PDA

View Full Version : Fuck the Republican Party.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

ramblinon
01-30-2012, 08:11 AM
These predictions aren't going well for you. We're at 8.5%. We won't get to 7.2%, Romney still doesn't have a chance in hell and Obama is going to waltz to re-election. Thanks for playing.

Awesome timing... Romney must have heard you talking smack and decided to actually give it a shot in Florida. Now it looks like the nomination is his again, like I had said all along.

Your misguided confidence is cute. Never change!

TomAz
01-30-2012, 08:42 AM
(CNN) - The chairman of the Republican National Committee unveiled his latest attack on President Barack Obama on Sunday, comparing him to the captain of the wrecked Costa Concordia cruise ship.

When asked if the infighting in the GOP presidential primary race would harm the eventual nominee's chances against Obama in November, Reince Priebus said the party would unite by then in an effort to win the White House.

Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

"In a few months, this is all going to be ancient history and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama who's abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president," Priebus said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Priebus added the president is "fleeing the American people," just like Schettino allegedly fled his cruise liner.

The ship rolled onto its side in shallow waters off an island on Italy's Tuscan coast on January 13. Seventeen people are confirmed dead and 15 people remain missing while Francesco Schettino is under house arrest and faces possible criminal charges of manslaughter, shipwreck and abandoning ship.

Following the jab, CBS host Bob Schieffer seemed caught off guard by Priebus' comment, asking with a laugh: "What did you just say? What did you call President Obama?"

Priebus was defiant in his response.

"I called him Captain Schettino, you know the captain that fled the ship in Italy," Priebus said. "That's our own president who's fleeing the American people and not doing his job and running around the country and campaigning."



civil dialogue

summerkid
01-30-2012, 08:51 AM
civil dialogue

Yeah, you are right but in response Wasserman Shultz isn't exactly the queen of civil dialogue.

faxman75
01-30-2012, 09:03 AM
Awesome timing... Romney must have heard you talking smack and decided to actually give it a shot in Florida. Now it looks like the nomination is his again, like I had said all along.

Your misguided confidence is cute. Never change!

My bad. President Romney it is. lulz What's cute is you called me misguided.

summerkid
01-30-2012, 09:07 AM
My bad. President Romney it is. lulz What's cute is you called me misguided.

I sincerely doubt he will "waltz" in to reelection. It will be a relatively close election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152240/Romney-Ties-Obama-Swing-States-Gingrich-Trails.aspx

ramblinon
01-30-2012, 09:07 AM
My bad. President Romney it is. lulz What's cute is you called me misguided.

Well, seeing as how your original assertion was that Romney has no chance whatsoever, but polling now has him essentially tied with Obama in the swing states => http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/30/Obama-Romney-deadlocked-in-swing-states/UPI-90521327937484/?spt=hs&or=tn ...that original assertion was clearly absurd.

Miroir Noir
01-30-2012, 09:14 AM
civil dialogue

"Get the hell out of the United States of America" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/28/allen_west_tells_liberal_leaders_to_get_the_hell_o ut_of_the_usa.html)

faxman75
01-30-2012, 09:24 AM
Well, seeing as how your original assertion was that Romney has no chance whatsoever, but polling now has him essentially tied with Obama in the swing states => http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/30/Obama-Romney-deadlocked-in-swing-states/UPI-90521327937484/?spt=hs&or=tn ...that original assertion was clearly absurd.

It's cute how you and summerkid have your polls and links as if that's going to make a lick of difference.

Yes, it's clearly absurd to think Obama is going to win. I repeat, Romney doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election. Obama will win by the same margin he beat McCain, possibly more.

For historical reference, Gallup had McCain ahead of Obama less than 2 months before the general election. Keep using your hypothetical polls to substantiate your zings and spin your claims. We can do this all day.

OMG OMG LOOK AT MY LINK IT MEANS IMSORITE1 lulz

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/gallup-daily-mccain-moves-ahead-48-45.aspx

ramblinon
01-30-2012, 09:39 AM
Well, you didn't think Romney had a chance to win the nomination either. That cocksurety worked out pretty well for ya, ehh?

faxman75
01-30-2012, 09:46 AM
Well, you didn't think Romney had a chance to win the nomination either. That cocksurety worked out pretty well for ya, ehh?

I may have thought Newt hit his stride just in time to pull off the upset but to say I never thought Mitt had a chance at the Republican nomination wouldn't be accurate. Way to change the subject though.

summerkid
01-30-2012, 09:49 AM
It's cute how you and summerkid have your polls and links as if that's going to make a lick of difference.

Yes, it's clearly absurd to think Obama is going to win. I repeat, Romney doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election. Obama will win by the same margin he beat McCain, possibly more.

For historical reference, Gallup had McCain ahead of Obama less than 2 months before the general election. Keep using your hypothetical polls to substantiate your zings and spin your claims. We can do this all day.

OMG OMG LOOK AT MY LINK IT MEANS IMSORITE1 lulz

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/gallup-daily-mccain-moves-ahead-48-45.aspx

You are delusional if you think Obama will beat Romney by the same margin he beat McCain. Obama very well could win, but it won't be by a landslide.

faxman75
01-30-2012, 09:57 AM
Noted. I've got that written down in my book over here.

PotVsKtl
01-30-2012, 09:58 AM
Yeah, you are right but in response Wasserman Shultz isn't exactly the queen of civil dialogue.

Dumb words arranged dumbly into a sentence.

Miroir Noir
01-30-2012, 10:00 AM
It will be an interesting, close election because white working class voters throughout the industrial midwest will probably hate Obama and Romney equally by November. That said, I think Romney's entire campaign rests on the assumption that the economy will suck bad enough in November that voters will toss out the incumbent. Right now I'd give him a bit less than fifty-fifty odds on that strategy working.

PotVsKtl
01-30-2012, 10:09 AM
Romney's appeal rests on two assumptions really.

1. The economy will still suck in November.
2. Voters can be convinced that a corporate raider is the right type of person to engineer a healthy national economy despite the fact that a national economy has dick-all to do with being debt free.

Hence the last 3 years of being told that:

1. We need to run our country like a Slurpee Shack and balance the books at the end of every evening.
2. The stimulus did nothing.

faxman75
01-30-2012, 10:11 AM
It will be an interesting, close election because white working class voters throughout the industrial midwest will probably hate Obama and Romney equally by November. That said, I think Romney's entire campaign rests on the assumption that the economy will suck bad enough in November that voters will toss out the incumbent. Right now I'd give him a bit less than fifty-fifty odds on that strategy working.

Have you seen the uprising in Wisconsin over labor. How about Obama saving the auto industry and Romney saying he would have let it sink. I think those issues might sway that specific demographic in those states.

I agree with you and think this gap will widen over time.

Miroir Noir
01-30-2012, 10:14 AM
If the Democrats don't extend the Bush tax cuts again, Grover Nordquist has a plan (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/impeach-obama--20120126):

Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress..

TomAz
01-30-2012, 10:35 AM
Yeah, you are right but in response Wasserman Shultz isn't exactly the queen of civil dialogue.

“That he would compare the President of the United States with a man now charged with manslaughter for his actions shows a lack of respect for the president that is beyond the bounds of appropriate political discourse” is pretty much a spot on response.

TomAz
01-30-2012, 10:40 AM
It will be an interesting, close election because white working class voters throughout the industrial midwest will probably hate Obama and Romney equally by November. That said, I think Romney's entire campaign rests on the assumption that the economy will suck bad enough in November that voters will toss out the incumbent. Right now I'd give him a bit less than fifty-fifty odds on that strategy working.

The thing is though, 4 years ago voters were very much seduced by an intelligent, eloquent speaker who spoke forcefully of change. Obama doesn't automatically get the anti-W vote this time. He's got to run on his own record, which even many in his own party are dissatisfied with. I'd call it a tossup at this point.

hawkingvsreeve
01-30-2012, 01:58 PM
Obama talkin' to us regular folks on youtube right now. (http://www.youtube.com/WHITEHOUSE?feature=inp-lt-SOU)

PotVsKtl
01-30-2012, 02:01 PM
Obama talkin' to us regular folks on youtube right now. (http://www.youtube.com/WHITEHOUSE?feature=inp-lt-SOU)

This is actually really fascinating.

hawkingvsreeve
01-30-2012, 02:06 PM
I think it's pretty cool. Especially after 8 years with a guy who was as non-engaged with the public as possible.

Alchemy
01-30-2012, 02:26 PM
I caught the ending of it. He seems like a solid guy. I met George Bush and he was a cool guy, too, once... That was a long time ago, when he was just a president's son.

TomAz
01-30-2012, 02:37 PM
I met George W when he owned the Texas Rangers and was just a vice president's son. He seemed like a very nice guy then. He just wanted to talk about baseball.

Alchemy
01-30-2012, 02:42 PM
It's like he was pressured into the presidency. I met him when he was starting his campaign for Texas governor. I think I was in 5th or 6th grade. He invited me to a box of donuts. We took a picture together. He and his wife talked to me about school, and later, his wife wrote me a letter about meeting me... That would lead to a wild affair of which I'm still shopping around the movie rights.

stuporfly
01-31-2012, 12:42 PM
AIDS: One guy screwing a monkey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/stacey-campfield-tennessee-senator-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1233697.html)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/478674/thumbs/r-STACEY-CAMPFIELD-large570.jpg
"Oh, they have the internet on computers now."


In an often belligerent and sarcastic tone, GOP State Senator Stacey Campfield, the man who spearheaded Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill -- which would ban discussion in schools of "sexual orientation other than heterosexuality"-- lashed out at arguments against his bill by comparing homosexuality to bestiality and making what public health officials would characterize as recklessly false assertions about AIDS, in addition to other controversial claims, while appearing on my radio program on SiriusXM OutQ.

On bullying and suicides by gay teens, including two teens in Tennessee in recent months:

"That bullying thing is the biggest lark out there."

"There are sexually confused children who could be pushed into a lifestyle that I don’t think is appropriate with them and it's not for the norm for society, and they don't know how they can get back from that. I think a lot of times these young teens and young children, they find it very hard on themselves and unfortunately some of them commit suicide."

On why only heterosexuality should be discussed in schools:

"I just think there are situations where some kids maybe sexually unsecure [sic] in themselves or sexually confused and don't necessarily know clearly what direction they are. If someone, a person of influence, says maybe you're gay, maybe you should explore those things -- maybe the child, who is young and impressionable, says maybe I am gay."

"[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce. It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school."

On what he called the "glorification" of homosexuality in the media:

"Homosexuals represent about 2 to 3 percent of the population yet you look at television and plays and theaters, it's 50 percent of the theaters, probably more than that, 50 percent of the theaters based on something about homosexuality."

On AIDS:

"Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community -- it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall."

"My understanding is that it is virtually -- not completely, but virtually -- impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex...very rarely [transmitted]."

"What's the average lifespan of a homosexual? it's very short. Google it yourself."

According the esteemed Canadian infectious disease specialist Jacques Pepin, in his groundbreaking book The Origin of AIDS, DNA evidence now available has shown that the first known case of simian-to-human transmission of HIV occurred in Africa in the 1930s when a hunter killed and chopped up a monkey for food. The monkey’s blood infected an open cut. (There is no evidence of monkey to human sexual transmission). HIV then was transmitted among humans for decades in Africa largely via unprotected heterosexual vaginal sex, which, contrary to Campfield's claims, the CDC and all public health experts warn is a high risk activity. Today, around the globe, the majority of people with HIV are heterosexual and are infected via heterosexual sex.

The "short lifespan" meme about gay men comes from the claim of far-right, discredited researcher Paul Cameron, which was debunked back in the 1990s. Most recently North Carolina Senator James Forrester made the same claims -- that gay men die younger -- in an interview on my radio program in defending the antigay marriage amendment he put on the ballot. (He died a few weeks after the interview.)

-- Michelangelo Signorile

chairmenmeow47
01-31-2012, 12:50 PM
sweet jesus

Miroir Noir
01-31-2012, 12:54 PM
I met George W when he owned the Texas Rangers and was just a vice president's son. He seemed like a very nice guy then. He just wanted to talk about baseball.

The biggest reason why I hate Bud Selig is that his existence prevented George W. Bush from becoming the Commissioner of Baseball, thus prompting Bush to enter politics instead.

Miroir Noir
01-31-2012, 12:54 PM
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/404957_10151228763975613_707170612_22659129_143868 1959_n.jpg

Miroir Noir
01-31-2012, 01:45 PM
Arizona Republicans decide that the last four years have not been nearly controversial enough, declare open war on unions (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/tougher_than_wisconsin_arizona_republicans_launch. php?ref=fpnewsfeed).

TomAz
01-31-2012, 01:59 PM
According the esteemed Canadian infectious disease specialist Jacques Pepin

Holy shit. I have his cookbooks.

phillthepill
01-31-2012, 02:06 PM
http://yttm.tv/thumbs/2008/FDwwAaVmnf4.jpg

Who let the dogs out!

TomAz
01-31-2012, 02:07 PM
Arizona Republicans decide that the last four years have not been nearly controversial enough, declare open war on unions (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/tougher_than_wisconsin_arizona_republicans_launch. php?ref=fpnewsfeed).

That article glosses over a key point though: this is mostly for show. I can't even think of a public employee union in Arizona. Maybe the teachers? If so, they are pretty quiet.

faxman75
01-31-2012, 02:15 PM
A list and yes they are all pretty quiet.

http://www.unions.org/unions/arizona/3

Miroir Noir
01-31-2012, 02:16 PM
Almost certainly teachers, and local cops and firefighters, too. They thought about doing in this in Utah, too, but gave up when they realized that only Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County even had public employee unions. Both of which are entirely voluntary.

The story here, at least as I understand it, is that these bills would include all unions (including public safety) and would go further than anything that has been run in either WI or OH by banning collective bargaining entirely, notwithstanding the fact that AZ is already a right to work state. Also, the governor is advocating for an earlier, separate bill to eliminate civil service protections for state employees.

faxman75
01-31-2012, 02:18 PM
To Tom's point though, I do wonder the actual number of members in some of these unions. For example, I am a county employee and I am not in a union nor am I aware of one but without seeing any pay increase in the last 5 years, I wonder what one would do for us.

TomAz
01-31-2012, 02:19 PM
A list and yes they are all pretty quiet.

http://www.unions.org/unions/arizona/3

To be clear, that list includes unions that aren't government employees. I think IBEW and the other trade unions are relatively strong in Az. Relatively.


Regardless, this is a stupid bit of grandstanding. It doesn't solve any problems because there are not any problems to solve. It just gets attention. "Ooo look how right wing Arizona is". fuck the fucking fuckers.

PlayaDelWes
01-31-2012, 02:32 PM
without seeing any pay increase in the last 5 years, I wonder what one would do for us.Since 2007 wages are DOWN and for anyone (private, public, union or non-union) who has received material pay increases since, good for them.

Asking how a Union could help you make more while the rest of the world is making less might not be the best example.

PotVsKtl
01-31-2012, 02:40 PM
Asking how a Union could help you make more while the rest of the world is making less might not be the best example.

Why?

jackstraw94086
01-31-2012, 03:05 PM
Why?

He seems to be suggesting that to ask what more a Union could do for you is to tacitly imply that you've fallen behind the curve without one (which he asserts is not the case)
In fact he says that if you've had no pay raise since 2007 you're actually ahead of that curve.

Wes is all about parity.

JustSteve
01-31-2012, 03:07 PM
For example, I am a county employee and I am not in a union nor am I aware of one but without seeing any pay increase in the last 5 years, I wonder what one would do for us.

your raise would pay the union dues.

stuporfly
02-01-2012, 05:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lShAGXOFuQc

faxman75
02-01-2012, 06:04 AM
your raise would pay the union dues.

I'm ok with that. As it stands I have no raise and no union. 1 out of 2 would be a good start.

obzen
02-01-2012, 08:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lShAGXOFuQc

That, among others, will be a gem in the Fall.

TomAz
02-01-2012, 08:15 AM
http://www.yourprops.com/movieprops/default/45499947352f8/Star-Trek--Generations-1994/Data-s-working-Positronic-brain.jpg

Miroir Noir
02-01-2012, 09:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sPJHQmJAiKA

Down Rodeo
02-01-2012, 06:08 PM
Mitt Romney: The Bell Curve President

What an asshole.

lostsoul86
02-01-2012, 07:02 PM
vote ron paul

Originalbob
02-01-2012, 11:45 PM
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/478674/thumbs/r-STACEY-CAMPFIELD-large570.jpg
"Oh, they have the internet on computers now."

^^ Fucking Cunt! Kids are impressionable and can be coerced into being gay? Wow.

And Romney: one of his houseworkers must be pissing in his cheerios of proletarianism. I bet George Romeny, on his planet of glory with 40 virgins is shaking his head in shame at what a twat his son has become. *in a penis voice, if you can only imagine* "I'm going to reduce government funded programs, and fuck the poor, they have the ever-disappearing safety net of welfare".

the walrus
02-02-2012, 12:53 AM
vote ron paul

i support this

phillthepill
02-02-2012, 01:17 AM
vote wrong paul

No thxs...

bottomfeeder
02-04-2012, 09:02 AM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Hoopserver/the-committee-to-reelect-barack-obama.jpg

JebusLives
02-04-2012, 10:40 AM
your raise would pay the union dues.
Union members make on average 25% more than non-union employees. (http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030623ar01p1.htm)

(yeah, this stat is 11 years old)

java-do
02-04-2012, 12:38 PM
vote ron paul

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lakersfacepalmp1.gif

Gribbz
02-04-2012, 12:46 PM
More like Ron Lawl.

shotglass75
02-06-2012, 12:54 PM
http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/02/4f30326dd948d.jpeg

tigermilkboy
02-06-2012, 01:27 PM
The Republican congressman from Louisiana who fell for an Onion story about Planned Parenthood's "$8bn Abortionplex"

http://literallyunbelievable.org/post/17153265749/how-exactly-did-you-get-elected

MissingPerson
02-06-2012, 01:28 PM
Jesus, that $8 Billion Abortionplex is the story that just keeps on giving.

obzen
02-07-2012, 05:56 AM
http://youtu.be/kxw4uZAezaI

PotVsKtl
02-07-2012, 10:47 AM
http://www.debbiespenditnow.com/


Every Chinese reference, more or less, has a mistake:

The Great Wall of Debt came out as “Debt That the Great Wall Owes.”

The Chinese characters throughout the site are of a variety not found in mainland China; they are visible only in Hong Kong or Taiwan.

The page is adorned with the pattern 花$ 花$, which he would like to mean “spend $,” but, in fact, means “flower $ flower $ flower $.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/02/hoekstras-ad-full-of-mistakes.html

Miroir Noir
02-07-2012, 11:41 AM
Ads like these are the worst: they deserve every ounce of criticism that is levied at them, yet their entire raison d'être is to benefit from the inevitable backlash created by the criticism.

weeklymix
02-07-2012, 08:06 PM
Nobody wants to talk about Santorum likely taking all 3 states tonight?

As he's now considered the winner in Iowa, Rick Santorum has won states that Romney, McCain AND Huckabee won in 2008. Pretty... yeah.

Stickjohn
02-07-2012, 08:27 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lysrbvwSrJ1qmzxy4o1_400.gif

PotVsKtl
02-07-2012, 08:46 PM
Santorum is easily the least electable of all the candidates. Doing nothing continues to be the best strategy.

Miroir Noir
02-08-2012, 07:08 AM
The coming establishment carpet bombing of Santorum should be fun to watch.

obzen
02-08-2012, 10:06 AM
http://youtu.be/IPhh7mch5zo

faxman75
02-08-2012, 12:01 PM
Sean Hannity can PROVE Obama didn't want to capture Bin Ladin and he has it on tape. Fox News is awesome, I don't know why I ever stopped watching.


AtjeOOa7DY0

stinkbutt
02-08-2012, 12:06 PM
I can't believe Santorum won here, the Republicans in this state are the absolute worst

obzen
02-09-2012, 09:40 AM
Jim DeMint, you sir, are an imbecile. Policymaking is not a football game.

HandBanana
02-10-2012, 09:33 AM
Once again, there is no topic that the GOP cant prove themselves to be vile, ignorant, hateful shitheels on. What a bunch of dickheaded fucking fossils.

"The bill includes smart improvements aimed, for example, at encouraging effective enforcement of protective orders and reducing the national backlog of untested rape kits. The Republican opposition seems driven largely by an antigay, anti-immigrant agenda."


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/republicans-retreat-on-domestic-violence.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

amyzzz
02-10-2012, 09:45 AM
That is fucked up. Throw the bastards out.

Miroir Noir
02-10-2012, 11:42 AM
Don't forget that the Republicans on the Supreme Court gutted major portions of the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 on "federalism" grounds.

TomAz
02-10-2012, 01:30 PM
The Republican strategy these days is to not cooperate with democrats on anything, regardless of its merit. This will bite them in the ass.

Mirror why did you put "federalism" in quotes?

Miroir Noir
02-10-2012, 01:48 PM
Because I think the Rehnquist Court was largely objecting to Congress' use of the commerce clause in that case irrespective of impact that it had on state/federal relations, but played up the federalism aspects in their decision because they were afraid of being seen reviving long-dormant (and overturned) pre-New Deal precedents, thus giving away their ideological game.

TomAz
02-10-2012, 01:52 PM
The federalism logic was invalid?

Miroir Noir
02-10-2012, 01:57 PM
In my mind, it was overstated. The Violence Against Women Act's civil enforcement procedures (which the Court struck down) were neither intended to nor practically could have replaced state criminal law on such matters. Practically speaking, you even had a bizarre situation in that case where something on the order of 35 state attorneys general signed on as amici supporting federal involvement in the area.

TomAz
02-10-2012, 01:58 PM
Ha, that is bizarre. Thank you for the clarification.

weeklymix
02-10-2012, 03:32 PM
The Republican strategy these days is to not cooperate with democrats on anything, regardless of its merit. This will bite them in the ass.


"If you have opposite goals, like two football teams do…you don’t hear the coach go out and say, ‘hey, you gotta work with those other guys,’" explained DeMint, while speaking to about 300 Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester County Republicans at a breakfast event at the Daniel Island Club on August 30. "Compromise? You don’t do it, because they’ll beat you and their goal is the opposite of yours."

Just another Cowboys / Steelers game.

MoSetsfire
02-10-2012, 03:36 PM
When I was 16
1. Gas was 1.08 (we used to drive around for fun)
2. My cell phone bill was 40 bucks and I got a new phone every year
3. Sodas were 50 cents
4. The rent on a 2 bed room apartment was 800 dollars
5. I got to watch the planes take off with my loved ones on them

Now that I’m 28
1. Gas is 3.50 (and no one likes to drive anywhere)
2. My cell phone bill is 140 bucks a month and my upgrade is 18 months
3. Sodas are 1.50
4. The rent on a one bedroom in a decent neighborhood is 900+
5. People are treated like criminals by TSA for no good reason.

My point is the world hasn’t changed for the better in the last 12 years. In fact, it has gotten ridiculously worse. I am very fortunate for a lot of reasons. I grew up in a loving home, my parents supported me in college, I was able to find a good job after college, and I am by most means considered a successful person.

Some people are not as fortunate. Some people grow up in broken homes, some people cannot afford college, and some people have a degree but cannot find a job. And to top all of that off, those same people are antagonized as lazy or dumb.

The world has become a more unfair place and it seems like very few people want to acknowledge that. The cost of living in this country has grown exponentially but salaries have not grown to match that. Corporations that used to be worth millions are now worth billions, but how much of that is real money? How much of that money is put back in the economy? There is more money on the planet now than ever before, but how much of that is truly accessible?

People are quick to attack illegal immigration, but as we learned in Alabama illegal immigration can actually be good for the economy because illegal immigrants inject the most cash back into the system (illegals generally don’t buy on credit). The same people who champion the cause of attacking illegal immigration for not paying income tax are the same ones who vehemently defend millionaires who pay 13-15% on their income. Where is the logic in this? Money is a finite object, and every time the derivative market grows, it devalues real currency. That hurts the working individual, but the working class remains divided. The share of the pie the average person gets is getting smaller by the year, and we continue to bicker among ourselves rather than address the root of the problem. We are continually fighting for less and less.

Corporations stifle growth. How many startups do you see get bought up by a bigger company and are never heard from again? GM is letting Saab die because they refuse to sell the patents to Saab. They are going to put real people out of work to protect their ideas that they do not want anyone else to have. Yet they are not chastised for this, it’s just a rule of business. I understand that competition drives growth, but if it not regulated, competition can also stifle growth.

Our government has turned into a congregation of ideologues, either liberal or conservative. But at the end of the day, which group is really serving the American people? As I have watched these GOP debates and the democratic rebuke to them it has made me miserably sad to realize no one thinks about the person anymore. Everyone clings to their ideology of what the system should be like, and we all ignore facts on the ground.

MoSetsfire
02-10-2012, 03:49 PM
Also, for Ron Paul supporters my rebuttal to his argument about the Federal Reserve:

Before the Federal Reserve came into play, everything was done on the gold standard. This means a country could only buy goods and services with what real currency it owned. This also means that there was a serious fluctuation in the values of all the different currencies.

The Fed’ had several purposes initially. First, the fed would create a buffer of money that could be used to facilitate trades while real currency was in motion (in the process of being paid, like a clearinghouse) and used to generate some additional paper money for funding WW2 and projects at home. 2nd was to stabilize currency inflation. Look at how volatile gold is. It fluctuates in price alot.

Also, reverting to the gold standard would severely weaken the petrodollar. In case any of you dont know, the only reason the US is a superpower is because oil is bought and sold in USD. This means that we can pretty much print money and sell treasury bonds at will. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but if hurt the dollar enough we could see china try and replace it with the yuan. That would be the worst fucking thing to ever ever happen. We would nuke some one before we allowed that to happen. its that serious.

Over time the Fed has evolved (whether for the better or worse is an entirely different subject) by basically creating 2 different forms of currency. There is “real” currency and a derivative of that currency through contracts, bargaining agreements, and other forms of credit. The whole concept of modern credit is based around this. People loan you money based on what they feel you can pay back, not necessarily what you are worth.


Over time derivatives have grown exponentially. We are to the point now where the derivative market is roughly 10 times larger than the currency that supports it. If you try and shrink down the derivative market, you do so at the expense of entire economies, and mostly in the developed world where “credit” is more prevalent.

Shrinking back the fed recklessly would have the most adverse reactions on the most developed countries. It’s nonsense at this point. The idea now should be centered on absorbing some of these derivatives through attrition (i.e. Eliminate more contracts and forms of credit than you create) to shrink it back down.

Even still, this needs to be done at a very slow rate. If you go too fast you will harm peoples’ livelihood. There are so many different arguments for it and against it, but abolishing it at this point is just like yelling “bomb” on an airplane.

Now. here's how I would shrink back the derivative market....TAXES. Exactly. The people who make the most money do so in the forms of capital gains, stock options ,etc. They are also taxed the least. Mitt Romney paid 13.9% on 21.6MM. if he paid 25% like the president it would have been an increase of 2.2 million dollars in tax revenue from 1 person.

The rich are getting richer, but they aren't giving back. The government needs to take these motherfuckers' money back because while they get rich off fake money they made up through stocks and what not, our dollars are getting devalued.

Its not that people shouldn't get rich. its just that their wealth should be of substance, not money that they created for themselves which screws regular people who have to earn their money honestly.

PotVsKtl
02-10-2012, 05:07 PM
This is real.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2012/02/newt-gingrich-dream-team-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

bmack86
02-10-2012, 05:11 PM
I'm glad Chuck Norris joined the party.

Down Rodeo
02-10-2012, 05:44 PM
Shouldn't Ted Nugent be in there somewhere too?

Phenomena
02-10-2012, 06:40 PM
Secretary Norris of the department of Chuck Norris.

Alchemy
02-10-2012, 07:13 PM
Is that Kelsey Grammer next to Newt?

summerkid
02-10-2012, 07:37 PM
Is that Kelsey Grammer next to Newt?

Fred Thompson.

Alchemy
02-10-2012, 08:22 PM
He looks like Kelsey Grammer's evil twin.

the walrus
02-10-2012, 10:19 PM
Also, for Ron Paul supporters my rebuttal to his argument about the Federal Reserve:

Before the Federal Reserve came into play, everything was done on the gold standard. This means a country could only buy goods and services with what real currency it owned. This also means that there was a serious fluctuation in the values of all the different currencies.

The Fed’ had several purposes initially. First, the fed would create a buffer of money that could be used to facilitate trades while real currency was in motion (in the process of being paid, like a clearinghouse) and used to generate some additional paper money for funding WW2 and projects at home. 2nd was to stabilize currency inflation. Look at how volatile gold is. It fluctuates in price alot.

Also, reverting to the gold standard would severely weaken the petrodollar. In case any of you dont know, the only reason the US is a superpower is because oil is bought and sold in USD. This means that we can pretty much print money and sell treasury bonds at will. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but if hurt the dollar enough we could see china try and replace it with the yuan. That would be the worst fucking thing to ever ever happen. We would nuke some one before we allowed that to happen. its that serious.

Over time the Fed has evolved (whether for the better or worse is an entirely different subject) by basically creating 2 different forms of currency. There is “real” currency and a derivative of that currency through contracts, bargaining agreements, and other forms of credit. The whole concept of modern credit is based around this. People loan you money based on what they feel you can pay back, not necessarily what you are worth.


Over time derivatives have grown exponentially. We are to the point now where the derivative market is roughly 10 times larger than the currency that supports it. If you try and shrink down the derivative market, you do so at the expense of entire economies, and mostly in the developed world where “credit” is more prevalent.

Shrinking back the fed recklessly would have the most adverse reactions on the most developed countries. It’s nonsense at this point. The idea now should be centered on absorbing some of these derivatives through attrition (i.e. Eliminate more contracts and forms of credit than you create) to shrink it back down.

Even still, this needs to be done at a very slow rate. If you go too fast you will harm peoples’ livelihood. There are so many different arguments for it and against it, but abolishing it at this point is just like yelling “bomb” on an airplane.

Now. here's how I would shrink back the derivative market....TAXES. Exactly. The people who make the most money do so in the forms of capital gains, stock options ,etc. They are also taxed the least. Mitt Romney paid 13.9% on 21.6MM. if he paid 25% like the president it would have been an increase of 2.2 million dollars in tax revenue from 1 person.

The rich are getting richer, but they aren't giving back. The government needs to take these motherfuckers' money back because while they get rich off fake money they made up through stocks and what not, our dollars are getting devalued.

Its not that people shouldn't get rich. its just that their wealth should be of substance, not money that they created for themselves which screws regular people who have to earn their money honestly.

Ron Paul has stated emphatically that it could not be done overnight,or in a short amount of time, by any stretch of the term.

However the fed has to go. It will keep America in debt forever, perpetually. Every dollar they give us is owed back, with interest! It's literally impossible to get out of debt with the federal reserve supplying our currency.

Down Rodeo
02-11-2012, 12:41 AM
He looks like Kelsey Grammer's evil twin.

Or Vigo the Carpathian.

TomAz
02-11-2012, 06:48 AM
4. The rent on a one bedroom in a decent neighborhood is 900+

x4o-TeMHys0

HandBanana
02-11-2012, 10:33 AM
Conservatives suggest defeating birth control by calling it 'abortion.' No, really. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063663/-Conservatives-suggest-defeating-birth-control-by-calling-it-abortion-No-nbsp-really-)

(via Daily Kos)

java-do
02-11-2012, 12:54 PM
Conservatives suggest defeating birth control by calling it 'abortion.' No, really. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063663/-Conservatives-suggest-defeating-birth-control-by-calling-it-abortion-No-nbsp-really-)

(via Daily Kos)


Holy shit, that's terrifying.

summerkid
02-11-2012, 02:23 PM
Holy shit, that's terrifying.

The Daily Kos article was pretty terrible. If you read the article that they link to you get a better idea of what was discussed. Here's a quote from the article. This is the main argument they seem to be making.


“I would encourage you not to let this become a debate over birth control,” Tobias said. “I truly believe the mandate from HHS was a deliberate attempt by the Obama administration to get a discussion in this country right before the election over whether men controlling the Catholic church can tell women whether or not to take birth control. That’s the debate they want. We need to bring it back. This is religious freedom. If they can tell the Catholic Church that they have to provide contraception to their employees, then they can also tell National Right to Life that we have to provide abortions for our employees.”

Whether or not you agree with it, it's a bit different than what the Daily Kos makes it out to be.

Down Rodeo
02-11-2012, 09:38 PM
Can't argue with this sound logic from a prominent conservative nutjob:


LaPierre's warnings were based on his reiterated claim that the White House has not pushed for gun violence prevention measures because it is engaged in a "massive Obama conspiracy" to get re-elected, and then use President Obama's second term to "erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202100014

TomAz
02-11-2012, 10:02 PM
Erasing the 2nd amendment is an idea I can get excited about. Unless you are in law enforcement or the military or the deer patrol you don't need a gun. This is not a moral issue, there is nothing moral about owning or wanting to own a lethal weapon. REPEAL.

Down Rodeo
02-11-2012, 10:10 PM
Sounds very rational to me. Seconded.

stinkbutt
02-11-2012, 10:10 PM
People shouldn't be allowed to hunt there own food? Fuck that! Ban assault weapons sure, and maybe handguns, but further than that is extreme.

the walrus
02-12-2012, 01:55 AM
Holy shit whaaaat!? You guys are fucking retarded. First, if you ban guns criminals will still have guns, they are criminals!. It only takes guns out of the hands of people who are law abiding and might at one point need protection, you just took their defense away! Second, the second amendment isn't so you can go shoot quail. the founding fathers made it clear that the second amendment was for fighting a corrupt government if and when you need to. Now the government is trying to take away that right... HELLO! Are you fucking kidding me?

Grandma
02-12-2012, 02:37 AM
Erasing the 2nd amendment is an idea I can get excited about. Unless you are in law enforcement or the military or the deer patrol you don't need a gun. This is not a moral issue, there is nothing moral about owning or wanting to own a lethal weapon. REPEAL.


Sounds very rational to me. Seconded.

sounds very stupid to me, quite possibly one of the dumbest fucking things ever said on this entire message board. ejaculate on a transformer.

tigermilkboy
02-12-2012, 10:50 AM
Holy shit whaaaat!? You guys are fucking retarded. First, if you ban guns criminals will still have guns, they are criminals!. It only takes guns out of the hands of people who are law abiding and might at one point need protection, you just took their defense away! Second, the second amendment isn't so you can go shoot quail. the founding fathers made it clear that the second amendment was for fighting a corrupt government if and when you need to. Now the government is trying to take away that right... HELLO! Are you fucking kidding me?


So how does Britain manage? They have some on the strictest laws on gun ownership. Even the police don't carry guns.

The fighting a corrupt government is nonsense. To think an armed militia could overthrow a corrupt US government is nonsense in this day and age. That is an irrelevance in supporting gun ownership.

Alchemy
02-12-2012, 11:06 AM
Yeah, you don't need guns for militias. But not all guns should be outlawed. There's no reason for somebody to have an assault rifle, but I think people should be able to own hunting rifles. Sure, guns are never good to have in the house, and it would be ideal (I think) if people had to check their hunting weapons in at some kind of secure lodge... but, if a person wants to keep guns at their house, for protection or safe-keeping, that might be a fair thing. It's got nothing to do with morals, having or not having guns. It's completely utilitarian.

SoulDischarge
02-12-2012, 11:12 AM
As a cab driver, I'm firmly in support of less guns.

the walrus
02-12-2012, 11:15 AM
I've never called someone an idiot and meant it so genuinly.
First britain hates their gun policy, people get robbed at gun point more frequently now than ever before.
And your crock about fighting corrupt government is simply asinine. Look up the term revolution. If america were to have one it would be a hundred million vs a few thousand.... Besides its not about winning its about literally fighting for whats right. Again, HELLLLO WAKE THE FUCK UP

phillthepill
02-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Holy shit whaaaat!? You guys are fucking retarded. First, if you ban guns criminals will still have guns, they are criminals!. It only takes guns out of the hands of people who are law abiding and might at one point need protection, you just took their defense away! Second, the second amendment isn't so you can go shoot quail. the founding fathers made it clear that the second amendment was for fighting a corrupt government if and when you need to. Now the government is trying to take away that right... HELLO! Are you fucking kidding me?

O yea because a few thousand people with mid-grade shotguns and rifles can take out a highly militarized government that has drones,tanks and missiles right??

Alchemy
02-12-2012, 11:31 AM
There isn't going to be a revolution where Americans fight a corrupt government with an assortment of their collected guns. If there was a revolution, it would probably be a bunch of civilians protesting, and the military refusing to carry out orders so that they can protect civilians instead.

Stickjohn
02-12-2012, 11:54 AM
"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns." Ronald Reagan in 1991

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill.

from Another overlooked legacy of Reagan: Gun control (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-reagan-letter-20120210,0,1471722.story)

Starraven
02-12-2012, 12:07 PM
Erasing the 2nd amendment is an idea I can get excited about. Unless you are in law enforcement or the military or the deer patrol you don't need a gun. This is not a moral issue, there is nothing moral about owning or wanting to own a lethal weapon. REPEAL.

You don't deserve to have AZ in your name.

brogore
02-12-2012, 12:33 PM
http://images.4chan.org/pol/src/1329082217669.jpg

Heres for all the gullible Paul-twads out there

PotVsKtl
02-12-2012, 12:36 PM
Now the government is trying to take away that right

What?


... HELLO!

Hello?

MissingPerson
02-12-2012, 12:49 PM
I've never called someone an idiot and meant it so genuinly.
First britain hates their gun policy, people get robbed at gun point more frequently now than ever before.
And your crock about fighting corrupt government is simply asinine. Look up the term revolution. If america were to have one it would be a hundred million vs a few thousand.... Besides its not about winning its about literally fighting for whats right. Again, HELLLLO WAKE THE FUCK UP

Wildly untrue. Britain's gun laws were tightened by widespread public demand after the Dunblane massacre. And for the record, most of the illegal guns in the UK were bought by American homeowners and then stolen, unused for their original purpose, before being smuggled over. The illusion - and it is an illusion, because it is absolutely not borne out by any statistical effect - of safety you buy when you introduce another gun into circulation makes the world a more dangerous place for your fellow human beings.

Let's have a look at gun crime though. Since you raise it.


A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with fewer than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury. The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period. In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.

For international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides. The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales

Alchemy
02-12-2012, 01:29 PM
How much did disarming the police contribute to this relatively low gun violence in England and Wales? Was it much higher before the Dunblane massacre?

I wonder how much England and Wales could serve as a model for the United States... Not that Americans would ever go for disarming the police - not anytime soon, at least.

MissingPerson
02-12-2012, 02:03 PM
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Personal firearms were widely restricted before Dunblane except for hunting weapons and what have you, but when it emerged that the guns involved were legally held handguns anyway, they cracked down even further. The measures didn't have much of a perceptible effect because it was already fairly restrictive, I just use the example to illustrate that it's untrue to say the UK wants looser gun control laws. It's a falsehood I keep finding in American pro-gun rhetoric, and it's just not at all the case.

Similarly, the UK does have a fairly high crime rate overall, but that's not the whole picture. Pro gun types like to suggest that the UK is some kind of lawless Mad Max wasteland thanks to the lack of guns, but all those "Average" percentages are deceptive. There is a massive disparity between affluent and poorer areas that successive government policies have only served to reinforce, and the geographical crime rate reflects that almost exactly. I've spent quite a bit of time on the lovely island of Great Britain, and never once witnessed an act of violence in my time there. You can stroll around London town in a blissfully ignorant tourist haze, and unless you neglect to stand politely aside on the escalator to the Tube, you'll never see a kerfuffle of any kind unfold. Things are very different in outlying social residential estates that have experienced generational poverty and social neglect. But guns aren't the swing factor.

There's a bit more on crime statistics in the UK here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/datablog/2010/apr/26/factfile-uk-crime-statistics), for those interested.

Down Rodeo
02-12-2012, 03:09 PM
I really don't think this is that crazy an idea. I think if read literally, the 2nd amendment doesn't even allow citizens to have guns (I remember Chomsky saying that somewhere too and he's right). Its original purpose was for the purpose of maintaining a militia. Well, that's the role of military and law enforcement now. It has no relevance in modern society.

Tom and I aren't trying to be ultra-contrarian here. I think this is a legitimate issue that people should discuss.

Alchemy
02-12-2012, 03:28 PM
I personally wouldn't mind not being able to own a firearm, and I also don't hunt, but I can appreciate hunting for sport and for food. It seems like such a heavy compromise to take guns away, because of how big that sport is.

Also, the thing about having a gun in the house for protection. Overall, those "protection guns" might cause more crimes than serving their intended purpose, but I imagine that it would be a hard thing to sell to many Americans.

MissingPerson
02-12-2012, 04:00 PM
I guess it comes from the same weird quirk of intuition that makes people feel safer in a car than in a plane, even though the plane is actually safer.

mountmccabe
02-12-2012, 04:20 PM
Some people prefer to be in control. If there is something wrong on a plane there is almost nothing you can do. If you are driving a car and crazy shit happens around you maybe you can hit the turbo and jump the bridge or whatever the fuck it is you think you can do.

I think that is similar to wanting a gun around; there are times when you can imagine it would be useful, when it would in fact be the best possible tool. [There are, of course, plenty of other situations where having guns around - and everyone else being able to have guns around - can make things more dangerous for you and your family.]

I find gun ownership reasonable, though. I will admit that this is colored significantly by the fact that I grew up around guns and hunting... by which I mean I was taught how to use them, how to care for them and that they are not toys and should be kept locked up and that the ammunition should be kept locked up in a separate place.

mountmccabe
02-12-2012, 05:24 PM
I just realized why I posted that: the pro-gun side deserves a reasonable voice.


The fighting a corrupt government is nonsense. To think an armed militia could overthrow a corrupt US government is nonsense in this day and age. That is an irrelevance in supporting gun ownership.

It is not.

Idealists/romantics may argue that even if their cause is doom they should be allowed weapons to try so that they may die for what they believe but there is a lot of room between "fighting a corrupt government" and "overthrowing [that] government." Such as "causing enough trouble to allow many of us/the targeted to survive long enough for their to be a coup/foreign intervention/change of heart." Guerrilla warfare works a lot better with guns.

Also, as we have to keep reminding the Ron Paul supporters, there are local governments. If we're talking about things as unlikely as the US government attacking its citizens, etc we might as well talk about the city government of, say, Winslow deciding they've had enough and rounding up/murdering their citizens. Sure, the National Guard/US Army/etc would be there fairly quickly but that would be little consolation to those that had nothing but garden implements to defend themselves.

Miroir Noir
02-12-2012, 05:35 PM
Politically and legally, this issue is over and the NRA won. A fucking member of Congress and a federal judge were shot in their heads by a nutcase a year ago and no one with any power said, "hey, you know maybe we could look at some sensible gun control measures here." No one.

malcolmjamalawesome
02-12-2012, 05:53 PM
I hate to interrupt an intelligent conversation but
their cause is doom would be a great band name

mountmccabe
02-12-2012, 06:14 PM
Politically and legally, this issue is over and the NRA won. A fucking member of Congress and a federal judge were shot in their heads by a nutcase a year ago and no one with any power said, "hey, you know maybe we could look at some sensible gun control measures here." No one.

There are sensible gun control measures.

Also, really, it's been barely a year. You really can't get away with ignoring the numerous (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/14/eveningnews/main7247684.shtml?source=related_story) calls (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0111/Congress-readies-new-gun-control-bills-after-Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting) for (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/16/congress.gun.control/index.html) gun (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10iht-letter10.html) control (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0124/Can-mayors-make-Jared-Loughner-the-poster-boy-for-gun-control) in the wake of that shooting. Try again in a couple years, maybe people've forgotten by then.

Miroir Noir
02-12-2012, 06:21 PM
Wow, more gun control almost has majority support with the NY and NJ congressional delegations and from Al Hunt and Mike Bloomberg.

mountmccabe
02-12-2012, 06:29 PM
Changing the goal posts now does not make what you said earlier any less stupid.

My point is that the issue is not over and if the NRA had won then there'd be no gun control at all. There are at least some controls on guns and that is a very good thing; giving up and not trying because the anti-gun folks weren't able to use a tragedy to significantly advance their agenda is missing the point and ignoring what should be done now.

Miroir Noir
02-12-2012, 06:34 PM
The issue is over. The assault weapons ban renewal was DOA. They won two huge victories in the Supreme Court, including one that prevents local governments from restricting firearms more closely than the Feds do. Any national politician who campaigns or proposes new (or renewed) gun control legislation has no chance of winning office. Obama won't say the word "guns." Mike Bloomberg can't even pass new gun control in NYC thanks to the Supreme Court. Sorry, provincial liberal politicians and columnists do not count as people who have power to change this in any appreciable way.

Miroir Noir
02-12-2012, 06:38 PM
What else does the NRA have to win, by the way? No background checks at all? Surface to air missiles for the common man?

TomAz
02-12-2012, 06:51 PM
I've never called someone an idiot and meant it so genuinly.
First britain hates their gun policy, people get robbed at gun point more frequently now than ever before.
And your crock about fighting corrupt government is simply asinine. Look up the term revolution. If america were to have one it would be a hundred million vs a few thousand.... Besides its not about winning its about literally fighting for whats right. Again, HELLLLO WAKE THE FUCK UP

You have a firmer grip on your dick than you do on the facts. Exhibit A in the argument that Ron Paul supporters are dumber than the bits of corn in a farmer's turd.

mountmccabe
02-12-2012, 06:51 PM
What else does the NRA have to win, by the way? No background checks at all? Surface to air missiles for the common man?


if the NRA had won then there'd be no gun control at all.

...

Also I am sorry you don't consider congressmen to have any power to do anything here.

TomAz
02-12-2012, 06:52 PM
What else does the NRA have to win, by the way? No background checks at all? Surface to air missiles for the common man?

5 day waiting period??? But I'm angry now!!

Miroir Noir
02-12-2012, 06:53 PM
Find me 218 House members and 60 Senators and we'll talk.

TomAz
02-12-2012, 06:57 PM
I need to defend myself against Obama. I should be allowed to purchase a 6 pack and a thermonuclear device at WalMart.

obzen
02-12-2012, 07:11 PM
http://youtu.be/-6edg56-5qY

downingthief
02-13-2012, 08:29 AM
Me so Holy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4

summerkid
02-13-2012, 09:17 AM
I really don't think this is that crazy an idea. I think if read literally, the 2nd amendment doesn't even allow citizens to have guns (I remember Chomsky saying that somewhere too and he's right). Its original purpose was for the purpose of maintaining a militia. Well, that's the role of military and law enforcement now. It has no relevance in modern society.
.

This isn't true. The 2nd amendment does two things 1. it allows for the creation of militias for defense and protection from tyranny. 2. It allows people have guns for their own purposes. We know this because a proposal for it to read the right to bear arms "for common defense" was shot down in the Senate. Plus, it was originally two separate amendments that they decided to combine into one. People need to look closer at the history of amendments and the discussions that congress had about them in order to find their true intent. Too many times people subvert the language of the document to fit their own agenda.

At least Tom has the balls to say repeal the damn thing instead of making shit up.

TomAz
02-13-2012, 09:59 AM
People need to look closer at the history of amendments and the discussions that congress had about them in order to find their true intent. Too many times people subvert the language of the document to fit their own agenda.

Right, but at the same time, the constitution is not Holy Writ, and what was in the minds of 18th century slaveholders in wigs and tights should not have that much bearing on 21st century America. We govern ourselves and if the rules need changing then let's change them.

I recognize that my support of a repeal of the 2nd amendment is probably the single most quixotic thing I've actually ever said and seriously meant. It's not going to happen, the NRA is too influential in Congress and absent some really meaningful, fundamental campaign finance reform, it always will be. That doesn't make my position any less correct, however. The public good outweighs anyone's need to shoot assault rifles at paper cutouts of Obama and Hillary. I have no problem with hunting and (like the UK and Canada) think there can be an allowance made for that. But handguns? Give me a break. The policy is driven by 10 million undereducated, over-testosteroned John Wayne wanna-bes. These people should not be holding the country hostage. When I am king they will be first against the wall.

PotVsKtl
02-13-2012, 10:05 AM
Why is this a conversation? There has been no federal push for gun control.

TomAz
02-13-2012, 10:15 AM
I made a comment about repealing the 2nd amendment and people jumped all over it. Better than talking about Skrillex.

mountmccabe
02-13-2012, 10:34 AM
It started when Down Rodeo posted the clip of a top NRA guy ranting that gun rights are about to be taken away if their guys don't win the upcoming elections.

I find it fun comparing/contrasting that rant with Mirror Noir's bits about how gun control is dead and the NRA has won. Its interesting to see how people can live in such different worlds.

PotVsKtl
02-13-2012, 02:50 PM
"This is despotism, this is tyranny, this is the annihilation of liberty. The ordinary American is thus reduced to the status of a robot. The president has not merely signed the death warrant of capitalism, but has ordained the mutilation of the Constitution, unless the friends of liberty, regardless of party, band themselves together to regain their lost freedom." - Sen. Henry Hatfield (R) on FDR's legislative agenda, 1933.

Down Rodeo
02-13-2012, 02:57 PM
It appears history does, in fact, repeat itself.

jackstraw94086
02-13-2012, 03:29 PM
It appears history does, in fact, repeat itself.

but in kinda opposite the way you seem to be implying.

Down Rodeo
02-13-2012, 03:37 PM
but in kinda opposite the way you seem to be implying.

?

Not really, these are two instances of far-right spokesmen making hyperbolic statements about the loss of liberty simply because there happened to be liberal Presidents in power at the time.

Don't take into account my opinions on the 2nd amendment because those are secondary to the original quote that I posted. I just wanted to point out a ridiculous and unfounded statement by the NRA president.

jackstraw94086
02-13-2012, 03:47 PM
?

Not really, these are two instances of far-right spokesmen making hyperbolic statements about the loss of liberty simply because there happened to be liberal Presidents in power at the time.

Don't take into account my opinions on the 2nd amendment because those are secondary to the original quote that I posted. I just wanted to point out a ridiculous and unfounded statement by the NRA president.

you're right. I mistook your position. Perhaps a more appropriate way to say it might have been "it appears non-history does, in fact, repeat itself"

Down Rodeo
02-13-2012, 05:37 PM
At least Tom has the balls to say repeal the damn thing instead of making shit up.

This is the last thing I'm going to say about the gun issue. Who's making anything up? If you knew as much as you think you do about American history, you'd realize that for most of the 20th century the 2nd amendment was interpreted by the federal courts as a collective right, rather than an individual one (hey look, the ACLU still holds this position (http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/second-amendment)). These critiques exist and, while I can't comment on the debates that took place at the time of ratification, I think this is absolutely a debate that should take place. I have no confidence that this amendment would ever be repealed, but that doesn't make my position or Tom's any less valid.

Tom's other point is worth noting too - the fact that the Framers included this amendment based on whatever was relevant to their society at the time in no way means that we must accept it as canon law. Look no further than the amendment right after this one:


No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

Pretty common occurrence in the 21st century, huh?

summerkid
02-13-2012, 08:30 PM
This is the last thing I'm going to say about the gun issue. Who's making anything up? If you knew as much as you think you do about American history, you'd realize that for most of the 20th century the 2nd amendment was interpreted by the federal courts as a collective right, rather than an individual one (hey look, the ACLU still holds this position (http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/second-amendment)). These critiques exist and, while I can't comment on the debates that took place at the time of ratification, I think this is absolutely a debate that should take place. I have no confidence that this amendment would ever be repealed, but that doesn't make my position or Tom's any less valid.

Tom's other point is worth noting too - the fact that the Framers included this amendment based on whatever was relevant to their society at the time in no way means that we must accept it as canon law. Look no further than the amendment right after this one:



Pretty common occurrence in the 21st century, huh?

You were the one trying to say what the original purpose was and I corrected you. You stating how the Supreme Court and how the ACLU interprets the law is another story all together. Like I said you can subvert the language to fit your view.

weeklymix
02-13-2012, 09:02 PM
I made a comment about repealing the 2nd amendment and people jumped all over it. Better than talking about Skrillex.

2nd Amendment doesn't have three Grammys.

PotVsKtl
02-14-2012, 07:14 PM
2nd Amendment doesn't have three Grammys.
...

HandBanana
02-15-2012, 10:34 AM
Fucking WOW

Santorum Makes Ad Showing Frothy Fecal Matter Ejaculated at Him (http://wonkette.com/463774/santorum-makes-ad-showing-frothy-fecal-matter-ejaculated-at-him)

Gribbz
02-18-2012, 08:05 AM
Article's claim: Babeu threatened alleged boyfriend


Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a Republican rising star and a leading candidate for Congress, is facing accusations that he and his attorney threatened to deport a Mexican former boyfriend of Babeu's if the man refused to agree to not disclose the relationship, according to explosive revelations published Friday by Phoenix New Times.

In a meeting Friday with The Republic, Babeu and his attorney and campaign manager, Chris DeRose, denied the allegations reportedly made by an accuser identified only as "Jose" by the alternative weekly newspaper. Babeu said he knew the man as a campaign volunteer who had improperly accessed his campaign website without permission.

DeRose provided The Arizona Republic with a copy of a cease-and-desist order that he said was sent to the former campaign volunteer Sept. 6 demanding that he stop accessing the website.

An immigration attorney that New Times identified as representing Jose, Melissa Weiss-Riner, confirmed to The Republic that the man was a client but declined to discuss specifically why she was representing him.

"He did come in and retain me late last year based on threats and intimidation, and he wanted an attorney to help protect him,'' Weiss-Riner said. She declined to say whether any legal action was pending in the matter.

The Republic could not reach the man identified as Jose by Babeu and DeRose.

Babeu declined to respond to questions about whether he and the man had had a romantic relationship, saying he would not discuss his personal life.

Babeu acknowledged Jose was a campaign volunteer who helped on his first campaign for the Sheriff's Office in 2008.

Since winning that office, Babeu achieved national attention as a border-security hawk after appearing in a widely seen 2010 campaign television commercial for U.S. Sen. John McCain.

The accusations in the New Times story come as the Republican primary race in Arizona's new 4th Congressional District has taken shape and is heating up. Babeu is running in the GOP- dominated western Arizona district against U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar and state Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.

In the New Times article by Monica Alonzo, Jose charges that DeRose pressed him to sign a legal agreement that would require him to keep quiet about their relationship.

He also says that DeRose warned him that any chatter about the story could imperil his immigration status.

In the story, Jose's lawyer, Weiss- Riner, says DeRose wrongly claimed that Jose's visa had expired.

Weiss-Riner confirmed her client's version of events to The Republic.

In an interview Friday with The Republic, Babeu and DeRose said neither of them threatened Jose with deportation or engaged in pressure against him. Babeu said he had no reason to think Jose was in the country illegally.

Babeu and his attorney acknowledged sending the cease-and-desist letter and communicating with Jose's attorney several times after that.

"That never happened," Babeu said, referring to the alleged deportation threat or any other intimidation.

Babeu said no money was ever provided to Jose beyond small reimbursements for campaign work.

DeRose said Babeu believes any communication with Jose was on Babeu's personal phone and e-mail.

The cease-and-desist letter provided by DeRose demanded that Jose delete offensive material from the sheriff's re-election campaign website and social- media accounts, return control of the sites to the campaign and refrain from taking control of the sites or posting offensive material on the sites in the future. Otherwise, the letter says, they would sue him.

DeRose said Jose's responded within a day that the content had been deleted and control of the social- media sites had been restored to the campaign. According to DeRose, the attorney said Jose paid for the campaign website without reimbursement from the campaign. DeRose said they offered to pay for whatever the website cost.

In the New Times article, the man describes a romantic relationship that ended after he saw what he said was Babeu's profile on a gay dating website. The article included photos, including some that appeared to be of Babeu shirtless, and described other, more revealing photos.

It also showed text messages that the man claimed showed discussions he had with Babeu last year. The article said the text messages appeared to come from Babeu's work cellphone.

When asked if the text messages or photos described in the New Times article were authentic, Babeu said that was a private issue that he would not go into. DeRose said some things in the story were inaccurate or exaggerated, but he would not provide details, saying it would further the "falsehoods."

When asked how Jose came to work on his campaign, Babeu said, "I had known him. ... I had seen him on a personal level."

The potential fallout of the allegations to Babeu's political career was not immediately clear late Friday.

DeRose said Jose's credibility is dubious because he defaced Babeu's campaign websites. Even so, Babeu and his lawyer indicated Friday that they had no plans to take legal action against Jose.

DeRose first contacted a Republic reporter Friday afternoon, before the story was posted on New Times' website. A reporter met with the attorney and Babeu in person.

During the interview, the New Times article appeared online, and Babeu read it on a smartphone, shaking his head as he read.

Afterward, his face appeared to strain with emotion. He stepped away to talk with DeRose.

Babeu and DeRose said they did not think the story would derail his political prospects.

"This (story) is not going to make a bit of difference" to voters, DeRose said.

"My personal life is exactly that," Babeu said.

One issue that may arise from the story is whether voters will question the judgment of a congressional candidate if he posted revealing photos online.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., quit in June after eventually admitting that he had inadvertently posted a photo of his crotch on Twitter. Rep. Chris Lee, R-N.Y., resigned in February 2011 after a gossip website published a shirtless photo he took of himself.

Babeu said he should be judged by his service in the military reserves, as a police officer and as a sheriff and by the "value" he has brought to his community. Babeu said the story would not matter to voters in the 4th District who are more concerned about issues such as jobs and the federal debt.

DeRose said the New Times provided him only two hours to respond to questions for their story.

DeRose added: "Babeu is a single man. ... He's got a right to live his life. ... No American in the 21st century should ever be called upon to respond (to such stories)."

The late-breaking Babeu story lit up Twitter on Friday evening. Sides largely broke down along partisan and ideological lines. Some users suggested Babeu is a Republican hypocrite over the immigration issue.

Pete Rios, chairman of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors and a Democrat, said given what's reported in the New Times story, "Sheriff Babeu should resign immediately."

Tom Thurman, founder of the Highway 69 Republicans in Prescott Valley, which recently heard from Babeu at a meeting, said that he hadn't read the story and that its claims, until proved to him, were "conjecture."

Bruce Nave, an Apache Junction contractor who donated $2,500 to Babeu's campaign in December, said the allegations are "totally out of character" for the sheriff.

"If it's true, then it's an issue he'll have to deal with," said Nave, who said he worried the matter could make Babeu unelectable to many voters. Nave, 58, said he has supported Babeu because of the leadership he has shown as sheriff.

"It comes down to responsibility in office," he said



http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/17/20120217pinal-county-babeu-threatened-ex-lover-article-claim.html

Stickjohn
02-18-2012, 11:35 AM
Wow. Romney's co-chair in the state too hee hee. The original article in the Phoenix New Times (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012-02-16/news/paul-babeu-s-mexican-ex-lover-says-sheriff-s-attorney-threatened-him-with-deportation/) has pictures ...

guedita
02-21-2012, 01:47 PM
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e7tapuovio6jpg/original.jpg

Gribbz
02-21-2012, 01:49 PM
Did Handbanana make that?

obzen
02-21-2012, 11:43 PM
Reverend Franklin Graham: stirring the shitstorm in clown shoes.

obzen
02-22-2012, 05:02 PM
Clearly a Romney crowd at the AZ debate.

Gribbz
02-22-2012, 05:04 PM
Not surprising. Look where the debate is being held...

EDIT* Mesa is Mormon central for those that are unfamiliar with the area.

obzen
02-22-2012, 05:15 PM
Santorum still making Romney work for it.

weeklymix
02-22-2012, 07:30 PM
If Santorum wins Michigan and loses Arizona by less than 5 points the party will enter the beginnings of the meltdown.

PotVsKtl
02-23-2012, 03:11 PM
A bill to allow Utah schools to drop sex education classes — and prohibit instruction in the use of contraception in those that keep the courses — moved significantly closer to becoming law Wednesday. The House passed HB363 by a 45-28 vote after a late-afternoon debate that centered largely on lawmakers’ differing definitions of morality.
---

Miroir Noir
02-23-2012, 03:23 PM
Don't even get me started. They also just passed a bill (over a note from the Legislative attorney's office pointing out that it was unconstitutional) demanding that the federal government sell Utah's public lands by 2014 (and return 5% of the proceeds back to a state perpetual education fund), and advanced a bill to opt out of health care reform by joining an interstate health compact (with the progressive states of Oklahoma and Georgia) thus forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid and other federal grants.

TomAz
02-24-2012, 04:59 AM
But Utah already has a health insurance exchange up and running. 2nd state after Mass.

Miroir Noir
02-24-2012, 07:03 AM
This is different; they want to opt out of the Affordable Care Act (by joining a compact with other states) and fully administer Medicaid and Medicare, in the process accepting block grants not tied to inflation.

Noted socialist Jan Brewer has vetoed a similar plan in Arizona.

Hannahrain
02-25-2012, 08:31 PM
Dendritic googling led me to this fantastic campaign poster for John C. Fremont and I'm putting it here despite it being a century or two out of date.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Election_poster_for_John_C._Fremont_(1856).jpg/757px-Election_poster_for_John_C._Fremont_(1856).jpg

Look at me. I'm John fucking Fremont. I wear fringed trousers and I care about the country thiiiiiiiiis much.

TomAz
02-26-2012, 05:42 AM
This is different; they want to opt out of the Affordable Care Act (by joining a compact with other states) and fully administer Medicaid and Medicare, in the process accepting block grants not tied to inflation.

Noted socialist Jan Brewer has vetoed a similar plan in Arizona.

Brewer, to her limited credit, does tend to be more pragmatic than other right wing proto-fascists. She recognizes that federal Medicaid matching funds wind up flowing to hospitals, and hospitals have lobbyists.

A state can't opt out of Medicare though. That's a fully federal program, the states have no role.

summerkid
02-27-2012, 09:32 AM
Brewer, to her limited credit, does tend to be more pragmatic than other right wing proto-fascists. She recognizes that federal Medicaid matching funds wind up flowing to hospitals, and hospitals have lobbyists.

A state can't opt out of Medicare though. That's a fully federal program, the states have no role.

Speaking of proto-fascists...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/business/media/white-house-uses-espionage-act-to-pursue-leak-cases-media-equation.html?ref=todayspaper

PotVsKtl
02-27-2012, 03:27 PM
You're going to have a hard time finding anyone in love with the Obama administration's record on privacy.

weeklymix
02-27-2012, 06:14 PM
You're going to have a hard time finding anyone in love with the Obama administration's record on privacy.

Agreed. His administration is supposed to be looking into Google's privacy policy due to be enacted next week. They have a chance to turn it around from a public viewpoint if they force Google into more user-friendly options, even though their actual record on privacy will still suck. If they fail to do so they will likely not get another chance to prove they had a pro-person stance on privacy. Luckily for their administration with all this vaginal probe talk and religious overreach it likely won't be a big part of the campaign. Chris Matthews as obnoxious as he can be has talked about Obama's political luck for years.

Miroir Noir
02-27-2012, 07:47 PM
Brewer, to her limited credit, does tend to be more pragmatic than other right wing proto-fascists. She recognizes that federal Medicaid matching funds wind up flowing to hospitals, and hospitals have lobbyists.

A state can't opt out of Medicare though. That's a fully federal program, the states have no role.

They want Congress to give them all of the Medicare money as a block grant, too. (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53575411-90/advances-bid-care-committee.html.csp) It's a genuinely ridiculous piece of legislation (http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/sbillint/sb0208.htm), and there's little chance that they can get federal authorization to this, but they will probably pass it anyway.

Tropical Penguin
02-27-2012, 11:17 PM
Quick question. Are people seriously voting for Rick Santorum?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/397355/rick-santorums-top-10-most-outrageous-campaign-statements/?mobile=nc&fb_source=message

weeklymix
02-28-2012, 12:58 AM
Quick question. Are people seriously voting for Rick Santorum?

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/397355/rick-santorums-top-10-most-outrageous-campaign-statements/?mobile=nc&fb_source=message

Santorum has won Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado arguably with no shady moves from the Democrats. He also won the mock-primary in Missouri and will likely receive most of their delegates. He is polling extremely well in Michigan which even worse for Romney is an open primary. Democrats will be allowed to vote. They will overwhelmingly vote for Santorum. Look at South Carolina and Newt. This Republican convention will be train wreck if Santorum wins Michigan tomorrow.

TomAz
02-28-2012, 06:15 AM
http://motherjones.com/media/2012/02/rick-santorum-heavy-metal-megadeth-quiz

A quiz in which a quote is offered and you have to decide if it's Rick Santorum or if it's Megadeth.

I got 5 out of 10.

faxman75
02-28-2012, 06:26 AM
Michigan predictions? How much of an impact will democratic voters have and will their Santorum votes help put him over the top? Could be a long and fun night.

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 07:06 AM
I think Romney is in deep, deep trouble, irrespective of whether he ekes out a two point victory or if Santorum does. The media is not going to give him back the inevitability mantle, both because they love a good horse race and because they hate him. Just as importantly, Santorum is coming out of there with as many delegates as Romney.

Super Tuesday is a clusterfuck for Romney. He gets his (actual) home state of Massachusetts, Virginia (where he and Ron Paul are the only candidates on the ballot), and Vermont. But look at the rest of the states. Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee. Caucuses in North Dakota and Alaska. Even second-most per capita Mormon Idaho is running a caucus instead of a primary, one that will likely feature as many rabid tea party activists as it will Mormon housewives. Saturday brings caucuses in evangelical Kansas and dark red Wyoming (another state where Romney can tread water thanks to a sizable Mormon population). The next Tuesday? Alabama and Mississippi.

summerkid
02-28-2012, 07:50 AM
Michigan predictions? How much of an impact will democratic voters have and will their Santorum votes help put him over the top? Could be a long and fun night.

That's disgusting. I can't believe American voters would disrespect the democratic process like that.

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 07:51 AM
Are you being serious?

TomAz
02-28-2012, 07:51 AM
Is that a joke?

Gribbz
02-28-2012, 07:52 AM
Not sure if serious.

stinkbutt
02-28-2012, 08:01 AM
He is making fun of the "high horse" liberals

summerkid
02-28-2012, 08:15 AM
I'm being serious, I think it's wrong. It's subverting the primary process. I can't believe you guys don't see anything wrong with this. This is exactly why we have closed primaries in some states which is unfortunate because it shuts out independent voters from primary elections.

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 08:20 AM
I don't understand how people voting in an election that they are lawfully allowed to vote in subverts democracy in any meaningful way.

Apart from that, this is how its always been in Michigan. McCain pulled off an unexpected upset in 2000 thanks to crossover voting. More significantly, Limbaugh was exhorting his dittoheads to do the same thing back in 2008, and Romney himself (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/romney-also-said-he-voted-in-dem-primaries-to-influence-115774.html) claims that he has personally strategically voted in the other party's primary in the past (though he was probably lying when he made that claim).

SoulDischarge
02-28-2012, 08:28 AM
the democratic process

http://foodfacts.info/blog/uploaded_images/mcdonalds-lopez-meat.jpg

TomAz
02-28-2012, 08:35 AM
I'm being serious, I think it's wrong. It's subverting the primary process. I can't believe you guys don't see anything wrong with this. This is exactly why we have closed primaries in some states which is unfortunate because it shuts out independent voters from primary elections.

http://www.4president.org/image/1972/richardnixon1972.gif

TomAz
02-28-2012, 08:38 AM
That's disgusting. I can't believe American voters would disrespect the democratic process like that.

http://thestarryeye.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cdd0d53ef013488c34d7c970c-320wi

TomAz
02-28-2012, 08:40 AM
oh, and just for fun

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EIyQMUVq5js/ToOOsNZrPMI/AAAAAAAAAN4/raxmLTFZ9Dk/s1600/Hayes76b.jpg

tigermilkboy
02-28-2012, 08:41 AM
I'm being serious, I think it's wrong. It's subverting the primary process. I can't believe you guys don't see anything wrong with this. This is exactly why we have closed primaries in some states which is unfortunate because it shuts out independent voters from primary elections.


I agree. Also, it can backfire badly. I remember last time around some Republicans openly touted voting for Obama because he was unelectable. Never use your vote for something you don't want because you might just get that outcome.

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 08:55 AM
Wyoming's "doomsday bill" (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wyoming-doomsday-bill-moves-forward-minus-aircraft-carrier/article_ec3bb539-ff92-5fc4-9dac-53e0279daa4f.html) advances; language proposing study of Wyoming acquiring strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier was sadly stricken on the floor.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2012, 09:26 AM
"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."
...

faxman75
02-28-2012, 09:35 AM
That's disgusting. I can't believe American voters would disrespect the democratic process like that.

It sounds like your disgust should be with the process and not the voters. If Democrats are allowed to vote in a Republican primary, who do they need to vote for in order for them to be considered respectful of the process in your eyes?

tigermilkboy
02-28-2012, 09:49 AM
It sounds like your disgust should be with the process and not the voters. If Democrats are allowed to vote in a Republican primary, who do they need to vote for in order for them to be considered respectful of the process in your eyes?


You vote for the candidate you prefer over the others to possibly become President. Voting Santorum to stop Romney is just a bad idea unless you really want a President Santorum in January. Just because you think the idea of Santorum winning the Presidency now is unlikely, that doesn't mean it can't happen in November. 7-8 months is a long time in politics.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2012, 09:50 AM
You vote for the candidate you prefer over the others to possibly become President. Voting Santorum to stop Romney is just a bad idea unless you really want a President Santorum in January. Just because you think the idea of Santorum winning the Presidency now is unlikely, that doesn't mean it can't happen in November. 7-8 months is a long time in politics.

It' not unlikely, it's impossible.

faxman75
02-28-2012, 09:55 AM
You vote for the candidate you prefer over the others to possibly become President. Voting Santorum to stop Romney is just a bad idea unless you really want a President Santorum in January. Just because you think the idea of Santorum winning the Presidency now is unlikely, that doesn't mean it can't happen in November. 7-8 months is a long time in politics.

That would be ignoreing the rest of the process. This vote isn't for President. It's for who gets to run against Obama in the General Election. If I am an Obama supporter i'm going to vote for the path that is most likely to ensure his re-election.

There is absolutley nothing about that logic that is adverse or disrespectful to the process in any way.

amyzzz
02-28-2012, 10:06 AM
I will hate myself forever if I vote for Santorum today and he wins in November. What to do.

stinkbutt
02-28-2012, 10:34 AM
Then don't vote. How can you people cry this system is flawed but not take enough personal responsibility not to personally fuck it?

tigermilkboy
02-28-2012, 10:53 AM
It' not unlikely, it's impossible.

All it would take would be an economic collapse, terrorist attack or some other crisis to derail Obama. The national polls in a Obama vs Santorum match-up give Obama a ten point lead. In August 2008, McCain was leading Obama 46 to 41.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2012, 10:55 AM
All it would take would be an economic collapse, terrorist attack or some other crisis to derail Obama. The national polls in a Obama vs Santorum match-up give Obama a ten point lead. In August 2008, McCain was leading Obama 46 to 41.

It is impossible. Rick Santorum will never be elected President of the United States under any circumstances.

guedita
02-28-2012, 10:58 AM
A terrorist attack would cause Obama to lose the general election because people would theoretically throw their support behind Santorum to lead the country after something like that? That's a fistful of lunacy.

tigermilkboy
02-28-2012, 11:00 AM
That would be ignoreing the rest of the process. This vote isn't for President. It's for who gets to run against Obama in the General Election. If I am an Obama supporter i'm going to vote for the path that is most likely to ensure his re-election.

There is absolutley nothing about that logic that is adverse or disrespectful to the process in any way.

If it came down to a real choice, would you want Santorum or Romney to be President? I am just saying be careful voting for something you don't want because you might get it. You can never take that vote back once it is cast.

SoulDischarge
02-28-2012, 11:00 AM
I bet dude could throw down something fierce in a slapping fight. I wouldn't put my money on him winning or anything, but he'd give it all he's got.

faxman75
02-28-2012, 11:02 AM
If it came down to a real choice, would you want Santorum or Romney to be President? I am just saying be careful voting for something you don't want because you might get it. You can never take that vote back once it is cast.

I would rather have Santorum to speed up this god damned revolution. Duh.

Alchemy
02-28-2012, 11:04 AM
Santorum will not be president.

tigermilkboy
02-28-2012, 11:10 AM
A terrorist attack would cause Obama to lose the general election because people would theoretically throw their support behind Santorum to lead the country after something like that? That's a fistful of lunacy.

Depends what the circumstances were and whether Santorum could capitalize. But to say there was no chance it couldn't be spun by Republicans to prove Obama was weak and incompetent is naive.

There is a great number of people who will happily vote for Santorum for President over Obama.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2012, 11:13 AM
Depends what the circumstances were and whether Santorum could capitalize.

No it doesn't. Have you paid attention to the man's career?


There is a great number of people who will happily vote for Santorum for President over Obama.

The same number of people who would vote for a picture of Jesus jerking off onto In Touch magazine.

boarderwoozel3
02-28-2012, 11:20 AM
That's disgusting. I can't believe American voters would disrespect the democratic process like that.

Santorum has been robocalling democratic households soliciting their vote. This is hardly organic meddling.

None of this charade matters anyway. The whole thing screams 2004.

guedita
02-28-2012, 11:25 AM
There is a great number of people who will happily vote for Santorum for President over Obama.

Not in Michigan.


Turning to the general-election race in November, Obama leads Romney in Michigan by nearly 20 points among registered voters, 51 to 33 percent, with 15 percent undecided.
Against Paul, the president’s lead is 22 points (53 to 31 percent); against Santorum, it’s 26 points (55 to 29 percent); and against Gingrich, it’s 28 points (56 to 28 percent).
What’s more, 51 percent of registered Michigan voters approve of Obama’s job; 63 percent of them believe the auto industry bailout was a good idea (including 61 percent of independents and 42 percent of likely GOP primary voters); and a majority think the president deserves credit for the auto industry’s recovery.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10474814-nbc-poll-romney-santorum-deadlocked-in-michigan-romney-leads-in-arizona

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Two things more likely than a terrorist attack to fuck everything up in unpredictable ways, possibly throwing an otherwise winable election to a fringe figure like Rick Santorum: 1) European austerity measures and/or debt defaults dragging down global economic recovery, 2) Israel starting a war with Iran.

As much as I personally loathe Mitt Romney on a personal level, and as much as I worry that he would be the most conservative president in our nation's history (due to the fact that his inherent ideological malleability and political weakness would make him a four-year hostage to his party's extreme base), I still have a hard time fully rooting for a Santorum victory because it might give him a chance of actually becoming president.

PotVsKtl
02-28-2012, 12:21 PM
You people are out of your minds. Santorum is an openly theocratic absurdity. He says the 2008 recession was caused by gas prices. He recently said that reading JFK's speech on keeping the Pope out of politics made him want to throw up. He took his dead baby home and slept with it. His remaining family looks like this:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/drmardozo/ricksantorumloser.jpg

PotVsKtl
02-28-2012, 12:25 PM
In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don’t need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do… And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.
...

faxman75
02-28-2012, 12:29 PM
Obama should tap one of his hollywood friends to make a disturbing minuet informercial reenacting the Santorum family trauma of bringing home a stillborn to spend the night with.

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 12:30 PM
Reading over my last post, I realize that I "personally loathe Mitt Romney on a personal level." Those are some strong personal feelings.

faxman75
02-28-2012, 12:47 PM
Apparently there is a name for this. It's Operationhilarity on twitter. There are very passionate people on both sides of the vote for Santorum debate.

https://twitter.com/#!/search/operationhilarity

Alchemy
02-28-2012, 12:57 PM
There is only one way that Santorum can become president, and that is by an unmistakable Christian event of a gigantic magnitude. Of course, the likelihood would not be of God speaking from the heavens and claiming Santorum as our savior, but Santorum using his magic as the Anti-Christ to conquer the presidency.

However, seeing as Christianity will never prove true, Santorum will never become president.

Miroir Noir
02-28-2012, 01:30 PM
Big, unexpected news: Olympia Snowe is retiring, greatly increasing the odds that the Democrats can retain control of the Senate for two more years.

RageAgainstTheAoki
02-28-2012, 03:27 PM
RINOs will be extinct soon.

obzen
02-28-2012, 08:49 PM
That's disgusting.

ha!

obzen
02-28-2012, 09:03 PM
The emergence of a third party independent in the general probably won't materialize this time, but if there ever is one I wouldn't be surprised if it came from the (far) right; it really should start from the center.

obzen
02-28-2012, 09:51 PM
I wonder if this is 'disgusting' enough to make Santorum want to throw up. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529940-flashback-romney-voted-in-92-dem-primaries)



Flashback: Romney voted in '92 Dem primaries
By NBC's Mark Murray and Garrett Haake

As Mitt Romney criticizes Rick Santorum for encouraging Democrats to vote in today's Michigan GOP primary -- "I think Republicans have to recognize there's a real effort to kidnap our primary process," he said today -- it is worth remembering that Romney said he voted for a Democrat in the 1992 primaries to help the GOP.


Rebecca Cook / Reuters

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney greets supporters during a stop at his Michigan campaign headquarters in Livonia February 28, 2012.

During his '08 White House bid, it was revealed that Romney voted for Paul Tsongas (D) in the 1992 Democratic primaries. Romney's explanation at the time: "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican."

Here's the transcript from a Feb. 18, 2007 ABC interview:

ABC: Let me talk about your political journey. You were an independent, a registered independent in the 1980s. You voted for Paul Tsongas as Democrat in the 1992 primaries. Now you've describe yourself as a Reagan Republican.

MITT ROMNEY: Kind of a mischaracterization. In Massachusetts if you register as an independent you can you vote on either the Republican or Democrat primary. When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican… But let me tell you, in the general election, I don't recall ever once voting for anyone other than a Republican. So, yeah, as an independent I'll go in and play in their primary but I'm a Republican and have been through my life. I was with Young Republicans when I was in college back at Stanford. But a registered independent so I could vote in either primary.

At his press avail today, Romney was asked about his vote for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primaries.

Romney responded: "It’s very different running for -- being a candidate for president, buying ads, and telling Democrats to go, to go mess into a Republican primary and to vote against me."

He continued, "In my case, I was certainly voting against the Democrat who I thought was the person I thought would be the worst leader of our nation. In this case, as I recall, it was Bill Clinton. I wanted someone other than Bill Clinton. And certainly and against -- I voted against Ted Kennedy, Tip O’Neill, and Bill Clinton. It seemed like a good group to be against."

weeklymix
02-29-2012, 02:30 AM
Santorum gaining that many delegates in Michigan shouldn't be touted as a Romney win by the media. The guy fucking grew up there and beat McCain by 9% in 2008. This should be an embarrassment but now it's "Romney Strong Heading Into Super Tuesday." I don't know how a milquetoast like Romney can be portrayed as strong in a landslide, let alone having to spend way too much money in his home state.

JebusLives
02-29-2012, 04:34 PM
99% of American women use, or have used, birth control. I hope Santorum gets the nomination.

guedita
03-01-2012, 07:57 AM
Andrew Brietbart is dead. Most likely from a liberal conspiracy.

SoulDischarge
03-01-2012, 08:06 AM
RHaMqHh5NZ4

I cannot wait until the primaries are done and over with and this dude has to debate Obama. Regardless of what he lacks as a President, Obama is an exceptional orator, and it's going to be delicious watching Romney have to debate someone who isn't mentally stunted to the level of a 14 year old.

stinkbutt
03-01-2012, 09:13 AM
People that don't think Santorum has a chance in hell are delusional and should remember the south has the populace and stands behind conviction (even retarded conviction) over common sense. Anyone remember 2004?

PotVsKtl
03-01-2012, 09:31 AM
The latest bill -- which is scheduled to be discussed by a legislative committee for a second time on Wednesday -- contains a number of provisions which would give the state one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the nation. Among the provisions is one which would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withhold information -- in order to prevent an abortion -- that could have prevented a health problem for the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the death of the mother.

Other provisions include requiring women to hear the fetal heartbeat prior to an abortion, taking away tax credits for abortion providers and removing tax deductions for abortion-related insurance. The bill also requires that women be told that abortions would increase the risk of breast cancer, a controversial theory that the World Health Organization, the National Cancer Institute and gynecological groups in the United States and the United Kingdom have said is incorrect.

But hey, my "fiscal conservatism" requires me to vote for these people. Right?

tigermilkboy
03-01-2012, 09:35 AM
People that don't think Santorum has a chance in hell are delusional and should remember the south has the populace and stands behind conviction (even retarded conviction) over common sense. Anyone remember 2004?

I have a lot of tax clients that are white and over 55. Whenever they come in my office, we usually end up talking politics because of taxes. Nearly everyone one of these says this line 'I don't agree with Santorum on many things, but I get where he is coming from. I'd vote for him against Obama'.

A lot of Americans base their votes/politics on gut, rather than their heads. Pretty much how George W Bush won the Presidency.

chairmenmeow47
03-01-2012, 09:37 AM
the other problem is that this country has a weird perception of people who "stick to their guns" as being a good leader. while that is sometimes the case, "sticking to your guns" in the face of mountains of contradictory facts is lunacy.

SoulDischarge
03-01-2012, 09:46 AM
How is this the 21st century? Fucking nightmare.

stinkbutt
03-01-2012, 11:12 AM
Stupid people breed like cockroaches, smart people are too smart to have kids. The creator of Beavis and Butthead predicted the future

guedita
03-01-2012, 11:30 AM
tigermilk's 20 or so + 55 tax clients = accurate polling data.

LiquidL
03-01-2012, 11:35 AM
Do right-wing Republicans attend Coachella?

I'd imagine they are more the Stagecoach types.

Anyone voting for Santorum because of his 13th century dark ages outlook on life is a) retarded b) retarded + uneducated c) retarded + uneducated + religious zealot d) or all of the above.

No rational being would want that toad in the Oval Office.

LiquidL
03-01-2012, 11:38 AM
the other problem is that this country has a weird perception of people who "stick to their guns" as being a good leader. while that is sometimes the case, "sticking to your guns" in the face of mountains of contradictory facts is lunacy.

Yes, that mentality is otherwise known as "faith" aka "I don't know shit so I'm sticking to my guns and Bible"

summerkid
03-01-2012, 12:15 PM
Do right-wing Republicans attend Coachella?

I'd imagine they are more the Stagecoach types.

Anyone voting for Santorum because of his 13th century dark ages outlook on life is a) retarded b) retarded + uneducated c) retarded + uneducated + religious zealot d) or all of the above.

No rational being would want that toad in the Oval Office.

I doubt Santorum wins the nomination, but if he does once again I will not vote with my party affiliation and instead cast my vote for Gary Johnson.

jackstraw94086
03-01-2012, 12:16 PM
"sticking to your guns" in the face of mountains of contradictory facts is lunacy.

These are people who claim to believe the bible. They can hardly be expected to yield any position in the face of facts.

jackstraw94086
03-01-2012, 12:19 PM
tigermilk's 20 or so + 55 tax clients = accurate polling data.

They're not quite old enough to admit to tigermilk that they're still put off by the chocolate face.

shermanoaksyo
03-01-2012, 12:21 PM
Andrew Breitbart is dead and I am not. It's a great day. I hope that each of his four kids get deep into anti-war activism, Greenpeace, PETA and Burning Man - in that order.

jackstraw94086
03-01-2012, 01:00 PM
fuck PETA. They're worse propagandists than Breitbart

MoSetsfire
03-01-2012, 01:12 PM
I cant even hide how happy I am Andrew Breitbart is dead. I hope he suffered on his way out. I'll never forgive that fucking piece of filth for what he said about Ted Kennedy after he passed away.

jackstraw94086
03-01-2012, 01:48 PM
That's how you one-up the opposition. Wish them pain and suffering. Good on'ya, bro!

boarderwoozel3
03-01-2012, 01:55 PM
People that don't think Santorum has a chance in hell are delusional and should remember the south has the populace and stands behind conviction (even retarded conviction) over common sense. Anyone remember 2004?

This is irrelevant. The south hasn't been in play since the New Deal. The election is won and lost in FL/OH/PA/VA/NV/CO etc. Also, these social issues ultimately mean fuckall compared to the economy which has been slowly rebounding and is predicted to continue "moderate growth" through 2012 according to Ben Bernanke and his pals at the Fed. If that happens Obama and the Dems roll.

chairmenmeow47
03-01-2012, 01:56 PM
i want to know the number of republicans that are secretly for the health care bill, but are too afraid to say it out loud.

stinkbutt
03-01-2012, 02:21 PM
How do you figure Obama has FL, OH, NV, or PA?

faxman75
03-01-2012, 02:35 PM
i want to know the number of republicans that are secretly for the health care bill, but are too afraid to say it out loud.

98.5% of politicians sold their souls either prior to or shortly thereafter they became an elected official. That goes for both parties. They became puppets and no longer have strong moral convictions of any kind. It might be ok if they became puppets for the public who voted for them but that's not the case. So the answer is possibly one but no way to know for sure and but certainly not more than one.

scenicworld
03-01-2012, 02:42 PM
i want to know the number of republicans that are secretly for the health care bill, but are too afraid to say it out loud.

All of them. if you start running down the list of what is and isn't in the bill for them, you'll find that there's very few controversial items in there. the most controversial part of the bill, was that it was black democrat that signed it.

summerkid
03-01-2012, 04:46 PM
All of them. if you start running down the list of what is and isn't in the bill for them, you'll find that there's very few controversial items in there. the most controversial part of the bill, was that it was black democrat that signed it.

I am so tired of this sort of rhetoric. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you fundamentally don't understand conservatism. Which in all fairness did get a little murky under W and the neocons. With that said the health care act is contrary to conservative thinking and even if we look past that you pretend like it isn't controversial when more americans are in opposition to it than those in favor of it.but no of course the only reason they oppose it is because they are all racists.

scenicworld
03-01-2012, 05:16 PM
I am so tired of this sort of rhetoric. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you fundamentally don't understand conservatism. Which in all fairness did get a little murky under W and the neocons. With that said the health care act is contrary to conservative thinking and even if we look past that you pretend like it isn't controversial when more americans are in opposition to it than those in favor of it.but no of course the only reason they oppose it is because they are all racists.

Actually, this bill was directly out of the Republican play book of the 90's. As for it being controversial to most Americans, the polls you are referring to (I assume the 70% number) is because many liberals/democrats/independents didn't think the bill went far enough and when polled answered in the negative. if you go line by line with what the bill actually does, the numbers change dramatically with very few people being against the new requirements - with the exception of the individual mandate (which was a conservative counter to "Hillary-care").

scenicworld
03-01-2012, 05:17 PM
I'd also like to add that Teddy Roosevelt (A true Conservative), tried to pass a health care plan that would have been drastically to the left of the Affordable Care Act, so which era of true conservatism are you referring to, exactly?

obzen
03-01-2012, 06:07 PM
lul, Obama smoked Breitbart.







SHIRLEY SHERROD SENDS HER REGARDS

summerkid
03-01-2012, 06:54 PM
I'd also like to add that Teddy Roosevelt (A true Conservative), tried to pass a health care plan that would have been drastically to the left of the Affordable Care Act, so which era of true conservatism are you referring to, exactly?

You seem to be confusing conservative with republican. Teddy was a progressive republican.

PotVsKtl
03-01-2012, 06:59 PM
I am so tired of this sort of rhetoric. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you fundamentally don't understand conservatism.

He said Republicans.

Somewhat Damaged
03-01-2012, 08:27 PM
The evening news just spent 10 minutes talking about Joe Arpaio's investigation into the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Surprisingly, Sheriff Joe believes that the document & Obama's social services card are forgeries. Jesus, I don't know why I'm so surprised that this is still a talking point.

weeklymix
03-01-2012, 08:52 PM
I am so tired of this sort of rhetoric. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you fundamentally don't understand conservatism. Which in all fairness did get a little murky under W and the neocons.

W and the neocons? You use that phrase right after talking about bullshit rhetoric? What the fuck does neo-conservatism have to do with any of this? Its a principle firmly rooted in the idea of advancing Western Civilization and lies mostly within a foreign policy plan. It has nothing to do with anything. That's pretty much where the neocons only differ from conservatives on paper. The Bush Doctrine was the only thing neo-con about his administration. If they're doing any other weird shit, it's because they're crazy elected Republicans which are about as far from true conservatives as you can get. Do you even know who Leo Strauss is if you think you have such a firm grasp of conservatism? And if you do... I'd really like you to tell me what you think of his viewpoints. I'd be willing to bet you that you've misinterpreted them just like half the "modern conservatives" that back the Republicans because they think the Democrats are destroying their fundamental approach to society.

weeklymix
03-01-2012, 08:59 PM
This whole thing where modern conservatives blame the downfall of the Republicans' image solely or even partly on neo-conservatism without even knowing what the fuck it means to be a neo-conservative is one of the most laughable things in politics right now. If you're going to pretend to be a scholar on conservatism try to actually understand what neo-conservatism is and realize in its definition most people, Republican or Democrat, would probably agree with the school of thought. It was formed by a bunch of defecting liberals, not conservatives.

Republican != Conservative. They're almost mutually exclusive at this point.

JebusLives
03-02-2012, 10:15 AM
Yeah, but the modern colloquial use of the term almost always refers to Bush-era interventionism, trickle-down voodoo and deficit spending. I don't think i've ever heard someone mention neocons in reference to the cold war.

Miroir Noir
03-02-2012, 10:23 AM
I'm tired of the revisionist history that has George W. Bush as some sort of pseudo conservative. Or Rick Santorum as some sort of pseudo conservative for whipping Senate votes in favor of things George W. Bush wanted to accomplish in the 2000s. If Romney wins the election, we will see debt ceiling hikes, spending on social programs that benefit (current) senior citizens, and more tax cuts that will be paid for with deficit spending. It's so cynical and stupid to pretend that the 2000s were some sort of holiday from conservative reality.

JebusLives
03-02-2012, 10:26 AM
Agreed. Bush was a conservative wet-dream, and his economic policy was an unmitigated disaster. Saying "well, that's 'cause he wasn't a real conservative" is so disingenuous. The whole ideological framework of modern conservativism is as flawed as communism was. Time to admit it and move on.