensive. (Let me guess; you drive a Ford Explorer?) As a member of the human race and currently occupying the planet earth, I not only have a right but a moral obligation to fight for the environment and to support those leaders who understand that we need to develop greener alternatives to environmentally degrading and non-renewable resources.

      Until then, stop restricting my freedom to choose how I live my life.

      Huh? Am I telling you who you can or cannot marry? Am I restricting your reproductive rights? Am I telling you what to drive? (Bronco?) Am I invalidating your vote because your name sounds suspiciously Democratic? I don’t think you’re responding to me anymore. I think you have Mother issues.

      Damn, this has been fun. I meant it when I said I didn’t have time for this, though. I really need to get away from the computer and get back to my life. Thanks for playing.

    5. And I can attest to the cool red convertible 🙂

    6. daniel says:

      hmm, i generally refer to it as the rethuglican party since it has so clearly become a branch of organized crime