Billionairess Assaults Employee in eBay Conference Room

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike128

That's not very nice!:mad: Sarah Palin has outstanding character and values. She cares about other things besides MONEY, unlike that Billionairess [you know what].

---

The point was characterizing women by terms aimed at the fact they are women. You don't like it aimed at Sarah, but it's okay aimed at Meg. I don't think it's okay either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike128

That's not very nice!:mad: Sarah Palin has outstanding character and values. She cares about other things besides MONEY, unlike that Billionairess [you know what].

---

Inalienable-rights> values.

Money is fine, especially if it is elected: that means she can't be bribed as easily as other potential leaders of her type can be.

Well, she was elected.... then she quit to make all that money she doesn't care about. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linda22003

The point was characterizing women by terms aimed at the fact they are women. You don't like it aimed at Sarah, but it's okay aimed at Meg. I don't think it's okay either way.

---

It's definitely okay if the candidate supports the legalized killing of 1.6 million children each year before they're born. If Meg Whitman was a man, then I would have used the term, 'bastard' instead. Lowlifes deserve the labels they get. And Barack Obama is such a lowlife, I would get banned if I were to describe him with the terms that I really want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike128

It's definitely okay if the candidate supports the legalized killing of 1.6 million children each year before they're born.

---

You're a real Johnny One Note on an issue that is just NOT an issue in California.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike128

If the only thing that the Republican Party stood for was cutting taxes and shrinking government, and they totally abandoned the social issues, then I couldn't possibly see myself voting Republican anymore. I couldn't vote DemocRAT either, so I would probably not vote at all.

It's the social conservatives in the Republican Party that make me side with Republicans most of the time. If the Republicans abandon the social issues, the message becomes too hollow for me to even consider. Don't get me wrong, I like having my taxes cut and I like my government small. But that alone just isn't enough to get me to vote Republican.

---

A government that is kept within Constitutional constraints lacks the power to impose social engineering. The feds would have no say on abortion (which would make it a state issue again, which means that the legislatures would actually have to resolve it to the satisfaction of the electorate, but given the fifty different electorates, that's also going to be an issue). By the same token, the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" set don't understand that big government isn't wrong because it's expensive, it's wrong because it erodes the values necessary for representative government. Policies that redefine families or otherwise destroy non-governmental institutions weaken the ability of the people to govern themselves without outside interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odysseus

A government that is kept within Constitutional constraints lacks the power to impose social engineering. The feds would have no say on abortion (which would make it a state issue again, which means that the legislatures would actually have to resolve it to the satisfaction of the electorate, but given the fifty different electorates, that's also going to be an issue). By the same token, the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" set don't understand that big government isn't wrong because it's expensive, it's wrong because it erodes the values necessary for representative government. Policies that redefine families or otherwise destroy non-governmental institutions weaken the ability of the people to govern themselves without outside interference.

---

That makes perfect sense. Mikey's not gonna like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike128

It's definitely okay if the candidate supports the legalized killing of 1.6 million children each year before they're born. If Meg Whitman was a man, then I would have used the term, 'bastard' instead. Lowlifes deserve the labels they get. And Barack Obama is such a lowlife, I would get banned if I were to describe him with the terms that I really want to.

---

He's a numbnuts... like the kind FMJ Gunnery Sergeant Hartman ranted about -potential casualties training in his barracks.
:D