Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Republican, Tim Huelskamp, same-sex marriages, organizations, Jerrold Nadler, Defense of Marriage Act, Lisa Murkowski  
•       •       •

3997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 10:30 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-27 11:06:41 AM  

Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.


Are you reading your own typing? No way the Democrats allow a Constitutional amendment get RATIFIED to pass a debt ceiling bill.
 
2013-06-27 11:06:45 AM  
If they couldn't get this done 20 years ago with public opinion strongly in their favour (and if they could have, they certainly would have), it isn't happening in 2013.
 
2013-06-27 11:07:00 AM  

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: "Conversations with Conservatives"  Oh God, I wonder what those are like.



Probably something like this: "Pricipal . Caught sayof school that has stoped Handstandsing 'See, told ya so' Is He dead or not. CNN Says yes. St. Pete Times Looking for chads -OR- 'hello, I am write single to salute and wait for answer again.'"

But not as cogent.
 
2013-06-27 11:07:52 AM  

jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.


"I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.
 
2013-06-27 11:08:20 AM  

meat0918: I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment. They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


A pointless gesture. Similarly to a ban, it would have near zero chance of getting to ratification. You might get 2/3 of the Senate to support it with a minor miracle, but almost no chance of that level in the House, and (barring further action before the judiciary, and considering the modest state-level effects of gerrymandering) it seems likely that there will be at least 13 state legislatures net opposed to gay marriage through 2020.

More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).
 
2013-06-27 11:08:33 AM  

Karac: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"

Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.


I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.
 
2013-06-27 11:08:47 AM  

James!: coeyagi: jjorsett: coeyagi: jjorsett: Republicans using the constitution to change the constitution

Short of bloody revolution, how else would one do it?

The point is, they shouldn't.  The f*cking public doesn't want it, and they will continue in greater numbers not to want it ("it" being a consitutional amendment on marriage inequality) in the future.

They're allowed to try. I'm pretty sure they won't succeed, but if that's how they want to spend their time and energy, that's their right. And if you're correct abut the public's attitude, anybody on board with the attempt will pay a political price, so you ought to encourage them.

Wait, you are saying we should waste public money and resources for a losing battle?

So, lemme get this straight, from the conservative standpoint, wasting money is bad unless it's to fight a losing battle based on YOUR morals and values?  Glad that we're not calling that cognitive dissonance and instead a very narrow and ridiculous exception to your own rules.

If you think about it the money to promote this will be coming out of the GOP's war-chest for elections.  They'll waste some time and money futilely pushing it through the house several dozen times, but the lion share will be for ads and campaigning in the states for something that is impossible to pass.


Any talk/deeds about amending the Constitution should be regarded mostly as pandering to the base. Democrats do the same thing when they get handed a defeat in some area precious to their core constituency. For one example, look at the posturing that went on after the Citizens United decision was handed down. They were going to pass new laws, yada yada yada. Or should I say nada nada nada, since nothing much has happened. As will be the case with enshrining straight marriage in the Constitution.
 
2013-06-27 11:08:54 AM  

James!: coeyagi: Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.

Why do you think they would have access to the Treasury to promote an amendment? The only money coming out of the Fed will be for the nuts and bolts actions in the congress.  They have to advertise and organize everything else out of their own pocket.


Promote, yes, their own pockets, actual legislative day-to-day crap, no.
 
2013-06-27 11:09:24 AM  

EvilEgg: Yeah, that'll work.  They are going to get 38 states and a super-majority in both houses.

They'll just have to convince seven of the nineteen states that have already adopted some sort of marriage equality to accept a constitutional amendment.

Or they'll just keep using it like they use abortion, to fire up their base and never really deliver on their promises.


I'm sure that's their plan, but I'm equally sure that these guys just don't realize quite how far on the wrong side of history they are on this one. This is going to be one of those things, twenty years from now, that that GOP will have to struggle to live down.
 
2013-06-27 11:09:40 AM  

verbaltoxin: Serious Black: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: The Republican party can easily win this battle. They simply need to refuse to authorize a debt ceiling increase until a federal marriage amendment is enacted. In so doing, they will force the nation to accept such an amendment or suffer a completely ruined economy. True, such a position would put the nation's financial stability at risk, but Republicans in general have demonstrated their willingness to entirely destroy the nation if they are not able to treat others as second-class citizens.

I believe that such a strategy could work well for them. Any resulting damage could be blamed upon President Obama. Perhaps Representative Issa could lead an investigation to support such blame.

Yep, that's how we ended up with the Balanced Budget Amendment the Republicans demanded as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Yeah, but they only asked for a VOTE on a BBA to raise the debt ceiling. If they demand the FMA get ratified before raising the debt ceiling, that will GUARANTEE the Democrats capitulate.

Are you reading your own typing? No way the Democrats allow a Constitutional amendment get RATIFIED to pass a debt ceiling bill.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-06-27 11:09:50 AM  
Nothing pisses off a Republican like an American gaining freedom.
 
2013-06-27 11:10:02 AM  
In a few more years, we should start getting some data on divorce rates on gays to compare with straights.  And if the gays divorce less than the rest of us, we'll have a Defense of Marriage Act to make gay marriages legal throughout the country.  Just speculating here.
 
2013-06-27 11:10:21 AM  

palelizard: I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.


I believe the phrase "Burn the heretics!" would be involved.
 
2013-06-27 11:10:34 AM  

abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).


Except that any piece of legislation seems to need 60 votes in the Senate if the minority so chooses.
 
2013-06-27 11:11:34 AM  

coeyagi: James!: coeyagi: Um, I am pretty sure the war chest you speak of is the Treasury.  I am not talking about propping up tea bag morons for office, I am talking about actually trying to create an amendment through legislative process - that's on you and me, bro.

Why do you think they would have access to the Treasury to promote an amendment? The only money coming out of the Fed will be for the nuts and bolts actions in the congress.  They have to advertise and organize everything else out of their own pocket.

Promote, yes, their own pockets, actual legislative day-to-day crap, no.


Let them bleed their wallets trying to sell an amendment that will never pass.  An amendment that would literally tear families apart.  It's a win for Democrats.
 
2013-06-27 11:11:56 AM  

James!: MisterRonbo: social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad,"

How do you scientifically show that someone deserves something?


It's the same science that proves civilization will collapse if two dudes or two dudettes can marry each other.

It's actually a very simple "If X then Y" logic set. Where X = "gay" and Y = "anything bad you feel like saying".
 
2013-06-27 11:12:10 AM  

palelizard: Karac: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), an outspoken tea party member, echoed Huelskamp.
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,"

Well then it's a damn good thing we have freedom of religion in this country.  Otherwise, we'd have to mandate divorces for every couple in the nation who weren't married by Bachmann's minister.

I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.


In the South, anything more liberal than a baptist is a heathen and a blasphemer. Episcopalians (one of the churches that recognizes gays, allows women in the clergy, etc) are going straight to hell in the eyes of baptists.
 
2013-06-27 11:12:14 AM  
FTFA:  Asked if he would have the leadership's support, Huelskamp pointed to a statement from House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) expressing disappointment in the decisions. Boehner's comments were less forceful than those from more conservative House Republicans, though.

Heh.  Even Boehner's probably getting sick and tired of this shiat.  He probably realizes there are bigger fish to fry.

/doesn't mean he isn't disappointed by SCOTUS's ruling--a conservative SCOTUS, I might add--he's just got more important things on his mind.
 
2013-06-27 11:12:38 AM  

abb3w: meat0918: I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment. They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.

A pointless gesture. Similarly to a ban, it would have near zero chance of getting to ratification. You might get 2/3 of the Senate to support it with a minor miracle, but almost no chance of that level in the House, and (barring further action before the judiciary, and considering the modest state-level effects of gerrymandering) it seems likely that there will be at least 13 state legislatures net opposed to gay marriage through 2020.

More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).


The Respect for Marriage Act has already been reintroduced in both chambers.
 
2013-06-27 11:13:15 AM  

coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.


That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?
 
2013-06-27 11:14:33 AM  
In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

There were literally ZERO households with children that did not have both a mom and dad before the SCOTUS decision. ZERO I say!
 
2013-06-27 11:14:35 AM  

jjorsett: I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage


Isn't Rand Paul supposedly a libertarian?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposes same-sex marriage

I'm not really arguing against either of your statements on their own, I'm arguing that one doesn't necessarily follow the other.
 
2013-06-27 11:14:39 AM  

EyeballKid: "Stop waving the Constitution in my face! It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
  --- the last president all the "libertarians" on Fark voted for


There are plenty of things to use against Bush. You don't have to keep using a made up "quote". This supposed statement was debunked years ago.
 
2013-06-27 11:15:08 AM  

Mr. Titanium: In a few more years, we should start getting some data on divorce rates on gays to compare with straights.  And if the gays divorce less than the rest of us, we'll have a Defense of Marriage Act to make gay marriages legal throughout the country.  Just speculating here.


In Britain, same-sex couples split up half as often as opposite-sex couples.
 
2013-06-27 11:15:28 AM  

Mercutio74: Except that any piece of legislation seems to need 60 votes in the Senate if the minority so chooses.


Barring a nuclear hissy fit by the majority leader, yes. Regardless, it's easier than a 2/3 majority vote; and seems likely easier than getting past the Hastert rule under present composition of the House.
 
2013-06-27 11:16:29 AM  
I think it's a great idea to propose an Amendment to limit folks' rights. It is the sort of thing that will drive a wedge within the party, and when the pushback comes, a lot of Senators and Reps are going to go down, and go down hard--and not just in a bus terminal bathroom sense. It is what will define the party to a generation, and it is an opportunity to shed some of the idiocy, or it will be a chance to drive out the spiteful and mean spirited from the party entirely. What it will do is get talking heads blabbering back and forth, and it will expose the nature of how the government works, and the shake down will be a slightly more educated public, and possibly even the realization of the huge can of worms that such a change to the Constitution will bring.

This is an opportunity. And sadly, I suspect that there are more than a few Reps who are willing to charge right down this gangplank and leap right off the end, just to prove how "righteous" they are. Godspeed, you shining, crazy diamonds. Godspeed.
 
2013-06-27 11:16:42 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Three Crooked Squirrels: Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

I look forward to his anti-divorce Constitutional amendment proposition.

Also, will he sponsor a bill that would take children away from single parents? Inquiring minds want to know.


Nope - it would just:
1. Force single parents to marry their baby mamas/baby daddies, even if they were raped by an immediate family member. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
2. Mandate that widows/widowers remarry within three months of spousal death. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.
3. Pardon all currently incarcerated mothers and fathers - even serial rapists and killers. Because  every child deserves a mom and dad.


meat0918: I want to see the Democrats counter propose a marriage equality amendment.  They won't, because it's doing something and provides a lightening rod for conservative criticism, but it'd be a nice gesture.


Honestly, I'd rather see the Democrats counter by proposing to repeal the Second Amendment.  Not with any expectation of it being taken seriously... just want to see some conservative media hosts' heads explode.
 
2013-06-27 11:16:49 AM  
Was listening to the radio this morning where some lady was being interviewed about this. Her basis for being against it (big surprise) is that the bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. I really, really don't understand why none of these people get called out on why they don't pay attention to the other sections of Leviticus and only this one? I guarantee you she was wearing more than one type of fiber, and I could guess that she probably violates all sorts of things from the same section on probably a daily basis.

This is all getting so, so tiring. Hypocritical bigots using the "good" book to justify hatred and inequality for others. The sad part is they're to daft to even realize it.
 
2013-06-27 11:17:06 AM  

EyeballKid: mgshamster: Factcheck.org says that this is most likely not true, because the only news site that published the story is known for retractions and using fake sources.

Which one, NewsMax, Drudge Report, FoxNews.com, Breitbart, World Net Daily, the Blaze, the Weekly Standard, etc.?

Regardless, Darrell Issa has held hearings with less, so I've yet to be convinced it didn't happen.

/See, birthers, Intelligent Designers, Confederates, et al, I'm making my own reality in spite of facts presented to me that would indicate otherwise! I learned it from watching you!


I just thought of something else; would any of the sites you suggested actually fit the criteria I posted?  I mean, I know they all use fake sources, but do any of them ever retract a story?  Part of being a misinformation machine is that you never admit error.
 
2013-06-27 11:17:13 AM  

Car_Ramrod: In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

Wait, is he insinuating that people will turn gay just because of this ruling? That happily married straight couples will be torn asunder with cries of "Thanks for enabling me, Kennedy!" That if same-sex marriage was illegal, then all the gay people out there will be like, "Damnit. I really love this one person, but oh well. The law is the law. I'll enter into some loveless marriage because Scalia told me so." This doesn't make any sense.

Of course, no opposition to same-sex marriage makes sense, so there's that.


No, he's saying that children's near-infinite capacity to learn and accept stops EXACTLY at "Mom/Mommy" or "Dad/Daddy"??? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!! And then their heads explode.

THEIR TINY CHILDREN HEADS!!
 
2013-06-27 11:18:29 AM  

bdub77: "Marriage was created by the hand of God Allah. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy GodAllah has instituted," Bachmann said.

I'm misquoting the crazy b*tch here to make a point.


The part of her quote that caught my eye was "a holy God" the normal way of saying that is simply "God" or "holy God" or even "the holy God"  but by using "a" she is saying there is more than one holy god.  (which means God should be god).  I am certain her base would need their fainting coaches if they were able to think about what she said.  But alas, "they not so good with the English."
 
2013-06-27 11:19:02 AM  

abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).


Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.
 
2013-06-27 11:19:30 AM  
They may as well try to draft a law stating that the tide can no longer come in.

You guys lost on this one. It's over. Get over yourselves.
 
2013-06-27 11:20:51 AM  

Serious Black: The Respect for Marriage Act has already been reintroduced in both chambers.


Yeah, the Democratic congresscritters aren't completely stupid.
 
2013-06-27 11:20:59 AM  

jjorsett: Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU

common sense and basic math deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money?
 
2013-06-27 11:21:03 AM  

jjorsett: Let me get THIS straight: you want people to accept defeat before they even try, because YOU deem it a doomed effort, all in the name of saving money? By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. I'm perfectly okay with gay marriage. I'm also perfectly okay with people working within the system to attempt changing something they don't like, even if their opponents wish to God they'd just shut up and go away.


Oh look, a Libertarian defending the rights of a group of people trying to restrict the rights of another group of people.

Color me shocked. But I guess it's okay because they're "working within the system", which, apparently, makes it "perfectly okay".

Dude, this is why people around here don't have any respect for your philosophy. For some reason, Libertarian notions of "freedom" always seem to cut against those who yearn for it the most.
 
2013-06-27 11:21:42 AM  

BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


Full faith and credit ought to be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state; and the legislature shall, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect which judgments, obtained in one state, shall have in another.
 
2013-06-27 11:22:59 AM  

BMulligan: abb3w: More effective would be introducing a bill to simply require all states grant marriage comity -- each must recognize marriages from the other 49. No ratification by the states would be required, and it just would need a simple majority vote in House and Senate (plus POTUS signature).

Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
 
2013-06-27 11:23:29 AM  
Ratification, how does it work?
 
2013-06-27 11:23:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: palelizard: I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.

I believe the phrase "Burn the heretics!" would be involved.


That would be a refreshing blast of honesty in politics, especially from Bachmann.

kidgenius: In the South, anything more liberal than a baptist is a heathen and a blasphemer. Episcopalians (one of the churches that recognizes gays, allows women in the clergy, etc) are going straight to hell in the eyes of baptists.


Yeah, I grew up in SC.  There were lots of ways to get yourself into social trouble.
 
2013-06-27 11:24:00 AM  
Doctor Funkenstein

Whoa, hold up. There's a monthly bagger meeting where they get together with reporters to answer questions about their crazy asshattery? Why the fark is there not a live feed on here to each and every one of these when it happens? It's got to be like watching a monkey dressed up like a cowboy that suffered a head injury try to fark a cactus. At first, you'd find it hilarious but after a bit it's going to be sad and your just going to want that monkey to stop before he hurts himself more. But with each prick to the dick you know that little bastard is going jump right back on that thing and start grinding some more with the same results.

Can't. . . . . stop. . . . . laughing. . . .
 
2013-06-27 11:24:39 AM  

Empty Matchbook: Car_Ramrod: In opening remarks, Huelskamp said he was primarily concerned about how the rulings could affect American children. Decades of social-science research have "shown that every child deserves a mom and dad," he said, adding later, "I think children will be hurt."

Wait, is he insinuating that people will turn gay just because of this ruling? That happily married straight couples will be torn asunder with cries of "Thanks for enabling me, Kennedy!" That if same-sex marriage was illegal, then all the gay people out there will be like, "Damnit. I really love this one person, but oh well. The law is the law. I'll enter into some loveless marriage because Scalia told me so." This doesn't make any sense.

Of course, no opposition to same-sex marriage makes sense, so there's that.

No, he's saying that children's near-infinite capacity to learn and accept stops EXACTLY at "Mom/Mommy" or "Dad/Daddy"??? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!! And then their heads explode.

THEIR TINY CHILDREN HEADS!!


It's like when people worry, "But HOW am I going to EXPLAIN this to my CHILDREN?!"

Just tell them, "Some boys like girls, some like boys. Some girls like boys, some like girls." PROBLEM SOLVED. How hard is that? Do these people get flustered when explaining why not every person is the same color?
 
2013-06-27 11:24:41 AM  

palelizard: Philip Francis Queeg: palelizard: I've never heard anyone call them out on all the Christian churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. I want to see Bachmann's head assplode as she tries to weasel out of it without uttering the phrase "wrong kind of Christian" or something similar.

I believe the phrase "Burn the heretics!" would be involved.

That would be a refreshing blast of honesty in politics, especially from Bachmann.


It would not surprise me at all to hear that come from her mouth.
 
2013-06-27 11:25:27 AM  

jjorsett: coeyagi: "I am a liberatrian and not a conservative."  Well, at least we know there is such a thing as libertarian humor.

That statement is inherently self-contradictory. If I'm really a conservative then how could it be libertarian humor? And if I'm a libertarian, what's so funny about stating that I'm not a conservative?


Oh jj, have you ever heard the phrase "not mutually exclusive"?
 
2013-06-27 11:26:04 AM  

BMulligan: Pursuant to which enumerated power? Congress has no authority to demand such a thing from the states.


Emphasis added:

Article IV, Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


In so far as a marriage may be considered an official record in one state, Congress can require that all other states recognize the marriage as equal to a marriage recorded by the other state.
 
2013-06-27 11:26:21 AM  

Car_Ramrod: Do these people get flustered when explaining why not every person is the same color?


global.fncstatic.com
 
2013-06-27 11:26:56 AM  
"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Bachmann said. "What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

Then why are you so worked up about it then?

Also what is this "a holy God" bit?  Are there unholy ones?  Personally I would like to see Poseidon back.

These conservatives should just rename themselves the Pharisee party.
 
2013-06-27 11:27:08 AM  

bluorangefyre: I cry at what the Republican Party has become.  I remember when they were a fun party, even going so far as to have Chris Farley portray Newt Gingrich complete with a mystery envelope containing the next contract with America AND THEY LAUGHED BECAUSE IT WAS FUNNY!  Try something like that in today's Republican Party and they'll denounce it as a mockery.  Hell, Rush was even funny!  Now?  He's become the blowhard he used to rail against.  I now see why Ron Reagan is a Democrat, because the Republican Party is not the same as it was in his father's time.


The worst is PJ O'Rourke. EVERYONE should read Parliament of Whores not just because it shows that every "unprecedented" thing in politics today was already happening 20 years ago but because it has some really great, biting humor that doesn't treat anything as sacred. I tried to read an O'Rourke article a few years back and he has become completely bitter and nasty in his commentary; too much bile to be funny.
 
2013-06-27 11:28:11 AM  
Republican Priorities.........


Dead Voting Rights Act: Meh

Dead Miranda Rights: Finally.

Dead DOMA: OMFGBBQARGLEBARGLE! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! ALL HANDS ON DECK! WE MUST STOP THIS ABOMINATION AT ONCE!!!
 
2013-06-27 11:28:18 AM  

Serious Black: In Britain, same-sex couples split up half as often as opposite-sex couples.


No one ever makes the rash decision to get gay married after they knock up their gay SO.   No one ever gets pressured by their family and/or church to get gay married.  No one ever gets an arranged gay marriage.

Throw out all those bad reasons for getting hitched, and we heteros could enjoy the much-more sanctified institution of marriage that the gays do!
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report