So liberals...guess the next two years will suck for you and Obama

Won't suck for me. The "Obamaagenda" is done. I wonder when he will really start "wagging the dog" to distract everyone from his ppoor domestic failures?

Nothing will change at all. Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority so they couldn't get anything done, and republicans are now in the same situation. The next two years will look exactly like the last two.

boards of FL wrote:Nothing will change at all. Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority so they couldn't get anything done, and republicans are now in the same situation. The next two years will look exactly like the last two.

ahem, there are not filibusters anymore "buster". Harry Reid took care of that with the nuclear option. .

We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test? Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I believe Boards is referring to PD's understanding of what happened with the filibuster rule change

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

I'm more than happy to disenfranchise people who don't posses even a faint grasp of the subject matter that they're voting on. I'm also more than happy to disenfranchise blind people from driving cars....elementary school students from performing brain surgery....mentally unstable people from having assault rifles....etc....etc....

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

I'm more than happy to disenfranchise people who don't posses even a faint grasp of the subject matter that they're voting on.   I'm also more than happy to disenfranchise blind people from driving cars....elementary school students from performing brain surgery....mentally unstable people from having assault rifles....etc....etc....

I see. You want to take people's right to vote because you think they're stupid if they don't think like you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

I'm more than happy to disenfranchise people who don't posses even a faint grasp of the subject matter that they're voting on.   I'm also more than happy to disenfranchise blind people from driving cars....elementary school students from performing brain surgery....mentally unstable people from having assault rifles....etc....etc....

I see. You want to take people's right to vote because you think they're stupid if they don't think like you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

Bingo. I'm glad all the people that came out of the woodwork to vote for Obama did so because of his platform rather than his color.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

I'm more than happy to disenfranchise people who don't posses even a faint grasp of the subject matter that they're voting on.   I'm also more than happy to disenfranchise blind people from driving cars....elementary school students from performing brain surgery....mentally unstable people from having assault rifles....etc....etc....

I see. You want to take people's right to vote because you think they're stupid if they don't think like you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

Bingo.  I'm glad all the people that came out of the woodwork to vote for Obama did so because of his platform rather than his color.

That should make me a shoe in for president in 2016.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p99a6K81zqM

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

I'm more than happy to disenfranchise people who don't posses even a faint grasp of the subject matter that they're voting on.   I'm also more than happy to disenfranchise blind people from driving cars....elementary school students from performing brain surgery....mentally unstable people from having assault rifles....etc....etc....

I see. You want to take people's right to vote because you think they're stupid if they don't think like you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

I don't "think" PACEDOG is stupid.  He is.  You agree that PACEDOG is factually incorrect in his comment above, right?  He is objectively wrong, isn't he?

If one person "thinks" that Jay-Z was the first president of the US, they're an idiot.  There isn't any room to have subjective beliefs on a fact like that.  The same applies to rules of the senate. Being it the case that you can't sort this out in your mind before posting what you have in this thread, perhaps you would be disenfranchised as well if we were to have basic aptitude tests.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We should really take a hard look at basic aptitude test requirements before voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States

An aptitude test?  Would that require a photo ID that you are against?

I don't care if someone has an ID or not when they vote.  I do care if someone is voting and they lack even a basic understanding of high school civics, which PACEDOG clearly does.

So now you're more than willing to disenfranchise all those minorities with a test. That's mighty Dixiecratic of you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

I'm more than happy to disenfranchise people who don't posses even a faint grasp of the subject matter that they're voting on.   I'm also more than happy to disenfranchise blind people from driving cars....elementary school students from performing brain surgery....mentally unstable people from having assault rifles....etc....etc....

I see. You want to take people's right to vote because you think they're stupid if they don't think like you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsJ0laYn6s

I don't "think" PACEDOG is stupid.  He is.  You agree that PACEDOG is factually incorrect in his comment above, right?  He is objectively wrong, isn't he?

If one person "thinks" that Jay-Z was the first president of the US, they're an idiot.  There isn't any room to have subjective beliefs on a fact like that.  The same applies to rules of the senate.  Being it the case that you can't sort this out in your mind before posting what you have in this thread, perhaps you would be disenfranchised as well if we were to have basic aptitude tests.

It doesn't matter if he's factually wrong. I know for a fact that you're attempting to disenfranchise him and violate the US Constitution.

You're no better than the carpetbaggers of old.

And you represent the supposedly enlightened progressive liberal party?

Sounds like you're a liberal Dixiecrat to me.

Looks like the Dixiecrats didn't leave the Democratic party like Seaoat always tries to suggest.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

They fancy themselves radical or revolutionary... the rules are just there for others. In truth they're just a bunch of pencil neck pussies that bought into a load of shit. They're not even enlightened to realize the controls they seek enslaves themselves.

PkrBum wrote:They fancy themselves radical or revolutionary... the rules are just there for others. In truth they're just a bunch of pencil neck pussies that bought into a load of shit. They're not even enlightened to realize the controls they seek enslaves themselves.

Internet tough guy strikes again! Don't step outta line or he'll give you a good, incoherent one liner that he won't be able to muster the words to back up later!

I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting. It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control. Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

Pkr supports free will for the mentally unstable, the morally deranged and the perennially corrupt.As long as the govt. doesn't interfere...it's ok.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Pencil neck geek strikes again....

It's better than being a Nazi.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting. It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control. Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

I am an anti-collectivist/progressive/statist/socialist/communist... or whatever you want to call it this week.

There should be one very simple set of rules that apply to everyone equally and limits govt... like a constitution or something.

So what BOF....I was thinking of one thing and writing of another. Big Deal.....however YOU have shown your true colors here. With your logic, about 99% of the Democratic party is ineligible to vote....including yourself.

I tried to help Pace with the senate rules a few days ago, but it is clear he has an aptitude deficiency in understanding how our government works.

Not much will change in the last two years of Obama's administration. The economy will slowly improve, the deficit will continue to be reduced, and more and more Americans will have healthcare.

The short term tactical blunders will blow up in either party's face if they are not working for America. We will see if traditional Republicans who led this election with credible candidacies have the common sense to realize their best chance in 2016 is passing laws which help the middle class and America. We will see, but the one thing which was obvious in 2014.....the crazy T tards were mostly flushed from the party. Good candidates win.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I'm not the one that supports controlling people... mostly for some subjective protection. It's cowardly.

Interesting.  It seems that with the existence of any state or governing body, there comes with that at least some level of control.   Would you say that you're an anarcho-capitalist favoring the elimination of the state entirely?

I am an anti-collectivist/progressive/statist/socialist/communist... or whatever you want to call it this week.

There should be one very simple set of rules that apply to everyone equally and limits govt... like a constitution or something.

But should there be any government at all?  That is what I'm asking you.  I swear this isn't a trick question. Do you support the idea of at least some government?