What, the same poster who has a problem with you, who only snarked at you originally because you snarked at someone else? Who is now snarking at you because you are whining about said snark? Along with others who are doing the same thing? And all of this after most people came along and commended you for being nice?
You’re generally a nice guy on these boards, but even you’ve done a whole lot worse than is happening to you right now.
You’re whining about being persecuted when you aren’t. You know that sort of thing rifles feathers around here. So stop it.
No one is being remotely hateful right now. Not even me.
Just stopping in to say that, due to some creative reading as I scanned thread titles, I’m currently sitting here thinking about liberals who are a hatfull of tasty. Mmmm, John Stewart…
TBF, I have known not a few RWers who get duly faced from time to time. Though, really, judging by their representation in government, it would seem a bit redundant.
While this is true, and Hatch is not the only Republican woo pusher, Democrats are the ones who have pushed for funding of NCCAM and spending tax money on fruitless trying to confirm the existence of various forms of magical healing:
To me, it seems that Republican support of woo is usually an effort to remove regulations from questionable producers/practitioners, while Democrats want to use the government to validate their beliefs.
It seems odd that you would use this example to claim that Democrats support woo. The role of NCCAM is to subject alternative medical theories to rigorous scientific investigation.
Well, for one thing, we on the left just don’t have any experience with having unpopular opinions, we are always greeted with glad cries of approval and agreement. So maybe we have a hard time relating to Bricker’s problem, because nobody ever gives us any shit.
Solution that springs to mind is change those unpopular opinions. I can’t actually approve that because it would be cowardly, servile, and not nearly so much fun for me. It would however, solve the issue of your opinions being sarcastically flogged or snidely whiplashed.
I was giving examples of things that today’s GOP doesn’t regard as problems worthy of a governmental role. I’ll let you defend the idea that they’re not problems of that sort (or not problems at all), if you wish.
But just for the record, there was wide, bipartisan consensus for 4 out of 5, the only exception being of course equality for gays.
Those would be the Democrats. Somehow you’ve managed to listen but not hear that those are exactly all the things we’ve been saying, advocating, and legislating for decades.
Guess the candidate. These were all positions the candidate worked for or advocated:
[ul]
[li]Supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[/li][li]Supported the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967.[/li][li]Supported extending the Voting Rights Act in 1982.[/li][li]Supported the Americans with Disabilities Act[/li][li]Supported the Equal Opportunity Act, which prohibits the use of racial and gender preferences in federal contracting, federal employment, and programs wholly administered by the federal government.[/li][li]Supported the Congressional Accountability Act which requires members of Congress to live under the same laws that apply to everyone else.[/li][li]Supported comprehensive lobbying reform.[/li][li]Supported legislation to ban contributions by political action committees, restrict fundraising outside a candidate’s own state, prohibit taxpayer-financed “franked” mass mailings a full year before an election, and ban the practice of “bundling” contributions. (I believe this didn’t pass. I’m pretty sure that the Citizens United decision means the first two can’t happen anymore unless the decision is overturned.)[/li][li]Supported an Amendment to the Constitution to establish a two-term limit for Senators and six-term limit for House members.[/li][li]Supported limiting the power of special interest groups.[/li][li]Wanted representatives to be more accountable to their constituents.[/li][li]Supported establishing a National Instant Check system to keep criminals from purchasing firearms.[/li][/ul]
The first seems a bit moronic. Name a law that Congressmen are exempt from. This bit is usually promoted by the same half-wits that think Congressmen don’t pay in to Social Security.
The second is perhaps even dumber. Yeah, we want a bunch of amateurs in Congress. When tough issues come up, we want people with very little legislative experience. Not.