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.

(UPI)   Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says that he will refuse to work with Obama during his second term until he moves to the political center   ( divider line
    More: Obvious, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Obama, Mitch McConnell, Party leaders of the United States Senate, human beings, political center, Kentucky Republican, John Ensign  
•       •       •

4849 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 4:11 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

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

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

2012-11-08 10:42:22 AM  
i235.photobucket.comView Full Size
2012-11-08 12:34:53 PM  
So to put it simply he wants to guarantee that in 2 years his party will get killed for being useless and obstructionist.

Keep it up ass hat
2012-11-08 06:19:47 PM  

SouthParkCon: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

Well, yes, but I want SPC's answer. I want to know what he's driving at.

I'd love to hear his answer too, but I'm afraid you're not going to get one...

Sorry I had to go oppress some minorities while out to dinner with the wife and kids :).

So let's go with Obama's health care plan for starters. A mandate with a penalty, and was found by the SCOTUS to be a Tax, contrary to what was peddled to the public by Obama himself. Now I would classify that as the "5%" that made the rest of it unacceptable to swallow. Obama would not relent, and it passed based on purely party lines, and then 2010 happened.

I see the same fight coming up about immigration. Do I think that we should kick out everyone here illegally? No, that wouldn't be a realistic solution. Do I think we need to grant blanket amnesty? No, however I will more than likely be called a racist hate-monger because of that. Is there somewhere in the middle to meet? Sure. The problem is that much like what happened to Reagan, the President and those on the Left will push blanket Amnesty with some sort of additional security measure on the border, only to either deny funding to the security portion or something similar. I'll also be the fi ...

Isn't the tax only applied if you can afford health care but don't get it?
2012-11-08 09:46:03 PM  
Mitch McTurtle: "To the extent he wants to move to the political center enthusiatically champion every last one of our radical posturing extremist positions, we'll be there to meet him half way pocket his and the Democrats' concessions, bust our few meager promises, and move even farther to the right while soccer-diving and screeching histrionically about partisan gridlock."
2012-11-09 02:51:48 AM  
In other news, blatant extortion is now a viable political tool for "representatives".
2012-11-09 03:46:41 AM  

SouthParkCon: Serious Black: SouthParkCon: People are people, and you I should live together in harmony. While there are the Right wing kooks who disagree, the vast majority of Conservatives would agree. When the gay marriage debate shifted to a debate on civil rights, I saw that as a cheap ploy by the Left to equate people getting married to the Civil Rights movement. The fact is that no major players on the Right are saying that if your gay you have to go to a certain school, use a separate bathroom or any of the other Jim Crow laws that segregated our society for so long. It's ridiculous to try and link the two.

You don't see the ability to publicly declare your love and commitment to the most important person in your life as a civil right? Maybe that's because you haven't been told that your relationship with your significant other is completely illegitimate and undeserving or unworthy of recognition by the world ever before. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. What about, say, the word of the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not like they ever unanimously said that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Oh, wait, they already did! Never mind.

The SCOTUS has taken up DOMA challenges and I would expect a ruling over the next few months, not sure which rulings your citing. Also if you base your self worth and commitment to your SO on what others say then that's kinda sad, whether your SO is another man or woman.

Um, it's Loving v. Virginia. You know, the court case where SCOTUS said anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

And why do you think people have public weddings and receptions where they invite tons of friends and family to eat, drink, and be merry with them? You think they do it because they love spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on a dress they'll only wear once, getting people sloppy drunk on their dime, and buying overpriced decorations that will go in the trash immediately after the festivities end? No, we have weddings because we want the people we care about to show us they are thrilled for us having found love and starting a family. And not having those friends and family show up to your wedding hurts. I've unfortunately seen this happen with some of my gay friends, where their parents and other family members refuse to attend their son's, daughter's, brother's or sister's commitment ceremony. They're happy, but they're crushed that their relationship is not recognized by the other most important people in their life. I'm sure I would feel the exact same way if my parents or my brother refused to attend my wedding.

We are social creatures. We crave acceptance from our peers, our elders, and our successors. Anyone who says otherwise is blatantly lying. Laws preventing the government from officially recognizing the love and commitment my LGBT brothers and sisters have for one another are a cruel and evil slap in the face and inevitably make them feel not accepted, and they encourage family and friends to not accept them either. Intolerance of love is unacceptable.
Displayed 6 of 306 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.