If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Tonight, the remaining GOP candidates square off in preparation for the New Hampshire primary. Will Santorum blast Romney? Will it be worth watching since Bachmann is gone? The derp begins at 9pm ET on ABC   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 1164
    More: PSA, New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney, GOP, Rick Santorum, New Hampshire Republicans, New Hampshire, New Hampshire Union Leader, Republican debates  
•       •       •

703 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jan 2012 at 8:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-08 10:46:13 AM

9beers: Who is this guy on MSNBC yelling at everybody?


Chris Matthews
 
2012-01-08 11:47:38 AM

Mrtraveler01: apoptotic: Paul doesn't like the terms "gay rights", "women's rights" etc. He says it makes people in those groups think they're entitled to take something from someone else.

Goddamn it Ron Paul...just when I thought you couldn't say anything more stupid, you manage to outdo yourself.

So why should I vote for him again?


they are kinda stupid terms. Civil rights apply to all and should be all encompassing. The term "black rights" sounds absurd, doesn't it?
 
2012-01-08 12:25:15 PM
christophertucker.files.wordpress.com

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: apoptotic: Paul doesn't like the terms "gay rights", "women's rights" etc. He says it makes people in those groups think they're entitled to take something from someone else.

Goddamn it Ron Paul...just when I thought you couldn't say anything more stupid, you manage to outdo yourself.

So why should I vote for him again?

they are kinda stupid terms. Civil rights apply to all and should be all encompassing. The term "black rights" sounds absurd, doesn't it?


Why don't you have a seat over there.
 
2012-01-08 01:04:15 PM
Fark help me but I think I like Jon Huntsman. Please, someone chime in with snippets why I should hate the guy.
 
2012-01-08 01:55:47 PM

caddisfly: Fark help me but I think I like Jon Huntsman. Please, someone chime in with snippets why I should hate the guy.


I don't think it's necessary to hate him in order to not support him. He's certainly an intelligent and reasonable man compared to the rest of the field, but keep in mind that according to his own campaign site (new window), he wants to repeal PPACA and Dodd-Frank, rein in "Environmental Protection Agency's job-killing regulations", and "introduce market forces into (the) education system". He reviewed his anti-abortion (new window) credentials at the Faith and Family Association conference last summer, and he's come down on the side of separate but equal when it comes to same sex marriage, offering civil unions instead.
 
2012-01-08 02:05:01 PM

apoptotic: caddisfly: Fark help me but I think I like Jon Huntsman. Please, someone chime in with snippets why I should hate the guy.

I don't think it's necessary to hate him in order to not support him. He's certainly an intelligent and reasonable man compared to the rest of the field, but keep in mind that according to his own campaign site (new window), he wants to repeal PPACA and Dodd-Frank, rein in "Environmental Protection Agency's job-killing regulations", and "introduce market forces into (the) education system". He reviewed his anti-abortion (new window) credentials at the Faith and Family Association conference last summer, and he's come down on the side of separate but equal when it comes to same sex marriage, offering civil unions instead.


Behold the power of Fark. Restricting reproductive rights is a deal-breaker for me. Thanks apoptotic!
 
2012-01-08 03:01:34 PM

skullkrusher: The guy is easily their best hope - maybe force him to pick a fundi running mate but Huntsman for Pres could give BO a fight - more so than Romney as I think Indies don't inherently distrust Hunstman like they do Mittens


I agree. Nominate Romney and the base is going to stay at home. Nominate Santorum and the middle is going to flee to Obama. Ron Paul's just too outside the established political spectrum to be nominated. The only candidate who could beat Obama is Huntsman, who would not only occupy the center with ease but I think also draw protest votes from democrats unhappy with Obama's performance. I don't even think nominating an evangelical for the VP nod is necessary or even helpful -- the GOP base would come out to tactically vote against Obama anyway, and an evangelical VP nod would push moderates away.

Now, a Huntsman/Paul or Huntsman/Daniels (if he'd accept the nod) ticket could be absolute dynamite.
 
2012-01-08 03:57:02 PM
and after many months of tugging on each other's nuts, Obama will win another term in the White House. his polls are better than Ronnie Raygun's and Clinton's and Bushie's during this same juncture in their first terms. bend over republicans. you can put on all the show you want but Obama will still win.

Republican Tears: sweet, crisp, satisfying. get your bottle today.
 
2012-01-08 05:48:19 PM

caddisfly: Fark help me but I think I like Jon Huntsman. Please, someone chime in with snippets why I should hate the guy.


Are you a Republican? If so, you should hate him because he's an intelligent, qualified candidate who doesn't pander to the elderly and the insane.
 
2012-01-08 06:29:04 PM

Mavent: caddisfly: Fark help me but I think I like Jon Huntsman. Please, someone chime in with snippets why I should hate the guy.

Are you a Republican? If so, you should hate him because he's an intelligent, qualified candidate who doesn't pander to the elderly and the insane.


You know there's trouble when the guy who forgoes pandering to the elderly and insane to focus on the obstinate and narrow minded is considered "refreshing" even by people who are ideologically opposed to everything he represents.
 
2012-01-08 09:25:37 PM

apoptotic: Bennie Crabtree: apoptotic: I want to hear what they think should happen if Obama vetoes/rejects Keystone. At this point I'd put money on at least two of them (Perry and Santorum) saying "invade Canada".

No love for Gary Doer (new window)?

His appointment is one of the few things Harper's done that I approve of, but he's not a miracle worker.


fair enough!
 
2012-01-09 10:53:10 AM

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: apoptotic: Paul doesn't like the terms "gay rights", "women's rights" etc. He says it makes people in those groups think they're entitled to take something from someone else.

Goddamn it Ron Paul...just when I thought you couldn't say anything more stupid, you manage to outdo yourself.

So why should I vote for him again?

they are kinda stupid terms. Civil rights apply to all and should be all encompassing. The term "black rights" sounds absurd, doesn't it?


They apply to all under the law...but some people insist on keeping them away from certain groups.

Who asked for "black rights?" They were asking for EQUAL RIGHTS. Because the rights that white America enjoyed were kept from them.

But you know that.
 
2012-01-09 11:37:05 AM

rufus-t-firefly: They apply to all under the law...but some people insist on keeping them away from certain groups.

Who asked for "black rights?" They were asking for EQUAL RIGHTS. Because the rights that white America enjoyed were kept from them.

But you know that.


No one. That was my point. We don't call them "black rights". We call them civil rights and they should apply to all people regardless of gender or sexual orientation or race rather than carving the orientation based civil rights out and calling them 'gay' rights and putting the gender based ones and calling them 'women's' rights. Guess what? The gender 'based' rights that the women's rights movement fought for apply to men as well. As the orientation based rights apply to straights.

That was the point. I would say "but you know that" but you've proven to be a little weak when it comes to the written word in the past so I won't make the assumption.
 
2012-01-09 07:17:52 PM

skullkrusher: No one. That was my point. We don't call them "black rights". We call them civil rights and they should apply to all people regardless of gender or sexual orientation or race rather than carving the orientation based civil rights out and calling them 'gay' rights and putting the gender based ones and calling them 'women's' rights. Guess what? The gender 'based' rights that the women's rights movement fought for apply to men as well. As the orientation based rights apply to straights.

That was the point. I would say "but you know that" but you've proven to be a little weak when it comes to the written word in the past so I won't make the assumption.


Hypothetical arguments only go so far in the face of reality. Women's rights, gay rights, black rights, Latino rights, handicapped rights...the titles describe exactly what they are. Blowing off meaning and context is a luxury of those who don't have to worry about being misunderstood or mistreated.
 
Displayed 14 of 1164 comments

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report