Republican Party
Posted by Mathew Schmitz (+284) 11 years ago
Shocking! The republican party in Montana is declaring their wishes for homosexuality to be declared illegal in Montana. Beautiful! They just guaranteed a sweep for Democrats in a few weeks. Any repub that does not publicly reject this item in their platform may as well start packing. These morans just can't get out of their own way.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/a..._montana_1

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me,'" state Sen. John Brueggeman, R-Polson, said last week. "Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

Brueggeman suspects that the vast majority of the party believes, as he does, that the Republican party should remove statement. It's against every conservative principle for limited government and issues like this exemplify how a political party can interfere with the relationship between lawmakers and their constituents.


Exactly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
This made the news here in Utah. It's not enough that I'm subjected to all the Utah crazy but recently I've been embarrassed to tell people where I'm from. My eyes are sore from rolling them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
From the Montana Republican Party Platform adopted June 19, 2010:

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.


What, exactly, is the definition of "homosexual acts"? Shouldn't that be very clearly defined before it is adopted into a political party's state platform? Quite vague to me.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1284) 11 years ago
Not only that I heard puppy was the main course at the last GOP get together. What a bunch of dipsh*ts, and I don't mean the GOP.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Thanks Chuck. You are always so eloquent and benevolent.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Republicans interviewed on NPR this morning all agreed it was stupid, especially since it had been overturned by the courts, but no one had stepped up to move it be removed from the platform. Unsaid was "because they know the anti-homo branch likes it there."
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
There are few things as amusing as democrats telling republicans what they need to do to be good democrats. The irony of it all is magnetic.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Can we just take a quick poll?

Simply say "Yes" if you believe it is the clear will of Montanans to illegalize homosexual acts (ie - sodomy, singing along to Madonna on the radio)
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Richard, based on

There are few things as amusing as democrats telling republicans what they need to do to be good democrats.


I am led to believe you assume that only Democrats could possibly find this official party platform offensive. How wrong you would be. My purpose in extracting a portion of the text from the link above was to show that even some of Montana's Republicans find the inclusion of "Homosexual Acts" ridiculous. Why is it that if you question Republicans, you are a Democrat? There are a whole slew of Independents who share the ideas of both parties and are constantly stuck in the middle of the incessant bickering between the two. The fact that your only comment in this regard is to ridicule Democrats, leads me to believe that you have no problem with Montana's official Republican party platform. Perhaps that is a poor assumption, but I cannot say for sure. There is nothing wrong with non-Republicans (or, I guess, Republicans for that matter) condemning the official platform. How can wrongs be righted unless they are subjected to the light?

I am drifting off-topic, however. Actually, second to the offensive nature of the platform, my main beef is that the passage is too entirely vague to be effective. Homosexual acts are to be kept illegal? What does this mean? Things like interior designing, listening to show tunes, color coordinating, manis and pedis, drinking wine, an interest in culinary arts and buying expensive clothes? Would those qualify as homosexual acts? I know it cannot be anything that happens in the privacy of one's bedroom, because there isn't really anything that gays and lesbians do that heterosexuals do not partake in as well. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 11 years ago
I say re-enact prohibition! And no more women voting... And we should all go to the same church and free oil for all!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Yeah, and shouldn't we be able to own other people, too?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 11 years ago
Well, the Bible says you can...that's good enough for me!
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Well Wendy, not "we", of course. "We" should have no rights. But more power to the white, heterosexual men of the country, absolutely!
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Dammit, Denise. I work so hard to feel marginalized. You know how long I'm going to have to stand in line at the grocery store before I can start feeling sorry for myself again? I paid for those Doritos!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
You're right, Denise. I meekly withdraw to the kitchen.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Wendy, that's better. Buck, nacho cheese too!
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17055) 11 years ago
It's those "old fashioned values" that attracts me to the Republican Party.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I thought that meant, "keep it in the closet."
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 11 years ago
Denise wrote:
What, exactly, is the definition of "homosexual acts"? Shouldn't that be very clearly defined before it is adopted into a political party's state platform? Quite vague to me.



Come on, now. We have a pretty good idea what a homosexual act is. And most of the Republians and Teabaggers have performed "homosexual acts". Or wish they had. Or wish their wives would...
Top
Posted by stephen (+250) 11 years ago
Going along with the belief carried by a select group of republicans.. Should the tea party in itself be considered illegal? the name stands for an act that can be homosexual.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
I am led to believe you assume that only Democrats could possibly find this official party platform offensive. How wrong you would be. My purpose in extracting a portion of the text from the link above was to show that even some of Montana's Republicans find the inclusion of "Homosexual Acts" ridiculous. Why is it that if you question Republicans, you are a Democrat? There are a whole slew of Independents who share the ideas of both parties and are constantly stuck in the middle of the incessant bickering between the two. The fact that your only comment in this regard is to ridicule Democrats, leads me to believe that you have no problem with Montana's official Republican party platform. Perhaps that is a poor assumption, but I cannot say for sure. There is nothing wrong with non-Republicans (or, I guess, Republicans for that matter) condemning the official platform. How can wrongs be righted unless they are subjected to the light?


Wow! You've WAY over-analyzed my comment. My thoughts on this news item were not that deep. My comment was intended from a big picture perspective. Something like this; if all of the planks in the republican platform were agreeable to democrats, we wouldn't need two parties. I was trying to say that in a light-hearted, semi-humorous way. Guess that didn't work out too well. I wasn't really commenting on this specific plank per se.

But since you appear insistant that in politics we are always serious, I agree with you that this plank is vague and should be removed.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (9/21/2010)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
Thanks for the clarification Richard. Sometimes it is hard to read the written word the way it was intended. It probably had something to do with just having read Chuck's statement. I suppose an argument could be made that he was joking too, but I have my doubts. It is difficult when you cannot hear the inflection. Much in the tone of voice can make clear the intent. I know there was a smiley face, but many a sarcastic comment is made followed by an emoticon (and I am as guilty as the next).

BTW, I'm not at all insistent that every political discussion be serious. I don't think anyone could seriously think Wendy and I would meekly retire to the kitchen.
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
This is why the nation is in trouble now, there is no unity. We disagree so passionatly that we subconsciously won't allow our selves to agree on anything. We confuse big issues with small ones this discussion sounded like a bunch of old republicans. You will not usurp the constitution any longer, you will not take over the tea party as I see it.INFOWARS.COM. We peasants must stick together or we will hang seperately.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Who is a peasant? Am I a peasant? I think I'm a peasant, but you wouldn't agree with me on anything. In this case, the Tea Party is about maintaining the status quo. The status quo is unfair to the peasants, but a bunch of them are convinced rich white guys care about them, so change is nearly impossible. It's procreateing awesome.
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
The tea party is not convinced that a bunch of rich elitist white guys like us. I see them trying to ramp up a race war with all of the glen beck prpoganda out there.Do not confuse the ron paul revolution with what you believe to be the tea party platform. This grop of rich white republicans tried to take over the tea party and blow it up on their main stream media sites, only because they could not keep the movement secret any longer. I could tell you that I was in Austin Texas in 1997 when the first tea party happened, these guys that I saw were not old rich white guys. I saw passonate fighters at the founding of this movement, and they are still there, I would like to introduce you to one at INFOWARS.COM
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
Daniel. Did you know Alex Jones is a douche?
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
No more than the rest of voices that you hold dear.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Of course they aren't rich. They will never be rich. They serve rich, white guys. They don't get it. You don't get it. It's really, really simple.
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
We don't serve any one, but the constitution. The tea party is not a political platform, it is an ideology. An ideology that a secret group of people, not all white,not all guys, have taken over the control of government. As we speak they are robbing spain and france in an attempt to consolidate the money powers of this elite, into the IMF. These spending packages are a way for them to allocate a sum of money so large that we can never trace it. We use 25% of the money, they then silently move the rest off shore to there new super bank IMF. After they get so much of the wealth from the world consolidated into there new bank, then they let inflation devalue the currency. Along the way they financed so many different groups with the knowledge and intention, of causeing conflict and division, because that is how they control the world.The tea party that you talk bad of wants to get rid of that group behind the curtain more than you ,because we are trying to exercise the one advantage that we have. that we sorround them. Join the fight for freedom!!!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 11 years ago
Sing along everyone:

Crazy
Crazy for feeling so lonely.....
Crazy
Crazy for feeling so blue.......
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Your crappy ideology plays perfectly for the rich, white guys that are more like what you describe than who you are actually describing.
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
I love receiving sarcasism from some defeatist. And one of the leaders of this is Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, not a white man as far as I know.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I'm telling you, you've been suckered to stand in the way of Queen Beatrix's progress because it keeps the fatcats pockets stuffed. You need to be doing the opposite of everything you've been doing, you probably felt something like a lightbulb go off when you saw Alex Jones. The bulb will go off again when you see you've been taking steps backwards. I don't think you aren't well-meaning, just poorly guided.

And that wasn't sarcasm. That would have been the opposite of sarcasm, which would just be not sarcasm.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (10/28/2010)]
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
Hey Buck you sound pretty sure of your view of the world, and the big picture. Remember that just because people call you know it all, that does not mean you know everything. In 1995 in Hunts ville Tx at the holiday inn a man named William cooper gave a small speach, as did a couple others. All was about the problems that we see now, mr cooper was killed in 1997. I beleived this room of 15 or so patriots since then, one which is a life long friend(joey milam). William cooper is alex jones biggest road block. You tube the name he has plenty old videos poping up. And I was the only 19 yr old telling people to collect there gold.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I'm positive, Daniel. You've been had. Someone told you to wake up once, right? I'm telling you again. Wake up, you're being bamboozled.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (10/28/2010)]
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
A flood comes to a small area and traps a women in her house, the cops come to her and say lets go. She says no,god will save me.An hour later she is on the second floor a boat comes by and says get in lady. She yells back at the boat leave me god will save me. An hour later a helicopter is trying to pull her from the roof, but she yells no god will save me. She drowns ,and goes before god and ask him why did you not save me my faith was absolute. God replies lady I sent you a car a boat and a helicopter. What I really like about the tea party showalter is that they do not sit around typing,they are trying. The same way the founders of all nations did.Hard work and unity to the issues that demanded it,and division on the rest so as to keep ones independance, this helps with being objective. I must ask showalter are you a member of infragard.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Wait, what was that about Queen Beatrix? What does she have to do with anything, let alone what is going in Miles City?

Seriously. Queen Beatrix? You have GOT to be kidding.

No, I know you're not. You're enjoying your conspiracy theories because they make you feel like you know some special sooper secret and that makes you better than people with more power, more education and more money than you.

Sadly, as long as you believe the madness, you will never win.

SO, off to some other topic. Did you know the Danes eat more candy per capita than anyone else? Is this part of the SOOPER SECRET PLAN or do they just like sweets?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
SO, off to some other topic. Did you know the Danes eat more candy per capita than anyone else? Is this part of the SOOPER SECRET PLAN or do they just like sweets swedes?


Fixed your post.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Shipley?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Nah, not enough ellipsis for Ship. . . . . . . . .

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (10/28/2010)]
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
If it is true it is not a theory, time will show who was more insightful as to the big picture. I will have proven my self in time, as for my education. I have an associates and will have my bachelors next year. Although education has nothing at all to do with intellect, as amorette has so graciously proven.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 11 years ago
You are procreateing nuts- take it from someone who knows. You are an uneducated, wingnut. Any college that gives you a degree should be blown to bits.

"time will show who was more insightful" You do not have time the world will end in 2012.
Top
supporter
Posted by Ingird Emilsson (+209) 11 years ago
Wow. Its the Illumnati again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Yeah, but the poor sucker is doing their bidding and can't figure that out.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 11 years ago
Well, glad I wasted my time reading this thread. I don't know where some of this stuff comes from. Uh, whatever to the dude who apparently doesn't have a capital letter in his middle or last name.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
The lack of capitalization makes him seem more mysterious. Or he can't find the shift key.

Besides. Joel the K is the man with the answers. He produces Patriot's Cave. An excellent post where you'll find the true story. He was a little off on his prediction that the swine flu vaccine was designed to kill 6.66 billion people, however. Here is an example of his excellent post. And now he has SPONSORS!

http://www.thepatriotscav...-alex.html

I will say the last time I talked to Queen Beatrix, she was a little off.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton II (10/31/2010)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
One of the topics was "How to rescue your family using time-travel." Now that is some advice I would just LOVE to have.

Heeheeheehee.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 11 years ago
The dude at "The Patriots Cave" is freaking nuts. For example, here's a quote from one of his rants (and you'll also notice he moderates replies so as to not allow anything, or at least anything he doesn't want posted):

"Every family should have at least a 3 day supply of potassium iodide. No matter where you live in the United States, you are in a potential radiation zone in the event of meltdown or acts of terrorism such as crashing jet planes into reactors as mentioned above."

(A) Crazy. (B) Crazy. (C) Crazy.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9919) 11 years ago
Amorette, thanks for pointing out the time travel item. I suppose a person could think of freezer as time machine, it does transport today's perishables to the future and delivers them in consumable condition. But as I read through the material at the patriot's cave, I was reminded of the lower intestinal tract of a male bovine. It time travels the same material that I was reading.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Well put, Hal. Very well put. Tasteful yet descriptive.
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1905) 11 years ago
You're a regular Brian Williams, Dan.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Not bad. Not as inflammatory as I like, but still took balls.

What's the +/- on days until Daniel is arrested for something?

And Brian Williams is a lefty hack.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (11/1/2010)]
Top
Posted by Jimmie (+61) 11 years ago
It's Don. Like your name but with an o.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Who is Don?
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1596) 11 years ago
Who is Doug Neese?
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
This all makes much more sense now. Doug Neese is the elitist. I was confused there for a minute.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
What I notice is he has a non-local accent. What is someone who isn't at least third generation Miles Citian doing commenting on any local election.

I didn't watch the whole thing. I know who is running for what and how I intend to vote so I missed the bit about making Don Neese an "elitist. You know, Rosa did class him up quite a bit when she married him.

Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
I am possibly Doug Neese.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 11 years ago
What I notice is he has a non-local accent. What is someone who isn't at least third generation Miles Citian doing commenting on any local election.


Perhaps the road to political office is an issue the planning commission could look into. Might I suggest that your name has to appear in Stardust before you are allowed to vote for local candidates. Keeping the "good-ol-boy" network alive and well is vital to the progress of .
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
The constitution gives me the right to vote, I know that alot of you good ole boys and commis would love to take that liberty away, and repackage it as a priveledge. Just as they did with drivers licenses.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 11 years ago
Within the context of the last 50 years mr. k, the Democratic Party has been the party that has worked towards extending the franchise to as many people as possible, while the Republican party has used various means to restrict and reduce the number of voters, so I'm not entirely sure if I understand who's repackaging what as a privilege here.

Now as to the second issue you raise - are you upset over motor-voter registration?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/2/2010)]
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
You are lost they have you argueing between yourselves, demo, and rep. They pay lobbist to usurp the rules for them. and they do this with both republicans and democrats. There is a third party, and our face will not be sarah palin at the end of the day. May be for the last 50 years they wanted the democrats to look better so they threw there lobby money more at republicans. My argument is,if they had thrown that money in the direction of the democrats they would have voted the same way, with there greedy little pockets. The tea party will end up being the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!!
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1670) 11 years ago
There is a third party, and our face will not be sarah palin at the end of the day.


Hallelujah, praise Jesus, there is a God!

Whew! I feel much better now.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
Sense of humor, Richard, is not just a liberal quality. Some conservatives have a sense of humor, too. I have been assuming this posting is just a SNL style joke, since it is too crazy to be anything else.

Driver's Licenses are a privilege, not a right, because they are specific qualifications for them and not everyone meets those qualifications. And, unless I am mistaken, the Founding Fathers made NO mention of them in the Constitution.

Really. This stuff just cracks me up!
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+596) 11 years ago
Daniel k allen and the rest of the tea party is carrying water for the people that is going to drown them with it.
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
Amoretti you should read the constitution, because you are very muis informed on the rigt to travel. You probably think they inacted the seat belt law because they love you and don't want you to get hurt. BS they could not break the probable cause line that americans had drawn in the sand. So they needed a back door to get around our constitutional right to privacy. But you keep thinking they passed that law because they love you amoretti, and your kids will be there kids slaves.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 11 years ago
The sheeple love amoretti, particularly tossed with clams and a light alfredo sauce.

Now then danny k: what are your feelings on the 17th amendment?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/2/2010)]
Top
Posted by Daniel k allen (+33) 11 years ago
Yah that is a cool name
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 11 years ago
I don't bother to reply to illiterates any more because there is no point.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 11 years ago
Sure knows how to ruin a perfectly good World Series celebration.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2732) 11 years ago
Given the original context of this thread, perhaps this is the best place to park this little nugget that found its way to my Facebook page from Leftake.com:



Okay, so John Boehner insists on pronouncing his name, "BAY-ner."

Fine -- I'm going to start referring to erections as "BAY-ners."

Come on, who's with me?



Now, I know it's a bit blue in color, but if anyone can't laugh at that, then they are way too stiff and need to loosen up.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (11/4/2010)]
Top
Posted by CS Hunt (+328) 11 years ago
I'm in Steve.... now let's see if I can get my wife on board...
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
then they are way too stiff and need to loosen up.



Heh, heh, heh. You said stiff, heh, heh, heh.

Top