Conservatives: Let's Legally Euthanize the Queers

We Conservatives know the score. This nation is going to hell in a handbasket. I don't even recognize the place anymore. We're being overrun by the blacks. And the queers. And the panty-waist liberals who cherish them. Did you grow up in an America where people could be openly queer? Or openly liberal? Or openly black? I, for one, did not.

Fortunately, there are some simple steps we can make to help fix the problem and bring back our America, the America we love. They may look like "compromises" on our ideals, but I assure you they're nothing of the sort. They are things we can do to completely and legally rectify the situation. With just a little bit of legislation and patience, we can begin to cull the numbers of the non-Whites and the gays. And here's the best part: we don't even have to kill them, we help them kill themselves!

Create and support social programs that make birth control widely available and cheap. I know what you're thinking: birth control is a sin against God and we can't let the liberals spread around their condoms and baby-killing pills. It's exactly that kind of thinking that led us into this mess. You're not seeing the Big Picture. Here's the facts: the undesirables are gonna fornicate. They're gonna fornicate a lot. They're gonna do it out of wedlock and just for the joy of sinning. And let me tell you something, they're gonna do it whether or not they've got birth control.

Think for a moment about what this means. We teach our children how to live properly. They don't fornicate until their wedding nights, and then they do it to create babies who will be blessed by God. Not so for the undesirables. They don't have the moral character to restrain themselves. Which means babies, lots of babies. Who will grow up to be just like them.

When we stand in the way of programs that constrain sexual education or limit birth control, we're really just shooting ourselves in the foot. We already taught our kids how to live proper. But they haven't. They don't know anything about the right way to live. So all we're really doing is keeping birth control away from them. Which is why they keep having all those kids and why they're starting to outnumber decent real Americans like us!

Write and fax your Congressman today. Let him in on the plan. Let him know that we want quality sex education at a young age and we want birth control pills and condoms to be cheap and available everywhere. This won't hurt us any--but think about thirty years from now. Think about all the undesirable children that we can keep out of this world.

Make abortion legal and cheap everywhere. Now, don't get me wrong: there is nothing more repugnant than condoning the murder of innocent babies. But think again about the Big Picture and the Greater Good. And think for a moment about how innocent a baby can possibly be if it's gonna grow up black. Or queer. Or liberal.

Just like with birth control, we're shooting ourselves in the foot when we stand against abortion. Our kids don't get abortions because our kids don't need them. They live proper. But when we make abortions hard to get to, when we make them expensive or inconvenient or illegal, what we're really doing is forcing the undesirables to have more undesirable children. Why do you think they're all starting to outnumber us?

Now, we know that there's an awful lot of overlap between the undesirables and the poor. If black people were White, they'd all be making an honest living wage instead of going to prison all the time and ruining our property values. If liberal people had money, they'd be Conservatives. It stands to reason. So what happens when abortion is too expensive? The poor people can't afford abortions, of course. Which means that they're just gonna make more babies.

Now, abortion's a pickle, no two ways about it. This is a hard pill to swallow. But we all know that the apple never falls far from the tree. If people are willing to damn themselves to Hell for killing their babies, then do you think their babies are gonna grow up to be good people? I don't think so.

Stand up for abortion. Make it cheap and easy to get. It won't hurt us because we're better people. But imagine if abortions were cheap and legal decades ago. Imagine all the liberals and blacks and queers who wouldn't be walking around right now. If we had thought just a little bit about it all back in the '70s, maybe we would never have lost so much of this great country to them.

What's funny is, we're the only ones standing in the way of sex education and birth control and abortions. Just us. Which means we're spending all this time and energy freely supporting the Undesirable Breeding Program. And you'll say that if we let the pills and the abortions legal and cheap and easy to get, we'll be opening up the floodgates. Everyone will be getting them. And I'm telling you: Good. Because then they will stop having babies! And maybe in thirty years or so, this country will start to look like America again!

Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is one that I just don't understand how we keep missing it. We're gonna keep having wars. And our soldiers are gonna keep dying in these wars. Until the Rapture. So why in Heaven would we stand against letting the queers die for this country? There are thousands--thousands!--of the homos who want to go into the military and fight overseas. But they don't, because they wanna serve in the Army while they openly celebrate their damnation. And we just haven't thought it through: why wouldn't we let them? Would you rather all the gays were over here? Living in our neighborhoods? Having their faggot test-tube babies? Or would you rather they were out in the desert, getting their asses shot dead by the rag heads? Think!

I'm begging you, from one God-fearing Conservative White to another, stand up and yell at your Congressmen and your Senators and your governors. Let the gays fight and die overseas and away from our homes. Let the blacks and the liberals get their condoms and abortions. Teach them young how babies are made so they can avoid it when they do all their inevitable fornications. Stop fighting against your own self. And maybe in due time this country will be great again. Maybe America will be overrun with real Americans!

Or persist. Stay blind to the facts. Fight to make abortions illegal everywhere. Deny birth control prescriptions. Keep the queers out of the Army. And they'll all stay here and mass produce their abomination babies. And your grandkids' grandkids will live in some nigger country that is run by the blacks and gays and liberals. And they'll go to schools where they're the only God-fearing White people. And where America once stood will be a Godless nation of sinning communist Nazis who are brown and have no shame and don't even remember the name Ronald Reagan, God rest His soul, because the pinko fascists will be writing Him out of all the history books.

It's up to you.

Do it for The Gipper!
NFK

Question Regarding Sausage Making

Question: Why is everyone talking about the need for the US Senate to have 60 votes to pass any bill?

Here's my understanding:

• The US Senate requires a vote on a bill before it is officially passed by that body. In order to pass that bill, it is presented for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, and a simple majority of Yeas from all Senators* is all that is required for the bill to be passed. In our current case, if all 100 US Senators were present for a vote, only 51 Yeas would be required to pass that bill. In the event that there are only 50 Yeas, the Vice President of the United States can cast the 51st vote to pass the bill.
• As a procedural technique, the Senate permits a filibuster under Senate Rule 22. I believe the term "filibuster" is a fancy shorthand for "invoking an indeterminate period of debate in which the Senate may not vote on the bill in question, nor may it adjourn". Basically, "we can't vote while I'm still talking--even if I'm just babbling about the petunias I'm growing in my front yard". Interestingly, the Senate Majority Leader seems to have the power to require a "traditional filibuster", in which the filibuster-ers must speak continuously during their filibuster; gaps in coverage, as it were, permit a vote on the bill to take place.
• The only vote that may occur during a Senate filibuster is a cloture vote. I understand that "cloture" is short for "Okay, you stop talking now and we finish this business". In order for a cloture vote to pass--i.e., in order to stop a filibuster--a 3/5ths majority of the Senate must vote Yea. So, in our current circumstances, 60 Senators** must vote to end a filibuster.
• As a matter of fact, Senators are autonomous lawmakers. They have the right to vote Yea or Nay on any bill as befits their conscience or their perception of their constituents or their current mood or their astrological forecast or whatever. As a matter of practice, Senators vote with their caucus on procedural matters. So if a Senator wanted to vote Nay on a particular bill, but was told by his or her leader to vote Yea on cloture, he or she would indeed vote Yea on the cloture and Nay on the bill.
  

Now here's what I don't understand: barring any factual errors in the above, where O where is there a requirement that 60 Yea votes are required to pass any Senate bill? Or 65? Or 80? Why does a bill have to be constructed to attract 60 or more votes in the Senate?

As an example from the Big Game perspective: if I were the current Senate Majority Leader and I were faced with a bill I wanted passed out of the Senate (wherein I have, say, 55 Yea votes to count on and 59 other Senators caucusing with me), why wouldn't I just do the following:

1. Call the bill to a vote.
2. If the opposition to the bill decides to filibuster, permit it as I must. But require a traditional filibuster.
3. Watch for perhaps half a day as the opposition rants endlessly about "demonic welfare states" or reads aloud "The Joy of Cooking". Perhaps I'd also eat some popcorn, write some important emails, and rest secure in the knowledge that the C-SPAN footage of this spectacle will be used to excoriate these guys in the cable news that evening. Hey, perhaps this overt and ridiculous obstructionism would also win my team a couple of seats in the next two Senate elections.
4. When I'm sufficiently bored and/or tired, call for a cloture vote. The other 59 members of my caucus, of which (recall) I am the leader, have been previously informed of the following:
• Of course, vote however you like on the bill--that's your right. But you vote Yea to end a filibuster if I call for cloture.
• If you decide to vote Nay on cloture, there will be consequences. For example, all that support and PAC money you've enjoyed? Forget about it. You're not caucusing with us anymore if you can't get behind a simple procedural vote. Indeed, we'll be doubling the funding we're denying you and spending it on the person who would have been your most promising primary challenger. What do I mean by "would have been"? You see--you no longer get to use our letter by your name--you're not with us any longer. You may join the other guys if you like, or perhaps start up a third party. Those are really popular and effective, so I hear.
  

Is there a reason this isn't done? I still fail to see why Senate Democrats are currently bending over backwards to work around or obviate the Senate rules here, especially since it appears that they can work right through them to not only get bills passed, but perhaps also make some significant political gains.

My vote's "Yeah, whatever",
NFK
_______

*Is it "all Senators" or "all Senators in attendance"? For example, Senate business may proceed in the event that there is a quorum of 90 Senators present, but would that mean that a vote on a bill only requires 46 Yeas from Senators (or 45 Yeas + VPOTUS)?

**Similar question as in *. Is it a 3/5ths majority of all Senators, or just a 3/5ths majority of all Senators present?