The People's Cube - Political Satire

Comrades,

I confess. I'm madly in love with Mitt Romney. He really turns me on, so I pasted my photo right into his wedding photo.

Actually, you know, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and what Governor Romney did in Massachusetts, to me, is just divine.

We have Governor Romney to thank for mandating that all residents of Massachusetts carry health insurance, and thus, inspiring our representatives in Congress to do the very same thing (with a few added rules and regulations, of course) in all of the proposed health care bills.

As you know, under all health care bills being proposed, unless we can prove (by filling out all the proper forms, I'm sure) that we cannot afford coverage, we will all have to pay for our own insurance, that is, if we don't work for an evil capitalist corporation that foots the bill.

This entire idea, to mandate that all citizens be made to carry health insurance, whether they want to or not came from you, Mitt, that is why you are my secret love fantasy.

Thank you, Mitt. You are a true Prog, and that's Prog with a capital P, for using the people of Massachusetts as an experiment that our Dear Leader in the White House, and our prog representatives in Congress thought was so fabulous, so neat, so sweet, that they decided to copy what you did.

Oh, and a big sloppy kiss welcome to you, from me, Leninka. Just think. I'll be dreaming about you every night, and fantasizing about kissing you, holding your hand, and, well, you know the rest.

I'm madly in love with you Mitt. Madly.

The Massachusetts Legislature was going to pass a socialized medicine bill with or without Mitt, and he threatened a veto if they didn't tone it down and add in some free market reforms. For his part, he wanted to end or reduce medical bills for the uninsured being paid for with public funds. He negotiated the best he could while being a Republican governor in one of the most liberal states in the US.

I think it's a big leap to say that requiring people to purchase private medical insurance from companies, the same way they are required to purchase auto and home-owner's insurance, is the same as health care being provided by the government instead of the private sector. Government mandates for auto insurance help to financially protect people who have their vehicle damaged by others. Similarly, mandatory medical insurance protects the public from having to pay the medical bills of the uninsured.

The law has many flaws and problems, thanks to the liberal democrats who always make sure to make anything they touch wither and die, but I guarantee that the law would have been much worse and socialized if Mitt had not pressured them to be, even if only a little bit, more fiscally conservative.

Anyway, this is what one mildly conservative, highly centrist pundit had to say about Mitt:

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Comrade, I recall as a young lad that "no fault" mandatory auto insurance was sold to the voters with a promise that it would reduce insurance costs. It never did, they continued to climb higher unabated.

Ironically, when you have an accident, the first thing the insurer does is assign blame (no fault indeed). And all insurers charge a fee for "uninsured motorists" anyway.

I see no reason why Gov. mandated health insurance wouldn't follow the same pattern.

Any time the government mandates that I turn over a portion of my income to whatever institution, whether it be public or private, that government is robbing me of the fruits of my labor, or as Miss Kitty says in the book: Miss Kitty: The Republican Cat:

Miss Kitty: I meant no offense, but, in my opinion, Congresswoman Hippocrat's idea for a law that would force the little red hen to turn all of her bread over to the government is in accord with socialist principles.

Congressman Wranglycrat: You don't know the definition of Socialism.

Miss Kitty: It's a way of spreading the wealth. My mistress, Angie, is given an allowance if she gets all of her chores done, and she may spend her money however she wishes, but if Congresswoman Hippocrat had her way, Angie would be made to turn all of her money over to the government for them to decide how to spend it. This is socialism, pure and simple.

Congressman Wranglycrat: That's complete nonsense. Socialism only exists when the government owns the means of production.

Miss Kitty: But in taking Angie's allowance, the government gains control of both her and her means of production––doing her chores. She would no longer be working for herself––she would be working for the government, just as if the government really did own her means of production. When you do this to anyone, it takes away their incentive. Why would either Angie or the little red hen bother working so hard?

Congresswoman Hippocrat: Not if they were properly re-educated, er, I mean made to understand that their work is not for themselves, but for the greater good.

Comrade Whoopie, what do you propose should be done about mandatory auto insurance? Get rid of it? Change it? How? Who would buy liability insurance if it wasn't mandatory? I agree that there are many problems that should be fixed, and I'm all for any workable system that reduces or eliminates any role of the government.

Leninka/Miss Kitty, yay anarchy! I don't recall Mitt ever proposing a law in MA that would have taken everybody's income. He lowered MA income taxes and cut a lot of government programs. The liberals were howling when he was in office.

Taxachusetts has one of the most liberal social welfare medical coverage systems in the US, long before Mitt showed up. It's very easy to qualify, even with a significant income. While I was attending graduate school, I knew a lot of international students who loved getting free full medical coverage. Many of them were from wealthy families that sent them a living allowance every month, and they were totally living it up and buying expensive cars and electronics. Yet, they all had that free coverage because they had very little if any income in the US. The taxpayers were paying for a lot of those non-citizens to give birth to babies in the US. The only reason that system wasn't expanded to include everybody in MA was because Mitt said he would veto it.

I actually almost didn't vote for Mitt for governor of MA. He adopted an initiative to end bilingual education in MA as part of his election platform. While ending such was a good idea, the method to be employed by the new initiative was worse than the system at the time and would have eliminated many second-language classes. I met with him to talk about the issue, and he was somewhat obnoxious about it to me. I was even more irritated given one of his campaign commercials where he claimed that the most important job for the governor is to listen to the people. I almost sat out on casting a vote for governor over it but ended up forgiving him later.

Comrade Strangelove,

I'm with Comrade Whoopie. Every day there are stories about uninsured motorists (who were supposed to have insurance) who get into accidents. It's like what John Stossell said to Sean Hannity about the legalization of drugs. When Sean said: "I don't want my children to be walking on the same streets as drug addicts." John Stossel said: "They already do."
Well, the same can be said for uninsured motorists: "I don't want to be driving on highways with uninsured motorists." "You already do."

As for Mitt, here is a link to an article that just came out this morning.

It's entitled Mitt Romney's Big-Government Health Care Plan

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/06/mitt- ... inson.html

I can't imagine being a graduate, fresh out of college, who may not be able to get a corporate job, and is stuck, not only with $70,000 worth of student loans, but must shell out another $300 to $500 per month for health insurance, especially if the only job he can get is painting houses, and finds that he has no choice but to work under the table and hide his income (what a way to live), or man up and fill out a Schedule C (which also means paying double the social security payment of a normal employee whose company usually foots half the bill).

What are we doing to our young people? We are enslaving them before they even have a chance to self actualize. It's really horrific to me.

I know a kapitalist from The Motherland who had a similar sentiment..

"One can never know, only surmise, what tragedies, despair and silent devastation have been going on for over a century in the invisible underground of the intellectual professions-in the souls of their practitioners-nor what incalculable potential of human ability and integrity perished in those hidden, lonely conflicts.The young minds who came to the field of the intellect with the inarticulate sense of a crusade, seeking rational answers to the problems of achieving a meaningful human existence, found a philosophical con game in place of guidance and leadership."
-Ayn Rand
"For the New Intellectual"

You may need to use your decoder ring to read it though.

Comrades,

This is all very simple really. All you have to do is request form 654329-cf67576-00 which you will recieve in 6-8 weeks, and then the Office of Affairs will send you form x4534587-88987-98 which you will receive in 6-8 weeks, you can then fill it out and mail it out to the Office of Other Affairs which which will send you form zr12453765-009876-74 in 6-8 weeks, so that you may file your request for deference of insurance payments for 30 days.

I don't understand what the big problem is!?!

And furthermore..

Comrades, I don't want to hear another word, there is absolutely nothing useful proles could do with Extra Money(TM) that they pay for insurance of any sort! Proles get in wrecks constantly! Proles need healthcare constantly! Daily even! Why, even I, a most equal reckless Commissar of Graveyard Entrances and necro-proxy vote counter have gotten into a total of, er, ummm... 1, no that can't be right, WELL ANYWAYS my point is that even I have had to visit the Doctor, er, ummmm... twice, no that can't be right, WELL ANYWAYS, the point I'm trying to make is, DAILY, Hourly even, proles need insurance and wouldn't do anything useful with the Extra Money(TM)! There is no way that money could be used for charitable causes by proles, no, only the government does that, and there is no way proles could use that money to make more money, no only kapitalist pigs do that, and there is no way proles would be safer drivers and healthier without insurance, no, only the government can have those concerns for proles, and there is now way they would spend that money on their children, houses, or any other important matter than insurance, no WE do this for The Children(TM).

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Comrade Whoopie, what do you propose should be done about mandatory auto insurance? Get rid of it? Change it? How? Who would buy liability insurance if it wasn't mandatory?

Admit it Strangelove, you're an insurance salesman in real life, aren't ya?

Who'd buy liability insurance voluntarily? Responsible people. As for the irresponsible, if they cause an accident, take away their license and garnish every penny of money they make from that day forth until the victims are paid off. That should be incentive enough.

This is the problem with gov. mandated schemes. Once they've been in effect for a while, people forget how they ever got along without them. This is the case with Social Security and Obama hopes, National Health Care.

It's the old camel's nose under the tent. No matter how bad the scheme fails to deliver, it only ever grows in scope. There's no going back. No undoing it.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I DENOUNCE COMRADE WHOOPIE FOR DEGRADING OUR GOOD INTENTIONS!!!

Oh wait... even Glorious Comrade Saul Alinksy had an affinity for hell...

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

- Saul Alinsky
"Rules for Radicals"

I will think of some other reason to denounce you, just wait Comrade Whoopie...

Indeed Red Rooster, to quote Satan, better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. Is this not the very reason some politicians embrace Socialism? What is the alternative to commonsense and reason? There is none. So Karl Marx created one. Socialist leaders have been recreating Hell on Earth ever since.

I'll issue you a "Denouncement Voucher" which you can use at a later date.

I DENOUNCE YOU BOTH, COMRADE WHOOPIE AND COMRADE RED ROOSTER!



Wait just a minute, Comrade Leninka. I, Underdog, have been watching what is going on here, and I DENOUNCE YOU, TOO FOR BLOWING COMRADE ROMNEY'S COVER! Do you have any idea how long it takes to cultivate the illusion of a Rethuglican who is really a prog, but for whom most Rethuglicans will defend? Now what! It will take years to find another suitable candidate. So I Underdog DENOUNCE YOU TOO LENINKA, ALONG WITH COMRADE WHOOPIE AND RED ROOSTER!

Leninka wrote:

Comrade Strangelove,

I'm with Comrade Whoopie. Every day there are stories about uninsured motorists (who were supposed to have insurance) who get into accidents. It's like what John Stossell said to Sean Hannity about the legalization of drugs. When Sean said: "I don't want my children to be walking on the same streets as drug addicts." John Stossel said: "They already do."
Well, the same can be said for uninsured motorists: "I don't want to be driving on highways with uninsured motorists." "You already do."

And everyday there are stories of SUVs killing people. Damn those SUVs! What percentage of accidents involve SUVs? What percentage of motorists are uninsured? Do you think that the media might be over-reporting some occurrences based on them being less common and therefore more interesting? Your argument sounds a lot like the same one that liberals use in their quests to outlaw SUVs and guns. The statistics of what the MSM reports and what actually happens in the real world are two entirely different things.

As for mandatory car insurance, the number of uninsured motorists would likely go up significantly without it. Thus, as I asked Comrade Whoopie, what is your solution to the problem that is better than the current one? I suppose you could let people choose and then make the person who causes the accident liable for all property damage whether they have insurance to pay for it or not. Of course, that solution will have problems as well. If the property damage is high and the motorist is poor and uninsured, a lot of people will not be paid for their losses. As stated, most people have uninsured motorist coverage. However, as the number of uninsured motorists goes up, the cost of that part of the insurance will go up with it significantly. Whatever the case may be, I am all for a workable solution that reduces or eliminates the role of government, and that goes for just about everything.

As for drugs, the number of drug addicts will likely increase if they are legalized and legitimized. It's a right of passage now to drink alcoholic beverages at 21. What if marijuana becomes a legal right of passage? What about crack? Do we really want instant addicts from age 21? Crack is instantly and highly addictive. I had a friend who shot himself in the head because he couldn't live with crack and couldn't live without it too. I completely understand the concept of not wanting to have a nanny state looking after and saving us from ourselves, but where do we draw the line to ensure that civilization does not disappear entirely?

I have a libertarian stripe such that I also think that people should be given the freedom of choice to do what they like so long as it doesn't directly effect me, even if it is something that I think is wrong or immoral. However, I'm concerned that legalizing drugs, prostitution, and other vices will have such ill effects on society by increasing frequency of occurrence that it will have a significant effect on me and my family that goes well beyond the effects right now with such things being illegal. Libertarianism taken to the extreme is lawless anarchy, so at what point does one draw the line?

I do think, however, that it is ridiculous that we don't allow pharmaceutical companies the right to grow and/or produce so-called (illicit) "recreational drugs" to be used for legitimate medical purposes. For example, pharma companies could make a marijuana patch that could be used for pain management while eliminating the more harmful effects of smoking it as well as the loophole that medical marijuana laws create for potheads and the complaint that synthetic or single-component versions are ineffective. The same goes for using opium to manufacture medical narcotics, which occurs to some extent but could be expanded. I did hear once from somebody claiming to be a nurse that doctors already use cocaine to reduce bleeding during and after nasal surgery.

Leninka wrote:As for Mitt, here is a link to an article that just came out this morning.

It's entitled Mitt Romney's Big-Government Health Care Plan

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/06/mitt- ... inson.html

I can't imagine being a graduate, fresh out of college, who may not be able to get a corporate job, and is stuck, not only with $70,000 worth of student loans, but must shell out another $300 to $500 per month for health insurance, especially if the only job he can get is painting houses, and finds that he has no choice but to work under the table and hide his income (what a way to live), or man up and fill out a Schedule C (which also means paying double the social security payment of a normal employee whose company usually foots half the bill).

What are we doing to our young people? We are enslaving them before they even have a chance to self actualize. It's really horrific to me.

The solution for the college grad is simple: don't live in Massachusetts. Besides, with or without the health insurance, the high cost of living there will get him. However, he wouldn't be paying for medical insurance anyway. He would receive full coverage under MassHealth since his income would be little or nothing. That was in place long before Mitt became governor of MA.

Anyway, I stand by what I already wrote before. The article you site and this blog post are unfair and one-sided. You cannot ignore where Mitt was governor and the legislature he had to deal with. You cannot ignore that the original bill called for complete socialization of MA health coverage for all MA residents and that Mitt put a stop to that. Whatever problems there are with the law (and there are plenty), the compromises he had to make with social democrats who could have overrode his veto, and how the law was implemented; those problems were much less than what would have been. Blaming that law which stopped the full expansion of socialized health care in MA as somehow having some responsibility for Obamacare simply does not follow.

As for the massive debt and out-of-control spending which is destroying our country and further enslaving our young people, I couldn't agree with you more about putting a stop to them. That being said, Mitt's record is pretty strong in that area when you look at his successes in running a business that turned failing companies around and financially taking the scandal-plagued, embezzled 2002 Winter Olympics from the red to the black. His MA record is not quite as stellar, but I again ask you to consider that he was dealing with a socialist-controlled legislature. I can tell you, though, he did a lot to make them howl from the very beginning by slashing many of their beloved social programs. That would not have happened if he were a liberal like the three Republican governors of MA (Weld, Cellucci, and Swift) that preceded him.

Comrade Whoopie wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:

Comrade Whoopie, what do you propose should be done about mandatory auto insurance? Get rid of it? Change it? How? Who would buy liability insurance if it wasn't mandatory?

Admit it Strangelove, you're an insurance salesman in real life, aren't ya?

No. I'm a scientist and researcher. [Yes, I know you were only kidding.]

Comrade Whoopie wrote:Who'd buy liability insurance voluntarily? Responsible people. As for the irresponsible, if they cause an accident, take away their license and garnish every penny of money they make from that day forth until the victims are paid off. That should be incentive enough.

That's fine. What you would end up with is nearly the same system we have now. However, I think I like your version of it better.

Comrade Whoopie wrote:This is the problem with gov. mandated schemes. Once they've been in effect for a while, people forget how they ever got along without them. This is the case with Social Security and Obama hopes, National Health Care.

I completely agree, especially with regards to Socialist Security. The faster it dies, the better. I would even prefer it if Congress had our generation take one for the team by paying for the elderly now without receiving any SS for ourselves when we retire so long as our children never have to pay into that big, bottomless shit hole of socialism.

Comrade Whoopie wrote:It's the old camel's nose under the tent. No matter how bad the scheme fails to deliver, it only ever grows in scope. There's no going back. No undoing it.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Agreed.

My argument isn't that the MA health insurance bill that Mitt signed into law was great. My argument is that it could have been much worse if he had not taken the stand he did against the liberal MA legislature and that the cited Forbes article and this blog post are unfair and one-sided.

Leninka wrote:I DENOUNCE YOU BOTH, COMRADE WHOOPIE AND COMRADE RED ROOSTER!



Wait just a minute, Comrade Leninka. I, Underdog, have been watching what is going on here, and I DENOUNCE YOU, TOO FOR BLOWING COMRADE ROMNEY'S COVER! Do you have any idea how long it takes to cultivate the illusion of a Rethuglican who is really a prog, but for whom most Rethuglicans will defend? Now what! It will take years to find another suitable candidate. So I Underdog DENOUNCE YOU TOO LENINKA, ALONG WITH COMRADE WHOOPIE AND RED ROOSTER!

Actually, I think it was the opposite. Mitt tried to pretend he was more prog than he really was in order to get elected in MA. Read the Ann Coulter article again. My point of view was that if he lost the 2008 primary over his position on abortion and his completely absurd explanation for why he switched on it, then he deserved it.

As for your characterization of me via cartoon characters; it is just as unfair, dishonest, and misleading as your characterization of Mitt in this post. It's one thing to say that he compromised too much with democrats in the legislature or that he was dishonest in presenting himself as more prog than he really was in order to get elected, but it is an entirely other thing to hold him up as the inspiration for Obamacare.

For whom did you vote in the last presidential election, anyway?

Leninka wrote:You are correct that forcing all residents of MA to purchase health insurance against their will is not socialism. But it is fascistic.

It has created untold hardship and suffering for thousands of Massachusetts residences, and is about to bring Massachusetts to the brink of financial disaster.

There are numerous problems with it to indicate that it is a failure, but here is just one:

Since its implementation, medical costs in Massachusetts have risen to one third higher than the national average.

I'm not defending the medical laws of MA. I'm saying that this post went beyond the mark. I'm also saying that the law might have worked better if the MA democrats didn't crap it up with their typical liberal crap. What do you think the medical costs in MA would have risen to if Mitt had rubber-stamped the MA version of Obamacare that the MA legislature originally wanted? Perhaps ten times more than the national average. Perhaps even more.

Comrade RR, Yay anarchy!

Comrade Strangelove,

Your love of Mitt is without parallel. Never have I seen so much passion for a dear leader. I really do hope the health care bill passes and that all citizens will be forced to purchase health insurance, with penalties if they don't, just as they were made by the glorious Mitt Romney in Massachusetts to do. He is such an inspiration and we'll all owe him a big debt of gratitude if Congress is successful.

Oh, and I can't keep it straight about Mitt and the abortion issue. Is he pro-life, or pro-choice these days? I know he was one and then another, but I don't know where he stands today. These politicians certainly are nimble when it comes to jumping from one side to another aren't they?

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Leninka/Miss Kitty, yay anarchy!

Leninka/Miss Kitty, yay anarchy! I found that to be quite insulting. So was your question about who I voted for.

I am a refuge from a communist country. My parents lost everything in a communist revolution. It has affected every aspect of my thinking since the age of eight.

I registered and voted for Republicans beginning in 1972 for President Nixon. Between 1977 and the mid-nineties, I was registered and active in the Libertarian party. My cousin, Patrick Harper was the first US congressional candidate ever to run as a Libertarian. I went door to door with Ruth Bennett, a gay Libertarian who later ran for governor in the state of Washington, to get signatures so that Libertarian candidates could be on the ballot in Colorado. I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 before anyone knew who he was, much less knew about the Libertarian party.

Like the former First Ladies Laura Bush, and her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, I am pro-choice.

As for the gay issue, my mother was bi-sexual and I spent part of my childhood in a gay household. I believe that gay people, at the very least, should be able to have a legally recognized civil union.

In 2000, I voted for President Bush, and in 2004, I again voted for President Bush. In the last election, I voted for John McCain.

My passion is freedom. As you can see, I have my reasons.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Comrade RR, Yay anarchy!

When I put my jackboot in yo ass, you'll say yay anarchy!

I am a Stalinist, pure and simple.

I DENOUNCE ALL YOU KAPITALIST PIGS!!!!

Comrade Red Rooster,

Ay! Ay! Sir.

I humbly accept your denouncement.

That's quite alright Comrade Leninka, I had something bad in my Wheaties. But a stint at a top re-education camp should straighten any dissenters out. Like those fool Founders of the Imperialist™ nation USSA. I just cringe every time I think of those Anarchist™ as the Doctor suggests. But of course Comrade Ayers loves anarchy so we should too...



What is it again? Re-Education, Demoralization, Destabilization.. ah hell, I forget, call in Comrade Bezmenov...

I am the adopted white son of black sharecroppers, but I left home to work at a gas station.

While working there, I encountered some crazed gunman who took potshots at me, although he kept missing and hit oil cans in the station window and a nearby vending machine filled with soda cans. All I could say was, "There's something wrong with these cans! He HATES these CANS!"

Even so, I managed to fix the slippery glasses of a customer by adding a handle and a nose brake, and he agreed to share the profits of my invention, the 'Opti-Grab,' with me 50/50.

The lunatic gunman chased me to a traveling carnival where I hid in one of the trucks and ended up getting a job with SJM Fiesta Shows as a weight guesser. While employed there, I met a daredevil biker woman named Patti and then a lady named Marie who knocked her out cold, but Marie left me because of my financial instability.

Anyways, when the Opti-Grab started selling big, I located her and we got married and hired a live-in butler and chambermaid despite the fact that we were still living in a small apartment. With my next check, I bought an extravagant mansion but did not stay rich for long, though, as some guy started a class action lawsuit against me claiming the invention had made him cross-eyed; ten million other people had the same complaint. I was forced to refund $1.09 to every Opti-Grab customer, which bankrupted me.

Depressed, I left in my robe and shorts with the only things I needed to survive: my TV remote, paddle-ball game, matches, and a few other items. I then traded all of these for a thermos and began living on the street. My family, who carefully invested the small sums of money I had sent them, picked me up off the street. Marie and I moved back in with them into a bigger house; which was the same old shanty built in a larger scale, complete with a ten-foot-tall front door; and now we all live there happily ever after.

Leninka wrote:Comrade Strangelove,

Your love of Mitt is without parallel. Never have I seen so much passion for a dear leader.

Then you have poor reading comprehension skills. I was also critical of him but just wasn't unfair about it.

Leninka wrote:I really do hope the health care bill passes and that all citizens will be forced to purchase health insurance, with penalties if they don't, just as they were made by the glorious Mitt Romney in Massachusetts to do. He is such an inspiration and we'll all owe him a big debt of gratitude if Congress is successful.

Ignoratio elenchi. If you didn't get it after I repeated the same thing ad nauseam, then there isn't any point in repeating it again. You can reread my arguments above and keep your straw man argument for yourself.

Leninka wrote:Oh, and I can't keep it straight about Mitt and the abortion issue. Is he pro-life, or pro-choice these days? I know he was one and then another, but I don't know where he stands today. These politicians certainly are nimble when it comes to jumping from one side to another aren't they?

I already criticized him for that first (SEE above), so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Leninka wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Leninka/Miss Kitty, yay anarchy!

Leninka/Miss Kitty, yay anarchy! I found that to be quite insulting. So was your question about who I voted for.

Are you sure you didn't mean "prog on?" Usually only progs are so easily offended, especially after being condescending in the first place. It's also interesting that you find my question of whom you voted for so insulting and yet chose to answer it anyway. Why not just say that you prefer not to answer? Anyway, I'm glad you did.

Leninka wrote:I am a refuge from a communist country. My parents lost everything in a communist revolution. It has affected every aspect of my thinking since the age of eight.

Ann Coulter wrote in one of her books about how liberals use victim status to shut down debate from the opposing side. Are you really sure you didn't mean "prog on?!" Anyway, I guess I had better shut my mouth and go stand in the corner because you must hate communism and love freedom more than I do given your victim status.

Leninka wrote:I registered and voted for Republicans beginning in 1972 for President Nixon.

Isn't he that guy who funded free methadone clinics for heroine addicts and established the EPA? Hmmm... How much of your hard-earned money was and is confiscated to fund such things? Wasn't he also a big friend to the communist Chinese? Well, anyway, at least he was honest... Doh!

Leninka wrote:Between 1977 and the mid-nineties, I was registered and active in the Libertarian party. My cousin, Patrick Harper was the first US congressional candidate ever to run as a Libertarian. I went door to door with Ruth Bennett, a gay Libertarian who later ran for governor in the state of Washington, to get signatures so that Libertarian candidates could be on the ballot in Colorado.

Why is Ruth Bennett being gay relevant to this discussion?

Leninka wrote:I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 before anyone knew who he was, much less knew about the Libertarian party.

Ron Paul is mentally disturbed. Admitting that you voted for Nixon is one thing, but I'd keep that vote for Ron Paul under my hat if I were you. (Ron Paul is probably a distant relative of mine. A lot of what he says about domestic spending cuts makes a whole lot of sense. But then he sounds bat-shit-crazy-nuts when talking about national defense, isolationism, and the US being to blame for 9-11 and other attacks against us.)

Leninka wrote:Like the former First Ladies Laura Bush, and her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, I am pro-choice.

Your appeal to authority is lost on me.

I'm pro taking responsibility for your actions rather than murdering an innocent human being. If you chose to have sex, then you've made your choice. Exceptions should be made for cases such as when a woman's life is in danger or if the pregnancy resulted from sexual assault since the woman wasn't given a choice (although the "morning after pill" should be used in that case as a precaution in order to avoid abortion). I'm also anti-choice when it comes to those who want to engage in rape, slavery, human trafficking, and other repugnant forms of inhumane abuse.

The butchers at Planned Parenthood alone reported 305,310 abortions for the fiscal year ending in 2008. The average number of abortions in the US since 1996 has been about 1.37 million per year, or about 3,700 per day. The average number of abortions in the world since 1996 has been about 42 million per year, or about 115,000 per day. Abortion is the human holocaust of our times.

For more information, look here:
http://www.silentscream.org/

Leninka wrote:As for the gay issue, my mother was bi-sexual and I spent part of my childhood in a gay household. I believe that gay people, at the very least, should be able to have a legally recognized civil union.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand, unless you mean to say that you hate Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon since Mormons heavily supported Prop 8 in California.

Leninka wrote:In 2000, I voted for President Bush, and in 2004, I again voted for President Bush. In the last election, I voted for John McCain.

(Oh, so now the answer to the question that I actually did ask, or did I mistakenly ask you for your life story, complete history of political activity, and homosexual associations?! No wonder you were so offended!)

This is what I suspected. You just completely lost all credibility in your criticism of Mitt Romney. I grew up and am registered to vote in Arizona, and yet I couldn't stomach voting for our "favorite son," John McCain. You could have at least voted for the Libertarian or the Conservative Party ticket, but, instead, you voted for King RINO himself. So which bill of McCain's did you like more: McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy? Do you also have trouble keeping it straight whether McCain is pro-life or pro-choice these days? He has supported both sides. How about when he was against the gay marriage ban in 2005 before he was for it in 2006? What a difference a year makes! In the case of McCain, he tried to cultivate the illusion of a RethugliKKKan who is really a prog but for whom most RethugliKKKans will NOT defend. He's that bad, and nobody believed him except you and your love of his illegal alien shamnesty and his support of entitlement programs for illegals.

After McCain won the GOP Primary, The People's Cube declared victory because no matter who won the 2008 Election, we were guaranteed to have a liberal in the White House.

For more details, read:<br>http://gunowners.org/mcdisguise.htm

Leninka wrote:My passion is freedom. As you can see, I have my reasons.

And you believe that your reasons are superior to those of others. How very prog of you. Of course, you are quite the proggy liberal with your support of abortion on demand, gay marriage, illegal alien amnesty, the EPA, taxpayer-funded methadone clinics, communist China, and John McCain.

And now, Miss Kitty, I have proven my mean-spirited RethugliKKKan credentials to you beyond any doubt and must get back to my daily activities of starving little children, pushing elderly people down the stairs, strangling bunnies, kicking puppies, and listening to Rush Limbaugh!

Do you feel that you have been treated fairly?


Oh Leninka, my dear! Do you not understand?! After you declared your undying love for Mitt Romney, I became filled with a jealous rage and envy! I just had to convince you that Mitt was the most conservative of RethugliKKKans so you will forget him and give me another chance at winning your heart! As you know, you are one of my one and onlys. Please say 'yes' that you will be one of the ten who joins with me down in the underground bunker!

Red Rooster wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Comrade RR, Yay anarchy!

When I put my jackboot in yo ass, you'll say yay anarchy!

I am a Stalinist, pure and simple.

I DENOUNCE ALL YOU KAPITALIST PIGS!!!!

Finally! Something that makes sense!

The Jerk! But thank you for the final cents.

And I'm being kind mufka, I truly don't have the resources to read the hobgoblin. Unlike The Jerk. If Mit miffed off, who cares, if McCain is a mortician. Who cares.

We are way passed that.





History is not a moment in a bottle.

It is eons and shit.

Looking for a Circle Jerk?

Look elsewhere...

Opinions vary.

Reality doesn't.

Red Rooster wrote:And I'm being kind mufka, I truly don't have the resources to read thehobgoblin. Unlike The Jerk. If Mit miffed off, who cares, if McCainis a mortician. Who cares.

We are way passed that.

Exactly!

Red Rooster wrote:The Jerk! But thank you for the final cents.

I'm glad that the reference wasn't lost on you, Comrade RR.

Of course it wasn't lost on me, of all people, it wasn't lost on me.

Dammit.

And what not.

Funny, nope.

Comrades,

Let bygones be bygones.

To satisfy all factions, those who wish to end abortions, and those who wish to control overpopulation, the procedure below really is the most cost efficient and effective.
After all, a government that controls the bodies of all female progs can also control the bodies of all male progs. We are all equals, after all.

Leninka wrote:Comrades,
Let bygones be bygones.

To satisfy all factions, those who wish to end abortions, and those who wish to control overpopulation, the procedure below really is the most cost efficient and effective.
After all, a government that controls the bodies of all female progs can also control the bodies of all male progs. We are all equals, after all.

Leninka Kitty, my dear, why not? The government is already controlling the bodies of unborn human beings. You see, if you say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, then I must reply that what is good for the goslings is good for the geese.

What right does the government have to tell one how to treat their chattel? What right does the government have to free the slaves of the slave holders? What right does the government have to stop or punish a person for killing a spousal unit, a child, or a disabled dependent that has become too burdensome on their own property and in the privacy of their own home? So, along these lines of unethical reasoning, what right does the government have to tell a woman that she can't kill another human being with unique and separate DNA that she had a part of forming inside of her own body by her own choices and actions? The unborn; like the mentally disabled, chattel, and slaves; don't deserve a choice in the matter.

[b]The United States Declaration of Independence[/b] wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

That being said, I strongly agree with your sentiment that men must and should be held accountable and responsible for their part of the bargain.

Does this mean that you have dumped Mitt and will join me in the underground bunker, my darling?!