Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
GOP-Controlled House to Kick Off by Reading Constitution Aloud
Posts
Sure we do, mainly because the GOP has been occupying the gutter for so long and steadily making it deeper.
But for some reason its escaping me.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Long story short... totally white.
"Less Unconstitutional" isn't as catchy as "Hope" but maybe you could bring the font size down and squeeze it in there under that picture.
Alan West. He's like Clarence Thomas, except from the military and ten times the crazy.
Deacon, I'd be delighted if you'd explain what the point was of your deception. Like, what did you stand to gain from doing that? Feel free to PM me.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
When your bad behavior and ridiculous posturing has shifted the debate so much that "less unconstitutional" is the high ground, you can take your righteous indignation and stick into a bodily orifice of your choosing.
The Congressional Black Caucus invited him and another black Republican to join them. Strom Thurmond is more appropriate than those guys to be in that Caucus.
That's exactly what I'm saying!
Feel free to make fun of this as a publicity stunt, I certainly won't defend it. But you don't get to ride on the high horse anymore.
Yes we do, because we're better than you guys when it comes to following the Constitution. Riding a high horse is not synonymous with being perfect all the time, nor does the fact that our side isn't 100% perfect mean that we can't hold you guys up as examples of bad defenders of the constitution. Because your side is demonstrably shitty at upholding the things outlined in the document that you act like is a religious text.
I don't really think that's accurate, warranted, or salient Thanatos.
As a (former?) mod, it seems strange that you'd just pop into the thread and contribute nothing other than poking at me, but whateves.
I never implied we did. YOU made the point that Obama was holding a bunch of guys we couldn't put on trial but had no real cases on. When, in fact, this was the defining factor of Bush's presidency.
But you edited out the posts above mine for a reason, I imagine.
But go ahead and call me when the Left pulls a stunt that is only to waste time and parade around that they pretend to give two shits what the constitution says about a weak before they crap all over it in a show of cognitive dissonance.
Especially when they get to the parts about equality.
Or how they insist we're a Christian nation and get to the part about "no National Religion" being established.
Jokepost: Well now you know why it was preceded with "former".
Seriouspost: A position of power does not make him infallible OR more mature than anyone else. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh to Than, but there are a lot of mods/admins/whatever who are still gigantic assholes. For a neutral non-PA example, Amirox at Neo-GAF is a mod/admin and pretty much an awful human being.
And you really should not talk about popping in to make snide remarks and contributing nothing. Shit, as much crap as I give Modern Man at least he has the balls to make an argument before he (and, in all fairness, almost everybody) devolves into snide one-liners that don't go anywhere.
Then why are you in the thread about this publicity stunt if not to defend or discuss it?
And no we totally do get to ride the high horse until the Dems pull a stunt this hilariously stupid.
The post from page 1 that I was responding to was full of smarmy partisan honkey-tonk.
I always edit because I hate multi thread trees!
Can I go back in time and call you when Obama made his big "HEY GUYS WE CLOSED GITMO WOOO" press conference?
Anyhow, I don't know if anyone actually is buying that them reading the constitution is any more than a publicity stunt. At least, I hope not.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Yeah, assuming you can actually find when he said that. Go ahead and google for it, we'll wait.
What's that, he didn't actually say that? Huge surprise, you're wrong again.
The GOP voting block hasn't substantially changed since the late 1970s.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
I read that its something that has never been done in the House before, so there's that.
Maybe they'll establish a precedent where every new house starts with a public reading of the Constitution.
Better yet, let's bring back this old tradition:
Honestly though, I'm in the same boat as most of you, in that republicans are totally unfit to act as "defenders of the constitution" based on there actions throughout the new millenium.
Well, how can you expect them to defend it until they read it?
Johnny on the spot after this, though.
I expect a fit of coughing to overcome the reader during amendments 14-16.
course these are the people who claimed they couldn't read a 500 page bill in 6 months
I'm not sure why it needs to be read aloud to start a session. It's pointless and only serves to turn it even further into a religious style doctrine. We don't start every business year with the public reading aloud of our company documents.
That said, I'm terribly amused that they're just skipping all the parts we've decided were Wrong over the years. Can't we just read them anyways and acknowledge that over the decades we've decided the founding fathers got a few things wrong?
I see a vote to disenfranchise people for no compelling reason that in effect does nothing but royally piss people off. (Please note, these places still get to elect delegates to the Republican National Convention and help pick the party nominee.)
Of these two actions, I know which one I give more weight to.
EDIT: That is not going to be a precedent. Most Houses with parties that have just taken power would like to spend this time rattling off quick, easy votes on nice-sounding legislation. When Pelosi took power, she was using this time to get off a vote on raising the minimum wage. All the GOP's doing here is wasting any honeymoon period they may have and making easy legislative fights that much harder.
And here's the other thing. Most Houses with parties that have just taken power would like to spend this time rattling off quick, easy votes on nice-sounding legislation. When Pelosi took power, she was using this time to get off a vote on raising the minimum wage. All the GOP's doing here is wasting any honeymoon period they may have and making easy legislative fights that much harder.
And the choice of a first legislative act? Yikes. Your first legislative act is going to get headlines no matter what it is, so you need to pick something that's going to look good splashed across the front page. Minimum wage raised looks good. Lilly Ledbetter looks good. 'NEW CONGRESS DISENFRANCHISES TERRITORIES' does not.
Actually, the federal government not doing anything to exercise its power and just sitting around tugging one out probably suits their constituents right down to the ground.
General Welfare is the military funding for contractors that have retired Flag officers / generals hired as consultants.
Sir, are you implying that these Republicans are acting like toddlers? Because that's awfully unkind to toddlers.
Oh no no no, you misunderstand entirely; I was implying that John Boehner is acting like a kindergarten teacher in the middle of story time.
It's an entirely different thing, altogether.
Toddlers don't have mistresses.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
"elect us to show you that government can't do anything right" always amuses me.
I wonder how I'd react to an interview candidate showing up and telling me if I hire him, he'll make it so none of my systems work.