Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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!

Future President of the Junior Anti-Sex League: FOUND!

13»

Posts

  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Me too, but . . . you know . . . that Tea Party.

    Sure, and as long as they're throwing out their crazy ideas. Don't expect me to do anything other then call them on it.I actually have an aunt who I admit I hadn't talked to in years anyways, who recently added me on facebook. She kept sending me tea party links to like, and posting insane comments. After debating with her on her wall she has now blocked me.

    DeShadowC on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Akei Arkay wrote: »
    I should clarify: When I said I didn't have a problem with it, I wasn't speaking of her as a Senatorial candidate, just her "philosophy" and psychology in general. Looking at it from that perspective, I see so much batshit that "anti-masturbation" is really a minor point compared to her misogyny and homophobia, her creationist apologia, her moral absolutism, and her paranoid delusions of importance.

    Why do you have to be so negative?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Akei ArkayAkei Arkay Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Akei Arkay wrote: »
    I should clarify: When I said I didn't have a problem with it, I wasn't speaking of her as a Senatorial candidate, just her "philosophy" and psychology in general. Looking at it from that perspective, I see so much batshit that "anti-masturbation" is really a minor point compared to her misogyny and homophobia, her creationist apologia, her moral absolutism, and her paranoid delusions of importance.

    Why do you have to be so negative?

    If I was any more optimistic, I might start randomly breaking into musical numbers.

    EDIT: You are being sarcastic, right? I can't always tell.

    Akei Arkay on
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    She isn't crazy because she holds an archaic belief about the one sexual practice with the least effect on anyone, she's crazy because she says shit like this:
    CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.

    Elitistb on
    steam_sig.png
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Elitistb wrote: »
    She isn't crazy because she holds an archaic belief about the one sexual practice with the least effect on anyone, she's crazy because she says shit like this:
    CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.

    The snob in me would love to see her debate this point with . . . well, anyone.

    But the pragmatist in me cries a little bit knowing that it wouldn't harm her standing with her constituency.


    It's like being Sarah Palin is becoming a political model, i.e., be so boldly stupid that people rally to your defense in the same way they would a handicapped person being picked on.

    Atomika on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    O’Donnell believes that handing out condoms at schools is like legalizing drunk driving.
    Arguing that abstinence is the only acceptable option, O’Donnell if said of condoms at school, “go ahead and have a condom. That’s like saying, don’t drive drunk but if you do, make sure you wear your seat belt. It’s going to kill.” [Hannity & Colmes, 6/6/00]
    O’Donnell wants to stop the ‘whole country from having sex.’
    Asked by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, “You’re going to stop the whole country from having sex?” O’Donnell replied, “Yes.” [Scarborough Country, 11/13/03]
    O’Donnell is so fervently pro-truth that she wouldn’t lie to Nazis looking for Jews in her home.
    Appearing on Political Incorrect with Bill Maher, O’Donnell explained the
    importance of truth-telling, refusing to even entertain the notion of lying when a gust asked if she would tell the truth Nazis looking for Jews hiding in her home. “I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that! … You never have to practice deception” [ThinkProgress, 9/15/10]

    There's plenty of crazy to go around. The masturbation thing is just an eye-grabber.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    You've also got to love "[...] if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" simply because it's outright stating that something's a sin if it makes it harder for her to get the cock.

    agentk13 on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    What bothers me about Christine O'Donnell is that she keeps talking about how her goal is to make all her decisions based strictly on the Constitution, which indicates two things to me:

    (1) She has no idea what a Senator actually does (I mean, is she going to vote yes on every bill that's Constitutional?)

    (2) She hasn't given any indication that she actually knows what the Constitution says, or what is Constitutional, or really anything about government whatsoever. I'm looking forward to a Couric/Palin "gotcha" moment when some journalist asks her some basic questions about this Constitution she's going to make all her decisions based on.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »
    What bothers me about Christine O'Donnell is that she keeps talking about how her goal is to make all her decisions based strictly on the Constitution, which indicates two things to me:

    (1) She has no idea what a Senator actually does (I mean, is she going to vote yes on every bill that's Constitutional?)

    (2) She hasn't given any indication that she actually knows what the Constitution says, or what is Constitutional, or really anything about government whatsoever. I'm looking forward to a Couric/Palin "gotcha" moment when some journalist asks her some basic questions about this Constitution she's going to make all her decisions based on.
    It's depressing when the Onion stops being satire and starts being news.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    has anyone pointed out how kind of hot o'donnell is

    I mean

    I'd hit that

    kind of ironic given the circumstances

    but I could totally whack it to her picture

    ...please don't make me get the newspaper.

    Are you planning on covering the floor with that newspaper? Because I'm with Rent, she's in my rotation now.

    Man, if they make a O'Donnel fleshlight sleeve, I'll pre-order that thing in a heartbeat.

    Casually Hardcore on
  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm sure the Constitution she's thinking of can usually be found in motel room drawers.

    (Not that she has a clear idea of what's in that either)

    KalTorak on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    has anyone pointed out how kind of hot o'donnell is

    I mean

    I'd hit that

    kind of ironic given the circumstances

    but I could totally whack it to her picture

    ...please don't make me get the newspaper.

    Are you planning on covering the floor with that newspaper? Because I'm with Rent, she's in my rotation now.

    Man, if they make a O'Donnel fleshlight sleeve, I'll pre-order that thing in a heartbeat.

    Comes with a free copy of the porn hit movie "Nailin' Palin".

    emnmnme on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    but if anything she'll probably be regulated to supporting fellow right-wingers rather than introducing ultra-conservative legislation herself.

    I'm not so sure on this, personally. A bit cause of the movement starting to begin with was that going along with the party line basically left a decent chunk of Republican voters without a voice on matters they care about. Michigan had a bit of a tea party thing with the Republican conventions, and their basic attitude was, "fuck you more of us showed up." The Republicans here right now are trying to be extremely reasonable and agreeable - they're still trying to bounce back from Engler turning THE swing state into a stronghold blue state, so they can't really afford to be crazy. But then the tea party shows up at the convention and basically says "Stop talking we want to ban gay marriage AGAIN." Apparently even the upper penninsula "State Superior" secessionists showed up a few places.

    Somebody remind me again what the Tea Party was originally about? Taxes or something? When did it become a catch all for the conservative voters that the party doesn't want to acknowledge too directly?

    Hevach on
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hevach wrote: »
    but if anything she'll probably be regulated to supporting fellow right-wingers rather than introducing ultra-conservative legislation herself.

    I'm not so sure on this, personally. Michigan had a bit of a tea party thing with the Republican conventions, and their basic attitude was, "fuck you more of us showed up." The Republicans here right now are trying to be extremely reasonable and agreeable - they're still trying to bounce back from Engler turning THE swing state into a stronghold blue state, so they can't really afford to be crazy. But then the tea party shows up at the convention and basically says "Stop talking we want to ban gay marriage AGAIN." Apparently even the upper penninsula "State Superior" secessionists showed up a few places.

    Somebody remind me again what the Tea Party was originally about? Taxes or something? When did it become a catch all for the conservative voters that the party doesn't want to acknowledge too directly?

    Basically some Wall Street guy (or maybe a journalist) was all like:

    "BULLLAAARGH! WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS BAILOUT! IT'S TIME TO TEA PARTY! WHO IS WITH ME!?"

    and then it promptly got hijacked by the crazies (Fox News)

    Casually Hardcore on
  • DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I remember laughing at the little old ladies saying they were going to teabag people. I'm not laughing as much anyways.

    DeShadowC on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hevach wrote: »
    but if anything she'll probably be regulated to supporting fellow right-wingers rather than introducing ultra-conservative legislation herself.

    I'm not so sure on this, personally. Michigan had a bit of a tea party thing with the Republican conventions, and their basic attitude was, "fuck you more of us showed up." The Republicans here right now are trying to be extremely reasonable and agreeable - they're still trying to bounce back from Engler turning THE swing state into a stronghold blue state, so they can't really afford to be crazy. But then the tea party shows up at the convention and basically says "Stop talking we want to ban gay marriage AGAIN." Apparently even the upper penninsula "State Superior" secessionists showed up a few places.

    Somebody remind me again what the Tea Party was originally about? Taxes or something? When did it become a catch all for the conservative voters that the party doesn't want to acknowledge too directly?

    Basically some Wall Street guy (or maybe a journalist) was all like:

    "BULLLAAARGH! WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS BAILOUT! IT'S TIME TO TEA PARTY! WHO IS WITH ME!?"

    and then it promptly got hijacked by the crazies (Fox News)

    Yeah, it didn't take long for the people standing around to bitch about taxes to realize that they also tended to share a common love of Jesus and hatred of brown people.


    EDIT: Oh, and the whole "my only litmus test will be 'is it constitutional'" bit is the worst sort of campaigning by buzzword I've heard in a while...because it's obviously not true. Like, a 50% increase across the board in taxes would be constitutional, but you know she's not going to vote for that. Plenty of terrible, terrible ideas would be perfectly constitutional. Plus the fact that her faith pretty much guarantees she'll support something that is unconstitional, or will be ruled so eventually.

    mcdermott on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hevach wrote: »
    but if anything she'll probably be regulated to supporting fellow right-wingers rather than introducing ultra-conservative legislation herself.

    I'm not so sure on this, personally. Michigan had a bit of a tea party thing with the Republican conventions, and their basic attitude was, "fuck you more of us showed up." The Republicans here right now are trying to be extremely reasonable and agreeable - they're still trying to bounce back from Engler turning THE swing state into a stronghold blue state, so they can't really afford to be crazy. But then the tea party shows up at the convention and basically says "Stop talking we want to ban gay marriage AGAIN." Apparently even the upper penninsula "State Superior" secessionists showed up a few places.

    Somebody remind me again what the Tea Party was originally about? Taxes or something? When did it become a catch all for the conservative voters that the party doesn't want to acknowledge too directly?

    Basically some Wall Street guy (or maybe a journalist) was all like:

    "BULLLAAARGH! WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS BAILOUT! IT'S TIME TO TEA PARTY! WHO IS WITH ME!?"

    and then it promptly got hijacked by the crazies (Fox News)

    It was a CNBC correspondent on the floor of the Chicago stock exchange. Mike Santelli.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    It's like adultery. Unlike masturbation, I'd say most people agree that it's bad. People do it anyway, but it's bad. But who's going to lead the charge on criminalizing adultery? Not very many people. Try to get even a church on your side, they'll say "Well yeah, we agree that adultery is bad, but right now we're trying to deal with other issues like abortion and we don't want to look like lunatics while we're doing it."

    Ummm......
    Wiki wrote:
    In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan), to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin). In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense. The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States is unclear following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults. However, occasional prosecutions do occur.

    I actually know a guy who was Dishonorably Discharged from the Air Force for Adultery.

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    MyDcmbr wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    It's like adultery. Unlike masturbation, I'd say most people agree that it's bad. People do it anyway, but it's bad. But who's going to lead the charge on criminalizing adultery? Not very many people. Try to get even a church on your side, they'll say "Well yeah, we agree that adultery is bad, but right now we're trying to deal with other issues like abortion and we don't want to look like lunatics while we're doing it."

    Ummm......
    Wiki wrote:
    In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan), to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin). In the U.S. Military, adultery is a potential court-martial offense. The enforceability of adultery laws in the United States is unclear following Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy of consenting adults. However, occasional prosecutions do occur.

    I actually know a guy who was Dishonorably Discharged from the Air Force for Adultery.

    I really, really doubt he got a DD for plain ol' adultery. It's usually something we tack on to people when they're getting court-martialled for fraternization or sexual assault or something.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • MyDcmbrMyDcmbr Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »

    I really, really doubt he got a DD for plain ol' adultery. It's usually something we tack on to people when they're getting court-martialled for fraternization or sexual assault or something.

    Could be. I think it may have been a subordinate he was messing around with, it's been awhile since I heard the story and the Adultery part is what really stuck in my mind.

    MyDcmbr on
    Steam
    So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hevach wrote: »
    but if anything she'll probably be regulated to supporting fellow right-wingers rather than introducing ultra-conservative legislation herself.

    I'm not so sure on this, personally. Michigan had a bit of a tea party thing with the Republican conventions, and their basic attitude was, "fuck you more of us showed up." The Republicans here right now are trying to be extremely reasonable and agreeable - they're still trying to bounce back from Engler turning THE swing state into a stronghold blue state, so they can't really afford to be crazy. But then the tea party shows up at the convention and basically says "Stop talking we want to ban gay marriage AGAIN." Apparently even the upper penninsula "State Superior" secessionists showed up a few places.

    Somebody remind me again what the Tea Party was originally about? Taxes or something? When did it become a catch all for the conservative voters that the party doesn't want to acknowledge too directly?

    Basically some Wall Street guy (or maybe a journalist) was all like:

    "BULLLAAARGH! WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS BAILOUT! IT'S TIME TO TEA PARTY! WHO IS WITH ME!?"

    and then it promptly got hijacked by the crazies (Fox News)

    Kind of.

    Something called the tea party came about on its own, however the tea party you all know and love is an astroturf movement that was financed and brought into existence with money from Fox News, HMOs, and health insurance companies to protest health reform. After that passed they pretty much had a rabid dog with no leash on their hands, and its masters had no interest in further aiming it - for Fox they get ratings covering whatever the fuck the tea party does and the HMOs and insurance companies accomplished their goal of gutting the fuck out of health reform.

    My mom got a letter during the healthcare thing asking her to join a tea party rally and organization in Chicago, and even offered to bus her for free. It was from "Concerned Christian Seniors" or some shit, with tiny fine print on the back. Long story short after researching it, the whole thing was funded by an HMO. Astroturf through and through, these idiots are working for specific corporate interests unwittingly.

    override367 on
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.