Reply With Quote
I don't fear it and we will see if it is a wrong assumption.
Your fears and subsequent spread of that fear are unsubstantiated and that pisses you off.
No reason to continue humping your own leg. You were wrong, it sucks, get over it.
I don't fear it and we will see if it is a wrong assumption.
+27Yes, Red States will undoubtedly become Blue States if the "Fairness Doctrine" is re-implemented.
I ask again... don't Republicans get tired of being wrong so often lately? I mean, just plain denial of reality...
I am seriously trying to understand this. Are you changing your arguement from saying that Obama would use the veto to stop amendments to the cons ution (which as I pointed out is impossible), to saying that Congress will amend the cons ution to grant Obama the power to veto and therefore stop amendments to the cons ution? If so, let me speak to that point.
I dont care what kind of super majority a President Obama would have it could be 100% Democrat, and while I admit that anything in this world is possible, I find it highly impropable that Congress would vote on something that would specifically take power away from itself. That is their ace in the hole that they can override a presidential veto. This would have the effect of congress voting to dissolve itself because they would know that all legislation passed no matter how popular amongst members of congress would not go into effect unless it is supported by the president. Basically, that scenario would mean that congress is voting to make themselves yes men to the president. Many politicians like power, thus HIGHLY IMPROPABLE. Now that we have that out of the way, I dont care if the congress is 100% democrat, then nation isn't so even if by the smallest of chances the congress decided to vote in favor of dissolving itself, it would still have to pass the muster with 75% of the states. This makes that minute possibility even smaller. Like I said, I wont say it wont happen because anything in this world is possible, but you are talking about chances that are so small that it would be like spitting somewhere in the cosmos and then sending someone out to find it with nothing but a magnifying glass.
Board Republicans get really pissed off when they are asked to explain themselves. It usually leads to their ting on their attempts at second-hand, drive-by punditry.
This guy implacable is so ing dumb. Jesus, I thought whottt and Wild Cobra said stupid things. This guy is king....of the idiots.
Mine?
Let's put it this way, if you took an electoral map as an indication about which way a state would be likely to vote on a hotly-disputed cons utional amendment, history shows that the "red states" would outnumber the "blue states" in most instances by a significant margin. Since 1972, the Democratic candidate for President has won more states than the Republican candidate on exactly 2 occasions -- 1992 and 1996. In both 1984 and 1972, the Republican candidate won 49 of the 50 states. In 1980, the Democratic candidate won 6 states and in 1988, the Democratic candidate won only 10. Until 1987, the "fairness doctrine" was in place -- thus, despite the enforcement of that regulation (including the 1988 election), the Republican candidate won the majority of the votes in 209 states while the Democratic candidate won the majority of the votes in 41. Since the "fairness doctrine" was abolished, the Republican candidate has won the majority of votes in 97 states, while the Democratic candidate has won the majority in 103 states.
If anything, the Republicans had more success when the fairness doctrine was in place.
While I don't support imposition of the fairness doctrine in any respect, I think you're out of your mind if you believe that enough "red states" will become "blue states" to allow ratification of amendments that are anathema to Republican principles (or which Republicans would fight on purely political grounds). There's way too much consistency in the data; it demonstrates quite clearly that your argument is absurd.
That is Republicans in general.
Joe the Plumber was a fantastic example on Fox yesterday.
How so ? All Joe the PLumber did was get Obamarx to admit that he is socialist and wants to redistribute the wealth. Granted he won't be sharing any of his own millions and well you don't have any money for him to take -- but he sure wants to take money from other folks and give it to those poor folks that live for hand outs and en lements.
I like run-on sentences too.
Learn to read, dumbass. He wasn't talking about any of that on Fox yesterday, you idiot.
I know he wasn't talking about any of that on Fox Dung -- My point is -- who cares about his taxes or what he does or his license. None of that matters-- I don't care about his opinions or his sexual preference either -- all I know is he asked Obamarx a question and Obarmarx didn't have his talking points and came out of the closet.
Well you can't be as dumb as you seem. It takes some kind of brain power to back pedal as fast as you are.
Then talk about what he did on Fox yesterday. Give us all your impression on Joe the Plumber's performance on Fox yesterday, since that is what I was talking about and nothing you said had anything to do with it.
CD: Joe the Plumber is an example of how Republicans get all pissed off when asked to explain their misguided beliefs
implacable: Why because Joe the Plumber got Obamarx to admit he's a Socialist from Socialism 9 in the Gamma Quadrant?
CD: No because of how he got owned on Fox yesterday...on FOX
implacable: Why does what he thinks matter? I don't care and no one else should either no matter how many times he is quoted in the press
Everyone reading: ....this guy implacable is really dumb
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
