Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:
There are things worse than death, bromsy.

Maybe, but you can't actually know that, not without dying anyway.

I don't think he should drop out, all he has done is proved that he is a bigot and a feth wit.

Surely that's 90% of politicians isn't it? Both here and in the US Senate!

As you are all aware, I am a monarchist not just because I happen to like our current Queen, but mostly because I absolutely loathe politicians, the only job whereby if you are honest and intelligent you are utterly unfit for the role.

The higher a modern politician rises, the more of a fething scumbag he has to be. Therein lies the problem! By definition a "successful" politician is a liar and a backstabber of the highest order!

I have recommended scrapping Parliament for years and just letting Lizzie make all the rules again, the illusion of freedom isnt worth the price, so feth it, im down for some absolute authority. Seeing as you aren't tied to our Monarchy anymore, I recommend you all take one last vote, and nominate a US Monarch, who can save you several billion dollars a year by scrapping all of the politicians and forcing them to get real jobs, and then making all of the rules themselves like a King of Old.

Ill leave it up to you guys to decide.. go for someone tough so he can help out in a battle. Bruce Willis?

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-biden_650609.html

On the Subject of abortion, Killing a zygot is no different from eating eggs, sure there was potential for life, but you dont feel bad about eating eggs doo ya?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
On the Subject of abortion, Killing a zygot is no different from eating eggs, sure there was potential for life, but you dont feel bad about eating eggs doo ya?

Do you eat people eggs?

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
On the Subject of abortion, Killing a zygot is no different from eating eggs, sure there was potential for life, but you dont feel bad about eating eggs doo ya?

Do you eat people eggs?

YOu don't see a difference here?

Would that be cannibalism? (??)

In the same way that whenever someone farts, you're technically eating their feces if you breathe it in with your mouth.

When the old wiener dog farts the young wiener dog wrinkles his nose and skitters away.

Would that be cannibalism? (??)

You know that probaly the only thing that would actually disturb me.

Has nobody earned their red wings then?

 Frazzled wrote:
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-biden_650609.html

Funny story, I know the guy that manages Franken's interns. He's an even more colossal, and significantly less entertaining, version of Franken.

 d-usa wrote:
Has nobody earned their red wings then?

Orly!

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Has nobody earned their red wings then?

Orly!

Somebody had to go there

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Has nobody earned their red wings then?

Orly!

Somebody had to go there

Never had to. But you did.

 mattyrm wrote:
I don't think he should drop out, all he has done is proved that he is a bigot and a feth wit.

Surely that's 90% of politicians isn't it? Both here and in the US Senate!

As you are all aware, I am a monarchist not just because I happen to like our current Queen, but mostly because I absolutely loathe politicians, the only job whereby if you are honest and intelligent you are utterly unfit for the role.

The higher a modern politician rises, the more of a fething scumbag he has to be. Therein lies the problem! By definition a "successful" politician is a liar and a backstabber of the highest order!

I have recommended scrapping Parliament for years and just letting Lizzie make all the rules again, the illusion of freedom isnt worth the price, so feth it, im down for some absolute authority. Seeing as you aren't tied to our Monarchy anymore, I recommend you all take one last vote, and nominate a US Monarch, who can save you several billion dollars a year by scrapping all of the politicians and forcing them to get real jobs, and then making all of the rules themselves like a King of Old.

Ill leave it up to you guys to decide.. go for someone tough so he can help out in a battle. Bruce Willis?

One issue, while the Queen Mother's pretty BA (She's gone skydiving with James Bond and I haven't 'nuff said there) the Charles problem remains once she finally (if ever, I think she's a highlander) dies.

That's the real issue with a monarchy or benevolent dictator. Sure the boss you got is fething awesome. But who's going to take over when they die? Probably someone who sucks.

HM Queen Elizabeth II isn't the Queen Mother, she's the Queen. Her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, was the Queen Mother.

Really...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/23/akin-camp-ask-claire-mccaskill-to-drop-out/

whembly wrote:
HE.NEEDS.TO.GO.
http://articles.ky3.com/2012-08-20/congressman-todd-akin_33292185

No, he needs to stay in. I look forward to seeing Akin become Romney's very own Willie Horton.

 whembly wrote:
Really...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/23/akin-camp-ask-claire-mccaskill-to-drop-out/

A cunning tactic indeed.

"I'm losing! Quick lets say that despite us losing the other person isn't winning enough and ask them to step down!"

Truly brilliant.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
HE.NEEDS.TO.GO.
http://articles.ky3.com/2012-08-20/congressman-todd-akin_33292185

No, he needs to stay in. I look forward to seeing Akin become Romney's very own Willie Horton.

I'm not convinced that'd happen. Had the Republican's circled wagon and defended Aktins, then yeah I could see it.

For the life of me, I don't understand this... the DNC is going to run on "women's rights" at the Convention. Which is fine and dandy... but Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker?!:!

Does anyone note remember Lewinski? The accused rape (Juanita and Paula Jones)? Another example of bad optics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Really...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/23/akin-camp-ask-claire-mccaskill-to-drop-out/

A cunning tactic indeed.

"I'm losing! Quick lets say that despite us losing the other person isn't winning enough and ask them to step down!"

Truly brilliant.

I know!

Hey... is there a recognizable flag to denote sarcasm?

Or, is everyone's sarcasm meter working well?

Sometimes people use [/sarcasm] at the end of their posts or hte sarcastic parts of their post to indicate when they're starting to be serious. No actual sarcasm tag thgough. Personally, I prefer to use "Jokes aside, [...]" to indicate the previous part of my post was sarcastic.

speaking of rape and all, how about in 31 states if you rape a woman and she has a kid from it, you can get visitation and even custody.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html

Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...

People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.

 xole wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...

People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.

So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.

One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!

 Testify wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...

People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.

So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.

One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!

How about just the end of the republican party. If they want to live in the past, then they should get out of the present so we can move into the future. Better yet the end of both parties and go back to electing people to represent real people, not the corporations posing as people.

Certainly I'd like to get rid of the two party system. At the very least, have a multiparty system, so compromise is FORCED on our elected officials.

 Testify wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...

People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.

So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.

One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!

I...never said anything about populist tyrants. But ok. I guess you can make some sort of connection there.

And actually, it's a fundamental principle of democracy to listen to the will of all people. Perhaps you are thinking of a republic?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, that's just freaking unethical. But I doubt those laws will be changed any time soon...

People start talking with votes, the idiots in power will start listening.

So you want the abolution of democracy and the creation of a populist tyrant? No thanks.

One of the hallmarks of a democracy is that the leaders should ignore the whims of the people and do what's right, not what's popular. I mean, have you actually met the "man on the street"? People are fething idiots!

How about just the end of the republican party. If they want to live in the past, then they should get out of the present so we can move into the future. Better yet the end of both parties and go back to electing people to represent real people, not the corporations posing as people.

As the amount of time out of office increases, the extent of change that a political party will undergo increases exponentially.

In 1979 when the Labour Party lost to Margeret Thatcher, they were a democratic socialist organisation arguing for state control of industry.

By the time they were elected in 1997, they were extremist laissez-faire.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 xole wrote:

And actually, it's a fundamental principle of democracy to listen to the will of all people.

Listen, yes. Act? Not nessesarily.

Testify and other people wrote:way too much stuff, ending in, "Listen, yes. Act? Not nessesarily."

That's good. Very good. Now...go back to my post...and read what I said.