Let him try. It’s just the thing to put an end to the filibuster rule once and for all.
More like church leaders’ reward to themselves from their flocks.
I was fairly gullible when I was younger but experience has taught me to be more skeptical, so it’s boggling to see mature adults suckered into the blatant scams that a lot of churches are. I used to have born agains as neighbours and even went to their church once at Christmas when they invited my family (under somewhat false pretenses), and saw within five minutes that it was a cult-like scam. I was tempted to point out the obvious signs to my neighbours but decided they wouldn’t listen anyway. Sure enough, a couple of years later the church leaders were investigated for shady financial practices. In the news coverage, I learned that they pressured church members for more and more money, even if they were suffering financially. So when I see “donations to Christian ministries will always increase one’s material wealth”, I have to wonder how the hell people fall for that crap.
Because it’s something they can do.
You mean because they can’t do anything else to become wealthier (or think they can’t) so that’s the only option they think they have?
Sometimes its like that, sometimes the acid just hits all at once, and you try to stick your head out the window but its rolled up…
The people have spoken. I am their leader; I must follow them.
[The Las Vegas Sun has a better story on this.
](Nevada lawmaker says he'd vote for slavery if his constituents wanted him to - Las Vegas Sun News)
Was his analogy stupid? Aye, it was. It would also have been stupid to say he’d vote to kill Jews if that’s what his constituents wanted, or to vote in favor of restricting voting to male landowners, or any of a host of other things.
But, it’s pretty clear that he was making an analogy, not advocating in favor of slavery. In fact, it’s clear from what he said that this is the case, and that he is advocating for the concept of a representational republic, not in favor of slavery:
And to his credit, he acknowledges the impropriety of his choice of words.
Van Jones: Republicans oppose their own ideas as soon as Obama mentions them
If this idea is true (and it seems to be true), isn’t the best way to handle it to embrace anything you don’t want to see enacted and watch them scramble?
Obama: You know, I think we should lower taxes on the 1%.
Republicans: NEVER! We must RAISE TAXES on the 1%! We must double them! We must triple them!
Obama: Gosh, you’re forcing my hand. How ever will I sleep at night after I sign this bill quadrupling the taxes on the 1%?
Republicans: You hate America!
Koch Bros.: Um, guys?
Your jumping the gun a little bit, there were only 11,450 posts at the time of your post, 11,486 as of now. It is entirely possible that the Republicans will suddenly become a paragon of responsibility and sanity before the next 16 posts. 
I am sorry but I disagree. You don’t make a seemingly pro-slavery remark like that without it being a grain of truth to it. As this thread has shown, the Republicans are, if anything, completely unprincipled except when it comes to the most extreme. Give them their own policies and bills they’ve written and say a Democrat agrees with them, and they’ll almost always denounce it. What this idiot should have said is the following:
“While I support a Representative Democracy and understand that I am only here because my constituents want me to be here, there are lines that need to be drawn. Leaders lead, and morally strong leaders do so by example despite what blowback they may incur because its the right thing to do. So even if my constituents wanted me to support slavery for example, I would tell them to their faces that it is evil and abominable and I cannot support it, and that they are both ignorant and morally bankrupt to expect that any good person would support such a thing. Yada yada yada, impeach Obama”
(bolding mine)
You’re right, that is what he should have said. But he didn’t, and your claim that there must be a part of Mr. Wheeler that wants to restore slavery seems, by all the available evidence, including the context of the original remarks, to be completely off-base and more a reflection of your biases than anything else.
It was a stupid thing to say because of the backlash that the subject of slavery (or genocide or eating babies, etc., etc.) will engender, but to think he personally wants or was advocating for slavery is ridiculous and not supported by facts.
Normal people would have reacted with revulsion and dismay at the very idea, not tried to find a way to say they would go along with it. To say that he lacks that revulsion is not bias.
:smack:
You’re right; I did jump the gun a bit by counting incorrectly. Still, I’m not gonna wager that Republicans regain (or is it just “gain”?) their sanity before we hit even 20,000 posts.
He did express revulsion; perhaps you missed it:[
](HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)
Perhaps you don’t think that holding your nose is a sign of revulsion?
And maybe you see being forced to do something under threat of being shot in the head as somehow “going along with it”?
Srsly?
His job is to decide what is best for the country/state rather than blindly voting for whatever his constituents want.
We need to be a bit more generous here. In the past, we might have had some confidence that an elected Republican had the good sense that God gave a goose. But since the rise of the Insane Clown Posse, many of them are as crazy as a duck on acid, so we need to adjust our standards somewhat. And, after all, one good tern deserves another, to extend my aquatic avian metaphor a bit too far.
That was a grebe-ious, auk-ful run of punditry.
is that all that crazy politics has quacked up to be?