“Republican” Becoming “Retardlican”

This crap has no business being in the Constitution:

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.
The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Please, dear Lord in your infinite mercy and compassion, please come up with a third Party that we can vote for, because, if I may paraphrase Black Adder, if I have to choose between voting for the current crop of Retardlicans or Democraps then I will choose starting a family with my dog…

Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.

Chalk me up as a “Yep” for the first two and a “I do not give a flying frankfurter with all the other crap going on in the world” for the third.

13 Responses to ““Republican” Becoming “Retardlican””

  1. John says:

    As George Hayduke said in Up Yours, choosing a politician to vote for is like choosing which bucket of buzard puke to drink from.

  2. Mike Rentner says:

    And aren’t they on the verge of passing a flag burning amendment?
    No one is burning flags, yet they want to outlaw it.
    I tell you what. The best way to incite flag burning is to outlaw it. I know that the day they outlaw flag burning, I will become a flag burner.

  3. Ken Summers says:

    This is beyond stupid. At best, it might shore up support among the Falwell-Robertson fringe. I suspect most people who oppose gay marriage don’t want it done at the federal level.

  4. Get the f*uck out of the bedroom and away from someone’s kitchen table, W. Hadn’t you noticed the world’s caving in?

  5. Crusader says:

    An easy way to not have to really do anything.

  6. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Pathetic and silly. This is little more than fiddling while Rome burns.

  7. KG says:

    I’m telling ya, the Republicans deserve to lose and the Democrats don’t deserve to win. Kinda screws everybody up, really.

  8. Mr. Bingley says:

    Yeah, KG, it does leave us in a bit of a bind.

  9. Nightfly says:

    Hahahahah! Bill/Opus ’08!
    Y’know, at this point I’d like to suggest Truman’s idea – that elected officials be required to learn about history. The Romans dealt with all of this [stuff] two thousand years ago, he’d say. Their Senate was just as useless as ours.
    He didn’t need to add that they also declined and fell because nobody addressed any of the actual problems of the empire. Those who mentioned, quite sensibly, that to improve a nation requires HAVING a nation were ignored. So we waste time over stupid non-essentials and get further away from the guiding principals.
    This may be why Jefferson said that a little revolution now and then was healthy – in 20 years, Peggy Noonan went from writing speeches for our President to wondering what we even have in common with his successor. I mean, he’s only three guys removed from Reagan!

  10. Nightfly says:

    Principles. !$^!$%^*(!%. (Though, I suppose we’re also distant from the other by Noonan’s estimation, but I’m not leaning on that flimsy cop-out. !#&!%&!!)

  11. Mr. Bingley says:

    Well, part of the reason Mr. Jefferson favored a revolution every couple of decades was that it allowed him to avoid his creditors.

  12. Faith says:

    What I don’t understand is…
    Why don’t states like Massachusetts ever take into consideration their proximity to the ocean when deciding such matters in the first place?

Image | WordPress Themes