4463 replies to this topic

[freedom78]

I love the USA Erection Thread:

 

[PERM BANNED]

"13 inches. I don't treat you gently "

[freedom78]

"13 inches. I don't treat you gently "

 

[Mr. Roboto]

Yea but Trump's is the biggest eva...and trust me, he knows a lot of very very very well hung people all over the world.

 

They all say the same thing...that his is the biggest and the best. 

 

 

[Mr. Roboto]

 

Republican Party officials drafting the GOP platform have voted to include presumptive nominee Donald Trump’s plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, less than a week before the party’s convention.

 

The platform, if approved, will support a wall that covers “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic,” according to The Hill.

 

The proposal faces a vote by the full RNC next week in Cleveland before it is formally adopted, Politico notes. But the language approved on Tuesday drew no opposition.

 

Trump has been scorned for his proposal to deport 11 million people and build a border wall, which he claims Mexico will pay for. Mexico’s president said there was “no way” the country would comply with such a demand. The GOP platform proposal doesn’t include the stipulation.

 

Many Republican leaders have been lining up behind Trump ahead of the convention, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and RNC head Reince Priebus. Several prominent GOP names, including two former presidents, say they won’t attend the convention.

 

Priebus told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren the inclusion of the wall was a “hat tip” to Trump.

 

“The idea of a border fence has been in our platform for many, many years and just changing the word from fence to wall is what they did and maybe it was a little hat tip to Donald Trump on that issue and that’s fine,” Priebus said.

 

Trump has little support among Latino voters, despite his assertion that “Latinos love” him. A June poll found 89 percent of Hispanic voters viewed the candidate unfavorably, while 64 percent viewed presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton favorably. Trump has predicted he will win the Hispanic vote in November.

 

Trump’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Many Republicans have criticized the idea of a border wall, even if they support a fence. (Most Democrats support fencing as well.) Just this week, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry ®, a Trump supporter, said a border wall should be “technological,” because a physical wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border isn’t feasible. 

 

“It’s a digital wall,” Perry told Snapchat in an interview posted Monday. “There are some that hear, ‘This is going to be 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Thirty feet high.’ And listen, I know you can’t do that.”

 

 http://www.huffingto...4b08608d3322c02

[PERM BANNED]

http://www.politico....y-states-225442

 

So Trump is ahead in PA and FL and tied in Ohio.  Maybe Clinton isn't the shoe in so many of us thought.

[Mr. Roboto]

Looks like Mike Pence for Trump's Veep. 

[freedom78]

Looks like Mike Pence for Trump's Veep. 

 

Pence really helped Indiana gain the national spotlight.  Granted, it's because his law made us all seem like ignorant homophobes. 

[PERM BANNED]

It's actually a really great pick. He's from a Midwestern state, his claim to fame as you put it, is the religious freedom bill that appeals to the evangelicals because Jesus, and libertarian types like me who believe freedom of association is protected by the first amendment.

He adds conservative credibility to Trump and brings political credibility.

[Mr. Roboto]

Coulter is not happy about this. No Sir. 

[Mr. Roboto]

A Giant Billboard of Trump and Cruz Kissing Just Went Up Outside the Republican Convention 

[freedom78]

It's actually a really great pick. He's from a Midwestern state, his claim to fame as you put it, is the religious freedom bill that appeals to the evangelicals because Jesus, and libertarian types like me who believe freedom of association is protected by the first amendment.

He adds conservative credibility to Trump and brings political credibility.

 

So he's Dumb Danny Quayle Mark 2?

 

Take Trump's economic nationalism, which economic conservatives hate, and pair it with Pence's gay-bashing legislation that was pushed through over the objections of private enterprise and you have a bit of a nightmare, if you ask me.  If you're a free market capitalist and have felt that the last 36 years of social conservatism dominating the GOP have been a bit like living in the wilderness, then having an economic nationalist running with someone who places social conservatism over market conservatism has to feel like living on Neptune.

 

aka Gary Johnson's wet dream (for Gary Johnson as a candidate...not for the country).

[PERM BANNED]

Quayle didn't hinder Bush from beating Dukakis.  I don't like him or dislike him.  I'm just saying the guy is a conservative scare crow that will give some credibility to Trump among the Cruz types.  It's not going to hurt or help Trump.  I still intend to vote Johnson unless Ohio is close, which is probably will be.  My biggest fear is Clinton in the White House, not Trump.  This country doesn't need 2-3 more justices who think the Constitution is a living, breathing document capable of being interpreted differently based on the political issue at hand.  I'm not saying the 4 conservative justices get it always right or the liberal ones never get it right.  But justices who ignore the intent and founder's writings on the amendments and think the government can compel you to purchase a private product while at the same time compel you to sell to people against your will, scare the shit out of me.

[freedom78]

#1: No, dumb Dan Quayle didn't hinder Bush.  Neither did it being an awesome year to be a Republican.  That was a landslide.  He could have nominated the Ghost of Stalin and won that year.

 

#2: I doubt that Clinton nominating three Justices would mean replacing three conservatives.  Scalia's seat, sure, but if she wins I'd bet a couple of liberals would take the chance to retire.  Let's not forget that Bush II replaced a legitimate moderate (SDO) with the court's most conservative member, in Alito.  When it's 8-1, he's the one.  Dude's fringe.

 

#3: I agree we need to return to the framers' views, so we can do away with such leftist activist decisions as Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Lawrence v. Texas.  Shame on our lefty court for giving in to the black and gay agendas of equality and justice.  Some of that was sarcastic.

 

#4: I agree that the government cannot compel you to purchase a product.  Consequently, there are many (fools) who do not purchase insurance and instead pay the tax.  It isn't close to the best system for national healthcare, but it's better than nothing.  All the more reason for single payer, to do away with any controversy.

 

#5: I also agree that government cannot compel you to sell to people against your will.  A person owns their own business and if they cannot handle being a grown up and not using their business to gay/minority bash, then they are free to close up shop or to turn it into a member's only type of economic activity.  If all the anti-gay wingnuts want to start a member's only bakery that sells cakes only to members, then they can do so.  The cost of doing business being to maximize your potential customer base by not being a bigot doesn't strike me as the most serious threat to either the free market or liberty, especially since economic liberty is a fiction and not a Constitutional right of any sort.  If we had economic liberty, we could all skip paying taxes. 

[PERM BANNED]

We've had these discussions before, and I'm certainly not going to defend government discrimination.  All 3 of the cases you mentioned deal with how the government treats people and prohibits them from some arbitrary distinction under the law.  I think there's something to be said about looking at the framer's intent with the 2nd amendment and realizing that they clearly intended an individual right to bear arms versus the "regulated militia" aspect the 4 justices came up with in their dissent in Heller.  True, when the 14th amendment was passed, Congress certainly didn't have homosexuality or interracial marriage in mind.  But they did establish an ideal in liberty, and the justices rightfully followed that ideals concepts in ruling in Brown, Loving and Lawrence.  

 

Kim Davis was wrong because she was a representative of the government and her personal opinions or beliefs don't allow her to discriminate in a legal capacity.  Frank the baker, who isn't funded by taxes and can go belly up at any moment, shouldn't have to sell or associate with anyone he doesn't want to.  You and I can both think he's an asshole and refuse to provide him with our business.  SCOTUS ruled in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association was inherent in the first amendment.  I believe constitutional liberties take priority over hurt feelings.