Taxes & Budget Thread:7-24-05 Idiot Democrat proposes 25% Internet Tax to protect Children from seeing Porn

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
My prediction:

Freedom...liberty...SS personalization...ownership...home ownership....health savings accounts...freedom....personalization...hard work ... freedom...liberty...hard work...mandate...working hard...moving forward...freedom...security...terrorists....ownership ... freedom...moving forward.

Oh you forgot that while he was talking about freedom, compassion, and caring for ones fellow man, he was also talking about banning marital rights from a specific demographic of americans. In some parts and times this is called DISCRIMINATION. Not exactly compassionate or replucian-esque ideology grand standing about government intrustion into our lives.

If you ask me I consider Bush the hypocrite anti-american president. But hey that is just my opinion and my 2 cents. Not that the other 90% of americans out there give a flying F--K, as they are strainght and have no measure of intellect to give cause to take a moment and simply realize when the government is given the right to legislate against one group of the population you inherently set a precedent for the government to do the same to you.

So when it comes time for when a law, instrusive to your personal and private life, is submitted and you are left alone against the tide of popular assent to fight for your inalienable human rights, yet did not even consider to fight for anothers be glad you are a lone american with no idea of what freedom means.

:beer::beer::beer:
 

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
4 more years.. 4 more years.. 4 more years..

THINK about that during the speech.. how someone so dumb just bitchslapped your candidate. Imagine is the Republicans put up a 'smart' candidate? You would have lost 75-25.

At least they are willing to admit bush is an idiot... Now I wonder if it takes an idiot to vote for one?
 

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Bush proposes an Amendment to stop gay marriage. :thumbsup:

I'm a Bush guy, however I don't think it is the right thing to do to have a constitutional amendment concerning marriage.

Yeah, I know. I'd like less government. But that's not going to happen. So the next best choice is to ban gay marriage.

Here's to the day when they ban your ability to think or speak AT ALL.
 

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: raildogg
Bush has not made illigal aliens US citizens YET. I am fearful thats his final plan

what we dont realize is that the children of these illigals are BORN US CITIZENS

We need to repeal the 14th Amendment which was created after the War of Northern Aggression to address the rights of the Southern blacks who have lived here for many generations. It had absolutely nothing to do with today's Mexicans running across the border.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So now you want to repeal fundamental constitutional protections.

I hope my sarcasm meter is out of order, because it says you are serious.

"Fundamental constitutional protections?" What kind of nonsense is that? The Bill of Rights are Amendments 1 - 10, not 11+. The 14th Amendment was never needed.

Edit: many nations do not have an automatic policy of being their citizen if you are born in their nation. They realized the massive immigration problems that result from that.


The 14th Amendment says that if you are a citizen, the government cannot take away your legal rights, lock you up or take your things without due process, and can't make some people exempt from legal protections. Everyone who is a citizen gets them.

THis is what you want to eliminate?

I am trying real hard to not violate Godwins law here.

Did you not read the very first section of the 14th Amendment which you quoted above?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Ok, so you are born in the US. You are a citizen. Should we change that?

Yes, we need less of this anticompassionate viewpoint. He has a real history for this stuff and I see it in every one of his posts I have read so far.
 

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I'll be saying "God help America" the next 4 years, because it needs all the help it can get to survive the onslaught by this idiot.

Can you be specific? What did Bush say that qualifies as idiotic other than the illegals? SS is broke; we need to take out Syria and Iran

OMG, are you brain dead? Do you really want a draft? Jeebers!
 

HalosPuma

Banned
Jul 11, 2004
498
0
0
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: raildogg
Bush has not made illigal aliens US citizens YET. I am fearful thats his final plan

what we dont realize is that the children of these illigals are BORN US CITIZENS

We need to repeal the 14th Amendment which was created after the War of Northern Aggression to address the rights of the Southern blacks who have lived here for many generations. It had absolutely nothing to do with today's Mexicans running across the border.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So now you want to repeal fundamental constitutional protections.

I hope my sarcasm meter is out of order, because it says you are serious.

"Fundamental constitutional protections?" What kind of nonsense is that? The Bill of Rights are Amendments 1 - 10, not 11+. The 14th Amendment was never needed.

Edit: many nations do not have an automatic policy of being their citizen if you are born in their nation. They realized the massive immigration problems that result from that.


The 14th Amendment says that if you are a citizen, the government cannot take away your legal rights, lock you up or take your things without due process, and can't make some people exempt from legal protections. Everyone who is a citizen gets them.

THis is what you want to eliminate?

I am trying real hard to not violate Godwins law here.

Did you not read the very first section of the 14th Amendment which you quoted above?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Ok, so you are born in the US. You are a citizen. Should we change that?

Yes, we need less of this anticompassionate viewpoint. He has a real history for this stuff and I see it in every one of his posts I have read so far.

We United States citizens do not have true freedom and liberty if foreigners can enter our country illegally, pop out their babies, and expect them to be US citizens. We must protect our borders!

"Anti-compassionate?" Nonsense, I have a lot of compassion for my fellow citizens born of US parents. This is our country. Our hard work and financial investments built this nation. To have illegals enter our country and have their children automatically become US citizens unde the 14th Amendment is wrong and unconstitutional, pre-1868.

Again, the 14th Amendment addressed the issues of citizenship for freed black slaves. It had absolutely nothing to do with illegals and should be repealed. This is not "freedom" for illegals, it's about freedom for US citizens to have our country protected from foreign invaders.
 

HeaterCore

Senior member
Dec 22, 2004
442
0
0
"Unconstitutional, pre-1868."

Do I even have to mention how stupid that both is and sounds? And how, pray tell, did your ancestors become citizens?

Immigration reform may well be a valid initiative, but to propose repealing the 14th Amendment is completely insane. By that point, I've begun to wonder if you're not so much opposed to immigration as opposed to people who might be darker than you.

-HC-
 

gutharius

Golden Member
May 26, 2004
1,965
0
0
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
We United States citizens do not have true freedom and liberty if foreigners can enter our country illegally, pop out their babies, and expect them to be US citizens. We must protect our borders!

I fail to see how someone wanting to be a citizen of our nation hinders my freedom or liberty. Even if they come here and "pop out" their babies.

"Anti-compassionate?" Nonsense, I have a lot of compassion for my fellow citizens born of US parents. This is our country. Our hard work and financial investments built this nation. To have illegals enter our country and have their children automatically become US citizens unde the 14th Amendment is wrong and unconstitutional, pre-1868.

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Bush proposes an Amendment to stop gay marriage. :thumbsup:

Uhm yeah, can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y? Being a "fellow US citizen born of US Parents" and a gay american who deserves equal legal pervue under the law, with out any bias or discrimination. I feel that your sense of compassion is a fat joke, alot like those who say they pratice compassion then turn around and take from those who need more than they themselves do. Now have your :cookie:, not that you deserve it, and STFU troll.

Oh and consider your ass owned.

Again, the 14th Amendment addressed the issues of citizenship for freed black slaves. It had absolutely nothing to do with illegals and should be repealed. This is not "freedom" for illegals, it's about freedom for US citizens to have our country protected from foreign invaders.

So if you take this section of the 14th amendment out, then your child, tho' I would pity any one with you as a parent to look up to, will not be a US citizen even tho he/she were born here. Again short sighted hypocrisy will get you no where. Move along troll and please think about the consequences of your proposed intents before you post. Your wasting bandwidth with your endless ill thought out diatribes of, "The World According to Halospuma".
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,458
527
126
Originally posted by: soundforbjt
Did anyone notice that the President never mentioned public enemy #1 Osama Bin Laden? And why is that?

sometimes, the best way to get a rabbit to come out of its hole is to act like you are ignoring him.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Looks like I didn't miss much. Didn't watch any of it last night.

Caught a bit of a review on Nightline and saw the... :puke; exploiting of an Iraqi women who'd voted to get the Yee-Haws applauding. I heard the Democrats booed and heckled Bush when he spoke lies about Social Security being exhausted and bankrupt in 2042. Wish I'd seen that, though. :)


Liberty - 1
Freedom - 8
Free - 10
Democracy - 4
Iraq/Iraqi - 24
bin Laden - 0
WMD - 4
Ownership - 2
September 11th - 3
Forward - 5


Oh, btw, Laura Bush in charge of keeping kids out of gangs??

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

dragonballgtz

Banned
Mar 9, 2001
2,334
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: HalosPuma
Originally posted by: raildogg
Bush has not made illigal aliens US citizens YET. I am fearful thats his final plan

what we dont realize is that the children of these illigals are BORN US CITIZENS

We need to repeal the 14th Amendment which was created after the War of Northern Aggression to address the rights of the Southern blacks who have lived here for many generations. It had absolutely nothing to do with today's Mexicans running across the border.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


So now you want to repeal fundamental constitutional protections.

I hope my sarcasm meter is out of order, because it says you are serious.

"Fundamental constitutional protections?" What kind of nonsense is that? The Bill of Rights are Amendments 1 - 10, not 11+. The 14th Amendment was never needed.

Edit: many nations do not have an automatic policy of being their citizen if you are born in their nation. They realized the massive immigration problems that result from that.


The 14th Amendment says that if you are a citizen, the government cannot take away your legal rights, lock you up or take your things without due process, and can't make some people exempt from legal protections. Everyone who is a citizen gets them.

THis is what you want to eliminate?

I am trying real hard to not violate Godwins law here.

Did you not read the very first section of the 14th Amendment which you quoted above?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Ok, so you are born in the US. You are a citizen. Should we change that?

Yes! If you read the 10 other posts before mine, we were complaining about all of the illegals who run into this country just to pop out babies. They are called "anchor babies" because at age 18, they can then bring in their whole families.

But the point is that anyone can run into the US, pop out their baby, and that baby is automatically a US citizen.


Well I disagree. We'll leave it at that.

Well I'm Mexican my self and I feel it is wrong for people to have these "anchor babies".
I work with a few guys that are illegal, had children in this country and now are just waiting for them to turn 18.

With illegal people it seriously fvcks up the job market. Because my boss can find illegals easy (Detroit, MI) I have to make less money then what I should be getting. Since some guys would work for $6 or$7 I have to work for $6 or $7. And the money they make is TAX FREE. While I make $6 or $7 that is taxed.

Another thing is I can even get a job around SW Detroit because I don't speak spanish. I know that America does not have a offical language but don't people that come over the legal way have to know some english and know some American history background.

IMHO this illegal boarder hoping has to stop and it has to stop now!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Moments from the SotU ;)

'And the Democrats sat on their hands.'

Heh. So true. It's a common posture these days for them.

And you should have seen their weak repsonse after the SOTU last night. Pelosi was a complete goof. What a bumbling doofus. She actually makes Bush look really smart, if that's even possible.

If the Democrats wanted to make any points and seriously contest what Bush said, they should have had Obama front and center. I'd like to see him speak off-the-cuff and see how well-versed on the issues he really is.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Moments from the SotU ;)

'And the Democrats sat on their hands.'

Heh. So true. It's a common posture these days for them.

And you should have seen their weak repsonse after the SOTU last night. Pelosi was a complete goof. What a bumbling doofus. She actually makes Bush look really smart, if that's even possible.

If the Democrats wanted to make any points and seriously contest what Bush said, they should have had Obama front and center. I'd like to see him speak off-the-cuff and see how well-versed on the issues he really is.
Hmm...haven't seen or read it before.

Let's see:

Pelosi
Despite the best efforts of our troops and their Iraqi counterparts, Iraq still faces a violent and persistent insurgency, and the chairman of the National Intelligence Council said in January that Iraq is now a magnet for international terrorists.

We have never heard a clear plan from this administration for ending our presence in Iraq. And we did not hear one tonight. Democrats believe a credible plan to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq must include three key elements.

First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military should be training the Iraqi army. We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.

Second, Iraq's economic development must be accelerated. Congress has provided billions of dollars for reconstruction, but little of that money has been spent to put Iraqis to work rebuilding their country. Infrastructure improvements in Iraq are more than just projects; they give Iraqis hope for a better future and a stake in achieving it. And they contribute to Iraqi stability.

Third, regional diplomacy must be intensified. Diplomacy can lessen the political problems in Iraq, take pressure off of our troops, and deprive the insurgency of the fuel of anti-Americanism on which it thrives.

If these three steps are taken, the next elections in Iraq, scheduled for December, can be held in a more secure atmosphere, with broader participation, and a much smaller American presence.

Just as we must transfer greater responsibility to the Iraqi people for their own security, we must embrace a renewed commitment to our security here at home. It's been over three years since the attacks of September 11th. Our hopes and prayers will always be with the 9/11 families, who strengthen our resolve to win the war on terror. The pain and horror of that day will never be forgotten by any of us yet the gaps in our security exposed by those attacks remain.

Despite the administration's rhetoric, airline cargo still goes uninspected, shipping containers go unscreened, and our railroads and power plants are not secure. Police officers and firefighters across America have pleaded for the tools they need to prevent or respond to an attack, but the administration still hasn't delivered for our first responders.

The greatest threats to our homeland security are the tons of biological, chemical and even nuclear materials that are unaccounted for or unguarded. The president says the right words about the threat, but he has failed to take action commensurate with it.

We can and we must keep the world's most gruesome weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands. Nothing is more important to our homeland security, and indeed to the safety of the world.

For three years, the president has failed to put together a comprehensive plan to protect America from terrorism, and we did not hear one tonight.
Bravo! Well said!!
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Looks like I didn't miss much. Didn't watch any of it last night.

Caught a bit of a review on Nightline and saw the... :puke; exploiting of an Iraqi women who'd voted to get the Yee-Haws applauding. I heard the Democrats booed and heckled Bush when he spoke lies about Social Security being exhausted and bankrupt in 2042. Wish I'd seen that, though. :)


Liberty - 1
Freedom - 8
Free - 10
Democracy - 4
Iraq/Iraqi - 24
bin Laden - 0
WMD - 4
Ownership - 2
September 11th - 3
Forward - 5


Oh, btw, Laura Bush in charge of keeping kids out of gangs??

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

LOL- 0 mentions of Bin Laden.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military should be training the Iraqi army. We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.
Yeah, all those Iraqi security forces stationed everywhere in Iraq during the elections were imaginary. And I'm sure Ms. Pelosi could train a massive Iraqi security force to be top-notch, in a single day. Why I bet her and John Kerry even have a plan for doing just that.

:roll:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military should be training the Iraqi army. We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.
Yeah, all those Iraqi security forces stationed everywhere in Iraq during the elections were imaginary. And I'm sure Ms. Pelosi could train a massive Iraqi security force to be top-notch, in a single day. Why I bet her and John Kerry even have a plan for doing just that.

:roll:

Strawman? ;)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military should be training the Iraqi army. We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.
Yeah, all those Iraqi security forces stationed everywhere in Iraq during the elections were imaginary. And I'm sure Ms. Pelosi could train a massive Iraqi security force to be top-notch, in a single day. Why I bet her and John Kerry even have a plan for doing just that.

:roll:
Yep, a strawman by Nancy "Plastic" Pelosi. For once I actually agree with you.

Strawman? ;)

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
First, responsibility for Iraqi security must be transferred to the Iraqis as soon as possible. This action is long overdue. The top priority for the U.S. military should be training the Iraqi army. We must not be lulled into a false sense of confidence by the administration's claim that a large number of security personnel have been trained. It simply hasn't happened, but it must.
Yeah, all those Iraqi security forces stationed everywhere in Iraq during the elections were imaginary. And I'm sure Ms. Pelosi could train a massive Iraqi security force to be top-notch, in a single day. Why I bet her and John Kerry even have a plan for doing just that.

:roll:
And just what was that count of Iraqi forces, eh? And, they were in a very secure area. No traffic was allowed within at least one mile of polling places. Of course they performed well. A grade-school bully armed with only a slingshot could have done just as good a job.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Moments from the SotU ;)


Makes one wonder if Bush is a closet homosexual. What's with the winking to Chertoff and the kiss to Liebermann?

Now all of a sudden you are homophobic? You guys need to make up your minds.. you can't rip homosexuals when its convenient and then claim they should have equal rights in the next breath..
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: conjur
Moments from the SotU ;)


Makes one wonder if Bush is a closet homosexual. What's with the winking to Chertoff and the kiss to Liebermann?

Now all of a sudden you are homophobic? You guys need to make up your minds.. you can't rip homosexuals when its convenient and then claim they should have equal rights in the next breath..

Mentioning someone is gay-- in this cae the president-- doesn't mean you are homophobic. Constantly trying to deny gay people rights and hating them, like you conservatives do, IS homophobic. Capiche?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: conjur
Moments from the SotU ;)


Makes one wonder if Bush is a closet homosexual. What's with the winking to Chertoff and the kiss to Liebermann?

Now all of a sudden you are homophobic? You guys need to make up your minds.. you can't rip homosexuals when its convenient and then claim they should have equal rights in the next breath..
What are you doing here? I thought you ranted on in a several paragraphs-long diatribe that you were leaving this place?


Flip-flopper!!