Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

That the Democrats are worse when it comes to demogougery than the Republicans are? Really. How can you possibly be watching what's going on with this "government shutdown" thing and not realize that?

JohnStOnge wrote:That the Democrats are worse when it comes to demogougery than the Republicans are? Really. How can you possibly be watching what's going on with this "government shutdown" thing and not realize that?

I haven't been watching. Post what was said from both parties, I'll take a look, and I will compare.

I haven't been watching. Post what was said from both parties, I'll take a look, and I will compare.

Well, the whole deal is premised on "if you've been watching." But here is an example:

[youtube][/youtube]

If you can find an example of Republicans doing something similar during this current circumstance feel free to post it.

Here's a descirption of another example:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/rep-l ... ill-women/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't find it on youtube right now but I'm sure I'll be able to eventually.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I haven't been watching. Post what was said from both parties, I'll take a look, and I will compare.

Well, the whole deal is premised on "if you've been watching." But here is an example:

[youtube][/youtube]

If you can find an example of Republicans doing something similar during this current circumstance feel free to post it.

What I wouldn't give for one chance to knock those specs off of Schumer's giant honker.

93henfan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Well, the whole deal is premised on "if you've been watching." But here is an example:

[youtube][/youtube]

If you can find an example of Republicans doing something similar during this current circumstance feel free to post it.

What I wouldn't give for one chance to knock those specs off of Schumer's giant honker.

I don't see any specs on Schumer.

JohnStOnge wrote:Here's a descirption of another example:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/rep-l ... ill-women/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't find it on youtube right now but I'm sure I'll be able to eventually.

Your youtube clip failed, but yes, that one is pretty bad. I'm sure the Republicans are much more reasonable...

Coming from one that condones free rump ranging on juveniles of any sex, I am going to admit that you sir, are are deranged.

Perhaps someone needs to educate Sen. Reid on the fungible properties of capital. He claims that it is against the law for federal funding to Planned Parenthood to be used for abortions. It apparently hasn't occurred to any of our brilliant journalists to ask him how a dollar from the federal government can be distinguished from any other dollar in Planned Parenthood's operating budget. If someone did actually have the balls or the knowledge to ask him that question, his fucking head would explode.

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:

What I wouldn't give for one chance to knock those specs off of Schumer's giant honker.

I don't see any specs on Schumer.

Wedgebuster wrote:Coming from one that condones free rump ranging on juveniles of any sex, I am going to admit that you sir, are are deranged.

Ok. I have not responded to these things but I guess I should. Please read what I actually write. The issue of whether or not individuals we legally classify as adults should be allowed to have sex with individuals we legally classify as minors is different from the issue of whether a sexual attraction is normal or not.

It is normal for an individual of our species that is biologically an adult to be sexually attracted to another individual of our species who is also biologically an adult and who is a member of the opposite sex. Same with every other dioecious species.

Most people are adults biologically before they are adults legally. So one would expect that there will be many instances in which one person who is an adult both legally and biologically is sexually attracted to another person who is an adult biologically but a mnior legally.

All I have said is that it is incorrect to say that the individual who is both legally and biologically and adult in such a situation is sick or perverted by virtue of that individual's sexual attraction to the individual who is a biological adult but a legal minor. Specifically, it is not pedophilia. It is a perfectly normal biological response.

That doesn't mean we should say it should be legal for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old female who is adult in the biological sense. We make all sorts of things that are natural and normal in a biological sense illegal. Like it is natural and normal for two individuals to get into a physical altercation over something they both want.

The only thing I would change substantially legally is the practice of calling certain relationships "rape" and labeling people involved in them as "sex offenders." For instance: I would not call a 25 year old male having consensual sex with a 16 year old female "rape" and I would not say the 25 year old male has to register as a "sex offender."

In fact the whole concept of calling any consensual interaction between two biological adults "rape" bothers me. And, yes, I know some of you will be horrified by that but you're talking about something that happened as the normal course of things over more than 99% of the history of our species. It's not rape.

My favorite was Princess Pelousy stating that the GOP was trying to starve 6 million senior citizens.

blueballs wrote:My favorite was Princess Pelousy stating that the GOP was trying to starve 6 million senior citizens.

If the GOP starves them to death now then Obamacare won't have to just "let them die" later. Who says the parties don't work together?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I don't see any specs on Schumer.

I guess I don't get the joke. At any rate, Schumer dons his glasses part way through. And he's generally an asshole.

CitadelGrad wrote:Perhaps someone needs to educate Sen. Reid on the fungible properties of capital. He claims that it is against the law for federal funding to Planned Parenthood to be used for abortions. It apparently hasn't occurred to any of our brilliant journalists to ask him how a dollar from the federal government can be distinguished from any other dollar in Planned Parenthood's operating budget. If someone did actually have the balls or the knowledge to ask him that question, his fucking head would explode.

Good point.

I wonder if the same folks that think that doesn't count for federal funding for abortion think that the faith-based initiatives amount to state-funding of religion?

93henfan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

I guess I don't get the joke. At any rate, Schumer dons his glasses part way through. And he's generally an asshole.

It wasn't much of a joke, but my bad, I only saw the still in which Reid had glasses and Schumer was glass-less.

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I guess I don't get the joke. At any rate, Schumer dons his glasses part way through. And he's generally an *******.

It wasn't much of a joke, but my bad, I only saw the still in which Reid had glasses and Schumer was glass-less.

He must've dropped them in his race to beat Reid to the TV cameras.