paradime Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Air Accordion... Proof Hillary Inhaled. Quote Link to comment
laotsu Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Air Accordion... Proof Hillary Inhaled. she's in law school there. Quote Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 YOUR NEW PRESIDENT :sick: :sick: Quote Link to comment
VFR800 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Kind of sad how "western democracy" as per the definition of it is a two horse race. 1 Quote Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 isn't Hillary like putt from the ruff, todger dodger mono too mono ??????? just asking,,,,,,,,,,,,, first female president, second or third queer president Quote Link to comment
paradime Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 History would suggest Lincoln was gay, because he shacked up with a "buddy" and slept in the same bed off and on for years. That being said, history also suggests it wasn't uncommon for dudes to share a bed back in those days. Still though??? As a proviso, I learned this on the show 10 Thing You Don't Know About. OK, Henry Rollins is a tool, but unlike punk culture, he seems to take history pretty seriously. Quote Link to comment
RatVonDude Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 Abe Lincoln was often referred to as having a very high, effeminate voice, but being gay could just be a misconception. Quote Link to comment
tr8er Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 And his name was Abraham. Major homer. 1 Quote Link to comment
VFR800 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 There's more people in the closet than out by a long shot both now and across all of history. Gay is not always the true definition but bi-sexual. The more recent societal acceptance of homosexuality means more will come out but in politics and specially in US politics I'd reckon it's a LONG LONG way off before you'd see an openly gay POTUS or any other significant political office holder. 1 Quote Link to comment
a.d._510_n_ok Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 YOUR NEW PRESIDENT :sick: :sick: 1 Quote Link to comment
bananahamuck Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 You can thank JRock for me not coming out. Plans got changed unexpectedly. Back to plan A. I blame Jrock for pretty much everything that is wrong with the world already... On a uplifting note,,,,,, spring break is over,, i had the rifle loaded and i was really eyeing that chicken suit towards the end there. Quote Link to comment
paradime Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 There's more people in the closet than out by a long shot both now and across all of history. Gay is not always the true definition but bi-sexual. The more recent societal acceptance of homosexuality means more will come out but in politics and specially in US politics I'd reckon it's a LONG LONG way off before you'd see an openly gay POTUS or any other significant political office holder. I hear that VTR. Social evolution is a complex struggle in a democratic society. In the case of "Western Democracy" aka two party representative governance, it is exponentially more complex. The drive for change is infinite, but the underlying resistance to it is and always has been fear. The hard part is trying to determine wether these fears are justified or not. Every once and a while shit happens and a direction is taken, but even then, the perceived success or failure of that direction is judged through subjective perspectives and from within the context of a given moment in time. In this fucked up pea soup of mass media white noise, blurring of the functional line between religious vs. secular, and individuals rights vs. corporations rights, who or what has the wheel... he with the most $? Is this unavoidable, and if so, has politics simply become a free market system of influence rather than actual democracy? 1 Quote Link to comment
q-tip Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 And there is still mustard on it, that's impressive. 1 Quote Link to comment
a.d._510_n_ok Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 And there is still mustard on it, that's impressive. I didn't even notice that. not sure if that's a positive or negative. 2 Quote Link to comment
MicroMachinery Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 I didn't even notice that. not sure if that's a positive or negative. Depends on if you like mustard or not. 1 Quote Link to comment
VFR800 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 has politics simply become a free market system of influence rather than actual democracy? As sometimes is referenced in the case of the USA,it's not a democracy per se but was and is a "Republic" which is not to say that democratic mechanisms exist of course. I suppose the word democracy is perhaps not applicable so much when you look at the Greek and Roman models of democracy. My view is that business and other interests have too much lobbying power over the political parties. A two horse race is not really much for "choice" hence why in USA a lot of people do not vote maybe? Quote Link to comment
hobospyder Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 As sometimes is referenced in the case of the USA,it's not a democracy per se but was and is a "Republic" which is not to say that democratic mechanisms exist of course. I suppose the word democracy is perhaps not applicable so much when you look at the Greek and Roman models of democracy. My view is that business and other interests have too much lobbying power over the political parties. A two horse race is not really much for "choice" hence why in USA a lot of people do not vote maybe? I don't vote because a: nobody really gives a shot what I have to say and though one vote may sway a county/region it's not going to sway the whole state. B: they all lieing to get the job anyways and will make just as many stupid decisions as the previous tenant of the position C: as much as I enjoy my freedoms they're all just imaginary and if the government really felt like it they can take them away although there's a lot of rednecks around that will fight it if the military backs the govment like they supposed to, the people will lose And d: I'm lazy and barely even pay my bills on time much less get a ballot out 1 Quote Link to comment
VFR800 Posted April 13, 2015 Report Share Posted April 13, 2015 ^^^ All correct points. 1 Quote Link to comment
paradime Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Ouch Spyder man. A two horse race is not really much for "choice" hence why in USA a lot of people do not vote maybe? I think the Spyder man's position is reflected by many. It's really a very thin veneer of surface difference between the two parties. Aside from presentation styles and a few hot button issues each uses to insight the "passionate", there is little substantive difference when it comes to what they are protecting and defending. It is a government for and by the corporation. There was a time when you could follow the money trail to find whose corporate pocket a particular politician resided in. Today, even that's been covered up. The scariest thing isn't that the Government did this, it's that everyone accepted it so damn quietly and easily. I don't know if it's simple disillusionment, or learned helplessness, but the home of the brave is starting to feel more and more like a sheep farm all the time. The spice must flow. 2 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.