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.

(Yahoo)   In order to take the White House back from the dangerous, liberal, radical socialist who has nearly destroyed America, it looks like the GOP has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 239
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, GOP, White House, Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, St. Augustine, 49th state  
•       •       •

2660 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2012 at 9:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-01-09 08:36:43 AM
Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.
 
2012-01-09 08:43:42 AM

BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.


That's the spirit, boy, As the GOP always says you of the rank and file don't need to fall in love, you just have to fall in line. And you always do.

Keep convincing yourself that Obama has done such a terrible job, despite all evidence to the contrary, and then convince yourself that Mitt Romney is going to be SO much different, despite the fact that he passed something identical to "Obamacare" nearly a decade before Obama, and before he was running for president, essenitally agree with obama on most major social and foreign policy issues
 
2012-01-09 08:47:31 AM

Magorn: essenitally agree with obama on most major social and foreign policy issues


Well, depending on what he thinks his audience wants to hear, anyway.
 
2012-01-09 09:01:40 AM
Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys
 
2012-01-09 09:06:39 AM
Technically Willard MITT Romney has identical policies and ideas to EVERYONE.
 
2012-01-09 09:07:00 AM

I_C_Weener: Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys


Mitt's also white.
 
2012-01-09 09:07:35 AM
Romney is getting the nomination, this was decided by the GOP power brokers years ago. It's "his turn". His policies are hardly identical to Obama's, and he's a silver-spoon elitist jackass.
 
2012-01-09 09:07:44 AM

vygramul: I_C_Weener: Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys

Mitt's also white.


Mitt is twice the white man Obama is
 
2012-01-09 09:07:49 AM

Jackson Herring: Technically Willard MITT Romney has identical policies and ideas to EVERYONE.


He's a Kit Republican.
 
2012-01-09 09:08:08 AM
As opposed to the paragon of hope and change who largely continued the policies of his predecessor?

/suck at trolling, but will admit that there is a grain of truth in that.
 
2012-01-09 09:08:55 AM

Jake Havechek: Romney is getting the nomination, this was decided by the GOP power brokers years ago. It's "his turn". His policies are hardly identical to Obama's, and he's a silver-spoon elitist jackass.


I thought Obama was an elitist for wanting children to be educated?
 
2012-01-09 09:08:58 AM
Meet the new boss.....
 
2012-01-09 09:09:05 AM

atomsmoosher: As opposed to the paragon of hope and change who largely continued the policies of his predecessor?

/suck at trolling, but will admit that there is a grain of truth in that.


He does indeed live in the Whitehouse.
 
2012-01-09 09:09:33 AM

BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.


You wouldn't like his tax code, he can actually do math.

Also, LOL @ teabaggers. After all that time and money you're getting Romney.

Romney.
 
2012-01-09 09:11:10 AM
Romney wants to privatize and outsource the entire government. I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't.
 
2012-01-09 09:12:07 AM
Rmoney

theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com

Representing equality for all who can afford it.
 
2012-01-09 09:12:23 AM

CPennypacker: vygramul: I_C_Weener: Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys

Mitt's also white.

Mitt is twice the white man Obama is


Both belong to religions that start with M
 
2012-01-09 09:13:50 AM
Well, then they should have put forth better candidates...

Let's face it, no one is really excited about a Mitt Romney presidency. (Not that he's going to be able to beat Obama if he does get the nomination.)

Romney may be a phony and a flip-flopper. But people in the GOP who aren't religious zealots didn't really have too many options this election. Especially once Herman Cain quit.

Not all GOPers want a theocracy. Even those that are religious. Romney may be a Mormon but he doesn't talk about religion a whole lot. (Mostly because he knows it affects his polling when he does everywhere outside of Utah.)
 
2012-01-09 09:16:32 AM

shivashakti: But people in the GOP who aren't religious zealots didn't really have too many options this election. Especially once Herman Cain quit.


You could go with Newt.
 
2012-01-09 09:16:37 AM

Jackson Herring: Technically Willard MITT Romney has identical policies and ideas to EVERYONE.


And we're done.
 
2012-01-09 09:16:42 AM

I_C_Weener: CPennypacker: vygramul: I_C_Weener: Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys

Mitt's also white.

Mitt is twice the white man Obama is

Both belong to religions that start with M


Obama's a Methodist? Huh. hadn't heard that.
 
2012-01-09 09:17:49 AM
mathchickrants.files.wordpress.com

When the banks own all the candidates, the election only changes the tone used in the media to announce the same policies.
 
2012-01-09 09:17:53 AM

I_C_Weener: Both belong to religions that start with M


I know, I know that one: Mormonism...and...and....Mislam!
 
2012-01-09 09:18:55 AM

Magorn: I_C_Weener: CPennypacker: vygramul: I_C_Weener: Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys

Mitt's also white.

Mitt is twice the white man Obama is

Both belong to religions that start with M

Obama's a Methodist? Huh. hadn't heard that.


Secret Mazdak.
 
2012-01-09 09:20:14 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.


Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.

Huntsman's not a bad choice. But he's polling poorly.
 
2012-01-09 09:20:54 AM
To: Lakeshark

Folks have been waiting for an endorsement from Sarah, but I think this anti-endorsement of Romney serves an even greater purpose. Mitt must NOT be the Republican nominee in 2012 (or any other year).

The man is a two-faced, statist liberal, pretending to be a conservative Republican, when his record precisely matches that of a liberal Democrat. He will bring down the entire right wing, if he's elected, and possibly cause even greater damage than Obama has.

As usual, Sarah's political instincts are right on the money. The administration is desperate to run against Romney, because he is one of the ONLY Republicans running that they can beat.

59 posted on Sunday, January 08, 2012 2:09:41 AM by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-01-09 09:21:52 AM

Jairzinho: I_C_Weener: Both belong to religions that start with M

I know, I know that one: Mormonism...and...and....Mislam!


No, you idiot. Obama belongs to Muslimism.
 
2012-01-09 09:23:10 AM

I_C_Weener: Both belong to religions that start with M


Yup. Money.
 
2012-01-09 09:26:35 AM
As long as Subby has decided on a candidate, why wait for those pesky elections, amirite?
 
2012-01-09 09:26:48 AM
The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.
 
2012-01-09 09:27:20 AM

shivashakti: Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.

Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.
.


Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.
 
2012-01-09 09:29:14 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: I_C_Weener: Both belong to religions that start with M

Yup. Money.


Technically, that's the name of their god, not the name of their religion.
 
2012-01-09 09:29:48 AM

imontheinternet: The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.


A Ron Paul third party run would be Perot 2.0.

The "movement" wouldn't survive the retirement of the personality.
 
2012-01-09 09:30:23 AM

imontheinternet: What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.


Why? It seems to me what's not "working" is a lazy and flippant electorate of "independents" that can't seem to decided how they want to run the country -- beyond lookin' good and gettin' along.
 
2012-01-09 09:30:48 AM
Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.
 
2012-01-09 09:31:28 AM
Moroastrianism?
 
2012-01-09 09:33:44 AM
"undecided" voters are the dumbest morons around.
 
2012-01-09 09:34:10 AM
He may be moderate, but unfortunately hes still a Republican, and those guys are heavily into Groupthink. Even if Mitt were to win the election, we'd find him quickly falling into line with the party.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, a vote for any Republican, no matter how reasonable they sound is a vote for the likes of Boehner and Bachmann.
 
2012-01-09 09:35:43 AM

Jack31081: Jairzinho: I_C_Weener: Both belong to religions that start with M

I know, I know that one: Mormonism...and...and....Mislam!

No, you idiot. Obama belongs to Muslimism.


Actually, he's a Magoresian.

As all of you should be.

I'm mellow. Tithing is not required. Prayers are optional. No book you have to read. Sunday services involve football/baseball and beer.

I'm a pretty damn good god, if I do say so myself.
 
2012-01-09 09:36:24 AM

BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.


Rain Man? Republican voters should be so lucky.
 
2012-01-09 09:37:06 AM

evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-01-09 09:39:54 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.


Oh, totally... he's a creep.


evoke: /Santorum will get my vote.


So, you're OK with someone who wants to make birth control (including condoms) and pornography illegal??
 
2012-01-09 09:41:13 AM
Man the freepers won't be happy about this.
 
2012-01-09 09:41:32 AM
imontheinternet

The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.


There are more than two political parties in this country....is it up to the government or the people to enforce it?
 
2012-01-09 09:43:49 AM

imontheinternet: [mathchickrants.files.wordpress.com image 571x287]

When the banks own all the candidates, the election only changes the tone used in the media to announce the same policies.


And who owns the banks?
 
2012-01-09 09:44:57 AM
I believe Romney, personally, is a reasonable, moderate, centrist.

I also believe Romney, politically, would hang gays on the public square if he thought it would get him 51% of the vote.
 
2012-01-09 09:45:10 AM

Jake Havechek: The man is a two-faced, statist liberal, pretending to be a conservative Republican, when his record precisely matches that of a liberal Democrat.


Heheheheheheh. SURPRISE!
 
2012-01-09 09:45:14 AM

evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.


Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!
 
2012-01-09 09:45:29 AM

karnal: imontheinternet

The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.

There are more than two political parties in this country....is it up to the government or the people to enforce it?


Under our tripartate system, there will always be two powerful parties running the show - whatever those parties may stand for.
If you want strong, multiple political parties, we need to go parliamentary - and I don't see that happening.
 
2012-01-09 09:46:15 AM

vygramul: imontheinternet: [mathchickrants.files.wordpress.com image 571x287]

When the banks own all the candidates, the election only changes the tone used in the media to announce the same policies.

And who owns the banks?


The lizard people, duh.
 
2012-01-09 09:46:58 AM

vygramul: imontheinternet: [mathchickrants.files.wordpress.com image 571x287]

When the banks own all the candidates, the election only changes the tone used in the media to announce the same policies.

And who owns the banks?


OOO! OOO! OOO! Is it the Lizard People, Mr. Kotter?
 
2012-01-09 09:47:26 AM

InmanRoshi: I believe Romney, personally, is a reasonable, moderate, centrist.

I also believe Romney, politically, would hang gays on the public square if he thought it would get him 51% of the vote.


Romney would come out against motherhood and apple pie if he thought it would net him votes. I'm not sure the man has any convictions whatsoever.
 
2012-01-09 09:48:52 AM
Jake Havechek

"undecided" voters are the dumbest morons around.



You must be an authority on 'dumbest morons" around.....no wonder you vote the way you do.
 
2012-01-09 09:48:54 AM
Damn you Flappyhead! Feel my impotent rage!!!!
 
2012-01-09 09:49:18 AM

Old enough to know better: He may be moderate, but unfortunately hes still a Republican, and those guys are heavily into Groupthink. Even if Mitt were to win the election, we'd find him quickly falling into line with the party.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, a vote for any Republican, no matter how reasonable they sound is a vote for the likes of Boehner and Bachmann.


Especially a shameless panderer like Romney who wouldn't have the guts to stand up to his paleolithic base and tell them to move out of the dark ages. Whether he's pushing the DERP because he's a true believer or whether he's pushing the DERP because he's being a pragmatic GOP politician makes little difference to me. It's all still DERP.
 
2012-01-09 09:49:51 AM
it looks like the GOP media has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas

FTFY
 
2012-01-09 09:49:55 AM

qorkfiend: Jake Havechek: The man is a two-faced, statist liberal, pretending to be a conservative Republican, when his record precisely matches that of a liberal Democrat.

Heheheheheheh. SURPRISE!


Makes you wonder why Jake woudl vote for Obama, a man willing to waive all Constitutional guarantees under the 4th and 5th amendments, willing to engage in military adventurism and military brinksmanship, and who is harder on illegals than Republicans.
 
2012-01-09 09:49:58 AM

jso2897: karnal: imontheinternet

The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.

There are more than two political parties in this country....is it up to the government or the people to enforce it?

Under our tripartate system, there will always be two powerful parties running the show - whatever those parties may stand for.
If you want strong, multiple political parties, we need to go parliamentary - and I don't see that happening.


Link (new window) for further reading.
 
2012-01-09 09:50:28 AM

shivashakti: you're OK with someone who wants to make birth control (including condoms) and pornography illegal??


I heard him speak to just this.

He said those decisions belong to the individual states.

He also said he would vote against making birth-control illegal if he had to vote on it as a state legislator.

I suppose that leaves the potential for a ban on birth control in a given state, so long as the majority voted counter to him.
 
2012-01-09 09:50:30 AM
It's funny, 2/3 of the Republicans I know and talk to say they will write-in for Ron Paul if Romney is the nominee, but I get the sneaking feeling that they are all full of shiat.
 
2012-01-09 09:52:11 AM

make me some tea: evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.

Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!


They're pretty easy to spot once you flush them out from beneath their slimy rocks. They're the ones whose eyes glaze over in daylight, and they are always looking to the skies to get Jesus upskirts.
 
2012-01-09 09:52:16 AM
The most interesting thing in this election cycle is watching the Republicans literally tear their own candidates apart. Whichever candidate has a slight lead in the polls is eviscerated by his associates. They are acting like a pack of rabid animals.

I remember 2008 being vitriolic on behalf of the Democratic nominees, but I don't remember it being this bad (at least not in that everyone switches to beating on the front-runner everytime a new poll comes out).
 
2012-01-09 09:52:22 AM

I_C_Weener: Makes you wonder why Jake woudl vote for Obama, a man willing to waive all Constitutional guarantees under the 4th and 5th amendments, willing to engage in military adventurism and military brinksmanship, and who is harder on illegals than Republicans.


Because every single Republican candidate has all but promised to be even worse if elected.

But, keep up that "the nation is center-right" myth, the Southerners are still dumb enough to buy into it.
 
2012-01-09 09:52:28 AM

vygramul: imontheinternet: [mathchickrants.files.wordpress.com image 571x287]

When the banks own all the candidates, the election only changes the tone used in the media to announce the same policies.

And who owns the banks?


The 0.1%.
 
2012-01-09 09:53:20 AM

vygramul: imontheinternet: [mathchickrants.files.wordpress.com image 571x287]

When the banks own all the candidates, the election only changes the tone used in the media to announce the same policies.

And who owns the banks?


Wapner?
 
2012-01-09 09:53:23 AM

make me some tea: evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.

Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!


cdn9.wn.com

/hot
 
2012-01-09 09:53:49 AM

TomD9938: shivashakti: you're OK with someone who wants to make birth control (including condoms) and pornography illegal??

I heard him speak to just this.

He said those decisions belong to the individual states.

He also said he would vote against making birth-control illegal if he had to vote on it as a state legislator.

I suppose that leaves the potential for a ban on birth control in a given state, so long as the majority voted counter to him.


Shouldn't decisions about birth control and pornography be left to the individual, not the states?
 
2012-01-09 09:55:49 AM

EyeballKid: I_C_Weener: Makes you wonder why Jake woudl vote for Obama, a man willing to waive all Constitutional guarantees under the 4th and 5th amendments, willing to engage in military adventurism and military brinksmanship, and who is harder on illegals than Republicans.

Because every single Republican candidate has all but promised to be even worse if elected.

But, keep up that "the nation is center-right" myth, the Southerners are still dumb enough to buy into it.


Don't know about the Nation, but Obama certainly is.
 
2012-01-09 09:56:53 AM
lexslamman

It's funny, 2/3 of the Republicans I know and talk to say they will write-in for Ron Paul if Romney is the nominee, but I get the sneaking feeling that they are all full of shiat.


I haven't heard a single republican that I know say anything at all favorable about Paul.
 
2012-01-09 09:57:02 AM

iStig: make me some tea: evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.

Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!

[cdn9.wn.com image 400x308]

/hot


That's a croc. Santorum voters are cocks. It's okay - easy mistake to make.
 
2012-01-09 09:59:38 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: A Ron Paul third party run would be Perot 2.0.

The "movement" wouldn't survive the retirement of the personality.


tiny.antville.org

There is another... Paul...
 
2012-01-09 10:00:15 AM

iStig: make me some tea: evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.

Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!

[cdn9.wn.com image 400x308]

/hot


Jam your finger in his butthole! He loves that!
 
2012-01-09 10:01:29 AM
His slim victory in Iowa, bolstered by polls showing his opponents barely making a dent here and expanding support for him in South Carolina, makes for a formidable frontrunner status. So formidable, in fact, that it may be impossible to derail.

Mr. Romney, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
 
2012-01-09 10:02:00 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: TomD9938: shivashakti: you're OK with someone who wants to make birth control (including condoms) and pornography illegal??

I heard him speak to just this.

He said those decisions belong to the individual states.

He also said he would vote against making birth-control illegal if he had to vote on it as a state legislator.

I suppose that leaves the potential for a ban on birth control in a given state, so long as the majority voted counter to him.

Shouldn't decisions about birth control and pornography be left to the individual, not the states?


I think the context was the feds vs. the states. Why though, should porn and birth control get some sort of pass from regulation over everything else?
 
2012-01-09 10:03:36 AM

iStig: make me some tea: evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.

Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!

cdn9.wn.com

/hot


The best way to learn about Santorum voters in the wild is to capture one, then stick your finger in its butthole.

/the finger is not, however, what you stick in a butthole to generate Santorum.
 
2012-01-09 10:04:21 AM

TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: TomD9938: shivashakti: you're OK with someone who wants to make birth control (including condoms) and pornography illegal??

I heard him speak to just this.

He said those decisions belong to the individual states.

He also said he would vote against making birth-control illegal if he had to vote on it as a state legislator.

I suppose that leaves the potential for a ban on birth control in a given state, so long as the majority voted counter to him.

Shouldn't decisions about birth control and pornography be left to the individual, not the states?

I think the context was the feds vs. the states. Why though, should porn and birth control get some sort of pass from regulation over everything else?


Because they are intensely personal matters?
 
2012-01-09 10:06:18 AM

I_C_Weener: EyeballKid: I_C_Weener: Makes you wonder why Jake woudl vote for Obama, a man willing to waive all Constitutional guarantees under the 4th and 5th amendments, willing to engage in military adventurism and military brinksmanship, and who is harder on illegals than Republicans.

Because every single Republican candidate has all but promised to be even worse if elected.

But, keep up that "the nation is center-right" myth, the Southerners are still dumb enough to buy into it.

Don't know about the Nation, but Obama certainly is.


Awww, look at the impotent rage at the man who started with less then you and grew up to be smarter, better looking and richer then you.
 
2012-01-09 10:07:39 AM

Triaxis: it looks like the GOP media has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas

FTFY


Why are conservatives so powerless against the elitist four-eyed liberal lamestream LSM media?

Aren't you guys supposed to be alpha-dogs?
 
2012-01-09 10:08:37 AM

qorkfiend: jso2897: karnal: imontheinternet

The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.

There are more than two political parties in this country....is it up to the government or the people to enforce it?

Under our tripartate system, there will always be two powerful parties running the show - whatever those parties may stand for.
If you want strong, multiple political parties, we need to go parliamentary - and I don't see that happening.

Link (new window) for further reading.


Cool - thanks to you, I am now a little bit better informed.
 
2012-01-09 10:10:53 AM

TomD9938: Why though, should porn and birth control get some sort of pass from regulation over everything else?


They don't. There are limits on who can be in porn; there are limits on who can buy porn. There are limits on abortion (third trimester) and manner thereof (partial-birth abortions).
 
2012-01-09 10:12:13 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Because they are intensely personal matters?


Every area that a government (feds down to township) sticks its beak into your life is a personal infraction. Im not saying that makes it illigitimate, but commerce doesnt deserve any special treatment, just because there might be a sexual component to it.
 
2012-01-09 10:12:17 AM
sigdiamond2000


Triaxis: it looks like the GOP media has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas

FTFY

Why are conservatives so powerless against the elitist four-eyed liberal lamestream LSM media?

Aren't you guys supposed to be alpha-dogs?



Should an Omega dog like you even be allowed to ask a qustion like this?


/I don't think so.
 
2012-01-09 10:14:54 AM

imontheinternet: The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.

What is clear is that the two party system in its current form is not working.


1992 Called. Says a guy named "Ross Perot" wants to speak with you
 
2012-01-09 10:15:08 AM

TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Because they are intensely personal matters?

Every area that a government (feds down to township) sticks its beak into your life is a personal infraction. Im not saying that makes it illigitimate, but commerce doesnt deserve any special treatment, just because there might be a sexual component to it.


Yeah, you are right. Letting the State have a monitor in your bedroom to make sure that any sexual activity with your wife is done in such a way as to allow the possibility of pregnancy is just a reasonable regulation of commerce like any other.
 
2012-01-09 10:15:46 AM
Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting.
 
2012-01-09 10:17:14 AM

Magorn: BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.

That's the spirit, boy, As the GOP always says you of the rank and file don't need to fall in love, you just have to fall in line. And you always do.

Keep convincing yourself that Obama has done such a terrible job, despite all evidence to the contrary, and then convince yourself that Mitt Romney is going to be SO much different, despite the fact that he passed something identical to "Obamacare" nearly a decade before Obama, and before he was running for president, essenitally agree with obama on most major social and foreign policy issues


Evidence? Oh, that awesome Stimulus Plan? Bwah hah hah hah !!
Romney is pathetic too. Truman was our last good president.
 
2012-01-09 10:18:34 AM

ReaverZ: I_C_Weener: EyeballKid: I_C_Weener: Makes you wonder why Jake woudl vote for Obama, a man willing to waive all Constitutional guarantees under the 4th and 5th amendments, willing to engage in military adventurism and military brinksmanship, and who is harder on illegals than Republicans.

Because every single Republican candidate has all but promised to be even worse if elected.

But, keep up that "the nation is center-right" myth, the Southerners are still dumb enough to buy into it.

Don't know about the Nation, but Obama certainly is.

Awww, look at the impotent rage at the man who started with less then you and grew up to be smarter, better looking and richer then you.


And look at who can't even deny that but for the Obamacare, Barack is more Bush than Bush was.
 
2012-01-09 10:18:57 AM

armoredbulldozer: Truman was our last good president.


Give Ike some credit.
 
2012-01-09 10:19:45 AM
Hey, there's a significant difference aside from Mitt not being a (wink, wink) "socialist." Only Mitt had the courage and integrity to bribe the IOC successfully.
 
2012-01-09 10:20:18 AM
lulz
 
2012-01-09 10:21:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, you are right. Letting the State have a monitor in your bedroom to make sure that any sexual activity with your wife is done in such a way as to allow the possibility of pregnancy is just a reasonable regulation of commerce like any other.


That's a bit of a leap.

I would hope though that there's a govt. body, somewhere along the way, making sure her birth control pills are safe, or that the x-x-large condoms Im using have been tested and proved effective.
 
2012-01-09 10:24:21 AM

TomD9938: I would hope though that there's a govt. body, somewhere along the way


Prima nocta?
 
2012-01-09 10:25:56 AM

TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, you are right. Letting the State have a monitor in your bedroom to make sure that any sexual activity with your wife is done in such a way as to allow the possibility of pregnancy is just a reasonable regulation of commerce like any other.

That's a bit of a leap.

I would hope though that there's a govt. body, somewhere along the way, making sure her birth control pills are safe, or that the x-x-large condoms Im using have been tested and proved effective.


Yeah, that's not the kind of birth control regulations being discussed. Santorum is talking about BANS on birth control, not making sure that birth control is safe and effective.
 
2012-01-09 10:27:46 AM
Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting



I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.
 
2012-01-09 10:30:30 AM

I_C_Weener: ReaverZ: I_C_Weener: EyeballKid: I_C_Weener: Makes you wonder why Jake woudl vote for Obama, a man willing to waive all Constitutional guarantees under the 4th and 5th amendments, willing to engage in military adventurism and military brinksmanship, and who is harder on illegals than Republicans.

Because every single Republican candidate has all but promised to be even worse if elected.

But, keep up that "the nation is center-right" myth, the Southerners are still dumb enough to buy into it.

Don't know about the Nation, but Obama certainly is.

Awww, look at the impotent rage at the man who started with less then you and grew up to be smarter, better looking and richer then you.

And look at who can't even deny that but for the Obamacare, Barack is more Bush than Bush was.


What did I deny? Can you even read? How can you post but not be able to read?
 
2012-01-09 10:30:59 AM

qorkfiend: TomD9938: I would hope though that there's a govt. body, somewhere along the way

Prima nocta?


Had to do the Googles.

/elites of today have nothing on yester-year
 
2012-01-09 10:33:28 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: shivashakti: Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.

Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.
.

Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.


What's sad is that there is a guy running for the GOP nomination that, liberal though I am, I would give serious thought to voting for. He's a charismatic speaker, and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me. Also as a former Governor and Congressman, he's better qualified than most of the GOP field. Sadly however he's polling in the nearly negative numbers.

An no his name isn't Huntsman, or even Johnson. Let's leave it as an exercise to the reader to see if anyone even knows he's running or whether the media blackout on him is almost total.
 
2012-01-09 10:33:28 AM

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.


Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!
 
2012-01-09 10:33:29 AM

I_C_Weener: And look at who can't even deny that but for the Obamacare, Barack is more Bush than Bush was.


Well, there's the whole DADT repeal. And DOMA. And actually killing bin Laden. And withdrawing from Iraq on schedule. But you're right, Bush would have done any of those in a heartbeat if he'd had the chance.
 
2012-01-09 10:33:54 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Santorum is talking about BANS on birth control, not making sure that birth control is safe and effective.


I hear ya. I just dont have that defined a dividing line drawn between the power to regulate and the power to ban.
 
2012-01-09 10:34:33 AM

Magorn: and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me


10-4 good Buddy.
 
2012-01-09 10:34:55 AM

BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.


I still haven't heard from any conservative that explains how an empty-suit moron with no leadership or executive experience could so easily destroy the great nation Bush built.
 
2012-01-09 10:35:14 AM

qorkfiend: I_C_Weener: And look at who can't even deny that but for the Obamacare, Barack is more Bush than Bush was.

Well, there's the whole DADT repeal. And DOMA. And actually killing bin Laden. And withdrawing from Iraq on schedule. But you're right, Bush would have done any of those in a heartbeat if he'd had the chance.


So he is not more Bush but a better Bush. Maybe that is why Jeb won't run, the best man already won.
 
2012-01-09 10:36:01 AM

TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Santorum is talking about BANS on birth control, not making sure that birth control is safe and effective.

I hear ya. I just dont have that defined a dividing line drawn between the power to regulate and the power to ban.


Well then Santorum is your candidate!
 
2012-01-09 10:37:13 AM

Magorn: Philip Francis Queeg: shivashakti: Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.

Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.
.

Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.

What's sad is that there is a guy running for the GOP nomination that, liberal though I am, I would give serious thought to voting for. He's a charismatic speaker, and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me. Also as a former Governor and Congressman, he's better qualified than most of the GOP field. Sadly however he's polling in the nearly negative numbers.

An no his name isn't Huntsman, or even Johnson. Let's leave it as an exercise to the reader to see if anyone even knows he's running or whether the media blackout on him is almost total.


Jack Johnson? No, no Johnsons... Probably John Jackson.

But seriously, from Roemer's Wikipedia page: "Donations average $30,000 a month, far below what is raised by the front runners. This difference in campaign fundraising may be attributed to the fact that Roemer has limited donations to $100 per US citizen, and is denying all PAC, Super PAC, and corporate donations."

This I could get behind.
 
2012-01-09 10:39:50 AM

qorkfiend: I_C_Weener: And look at who can't even deny that but for the Obamacare, Barack is more Bush than Bush was.

Well, there's the whole DADT repeal. And DOMA. And actually killing bin Laden. And withdrawing from Iraq on schedule. But you're right, Bush would have done any of those in a heartbeat if he'd had the chance.


And ending torture. And cutting the size of the military. And negotiating a new nuclear arms reduction treaty. And appointing liberals to the Supreme Court. And the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

But other than that, EXACTLY like Bush.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-01-09 10:40:03 AM

exatron: Pants full of macaroni!!: I_C_Weener: Both belong to religions that start with M

Yup. Money.

Technically, that's the name of their god, not the name of their religion.


Stupid monotarytheistic religions!
 
2012-01-09 10:42:03 AM
Never thought I'd see the day when the Republicans run the liberal candidate and the Democrats run the conservative one.
 
2012-01-09 10:42:28 AM
ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!



gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.
 
2012-01-09 10:43:09 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Santorum is talking about BANS on birth control, not making sure that birth control is safe and effective.

I hear ya. I just dont have that defined a dividing line drawn between the power to regulate and the power to ban.

Well then Santorum is your candidate!


Yeah... no.

I'm saying, you give an entity the power to regulate, you (in effect) are giving them the power to ban.
 
2012-01-09 10:43:40 AM

TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Santorum is talking about BANS on birth control, not making sure that birth control is safe and effective.

I hear ya. I just dont have that defined a dividing line drawn between the power to regulate and the power to ban.


That's because their isn't one - at a certain point on the continuum, the power to regulate becomes the power to ban - see "abortion".
 
2012-01-09 10:43:45 AM

karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.


ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.
 
2012-01-09 10:45:24 AM

ReaverZ: karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


Hey, isn't ACORN that guy who crapped on the cop car at the OWS rally?
I hear he also leaves his gum stuck under hand rails.

I hate that guy.
 
2012-01-09 10:45:39 AM

deadcrickets: Never thought I'd see the day when the Republicans run the liberal candidate and the Democrats run the conservative one.


Or that the right would call a conservative corporate president like Obama a radical socialist.
 
2012-01-09 10:46:19 AM

evoke: Fartbongo is a radical socialist.

Romney is a mormon.

Don't know what's worse.

/Santorum will get my vote.


What's worse is a person who votes based on the religion of the candidate rather than his policies.

 
2012-01-09 10:47:37 AM
"Obama is exactly like the idiot I spent 8 years defending, that's why he must be voted out of office or we'll all die from socialisms."
 
2012-01-09 10:48:03 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Magorn: and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me

10-4 good Buddy.


30.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-01-09 10:48:50 AM

karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

sarcasm

your word of the day
 
2012-01-09 10:49:53 AM

jso2897: TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Santorum is talking about BANS on birth control, not making sure that birth control is safe and effective.

I hear ya. I just dont have that defined a dividing line drawn between the power to regulate and the power to ban.

That's because their isn't one - at a certain point on the continuum, the power to regulate becomes the power to ban - see "abortion".



Which is why Santorum doesn't see a 4th or 9th amendment right to privacy.
 
2012-01-09 10:50:15 AM

qorkfiend: Magorn: Philip Francis Queeg: shivashakti: Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.

Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.
.

Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.

What's sad is that there is a guy running for the GOP nomination that, liberal though I am, I would give serious thought to voting for. He's a charismatic speaker, and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me. Also as a former Governor and Congressman, he's better qualified than most of the GOP field. Sadly however he's polling in the nearly negative numbers.

An no his name isn't Huntsman, or even Johnson. Let's leave it as an exercise to the reader to see if anyone even knows he's running or whether the media blackout on him is almost total.

Jack Johnson? No, no Johnsons... Probably John Jackson.

But seriously, from Roemer's Wikipedia page: "Donations average $30,000 a month, far below what is raised by the front runners. This difference in campaign fundraising may be attributed to the fact that Roemer has limited donations to $100 per US citizen, and is denying all PAC, Super PAC, and corporate donations."

This I could get behind.


One of the reasons I'd think about voting for him, He doesn't just talk a good game, he's actually putting his (lack of ) money where his mouth is
 
2012-01-09 10:50:44 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.


Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.
 
2012-01-09 10:52:04 AM

I_C_Weener: And look at who can't even deny that but for the Obamacare, Barack is more Bush than Bush was.


That's overstating it certainly. Obama is a center-right politician but he's taking the right steps in many areas and I believe, being the measured pragmatist I believe him to be, that he could be even more productive if not for the completely unmoored and unfounded in reality obstructionism he's faced. Calling a center-right president is retarded and poisons the political process. So thanks for that contribution GOP c*cksmokers.

I'm also going to enjoy the precedent all this has set when down the line we get a good ol' fashioned, staid, white, "middle"-of-the-road Dem president who the Right will rabidly and histrionically attack, condemn and refuse to work with just to prove that their frothing and nation-damaging hatred isn't race-based. Should be lulz.
 
2012-01-09 10:52:08 AM

Magorn: qorkfiend: Magorn: Philip Francis Queeg: shivashakti: Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.

Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.
.

Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.

What's sad is that there is a guy running for the GOP nomination that, liberal though I am, I would give serious thought to voting for. He's a charismatic speaker, and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me. Also as a former Governor and Congressman, he's better qualified than most of the GOP field. Sadly however he's polling in the nearly negative numbers.

An no his name isn't Huntsman, or even Johnson. Let's leave it as an exercise to the reader to see if anyone even knows he's running or whether the media blackout on him is almost total.

Jack Johnson? No, no Johnsons... Probably John Jackson.

But seriously, from Roemer's Wikipedia page: "Donations average $30,000 a month, far below what is raised by the front runners. This difference in campaign fundraising may be attributed to the fact that Roemer has limited donations to $100 per US citizen, and is denying all PAC, Super PAC, and corporate donations."

This I could get behind.

One of the reasons I'd think about voting for him, He doesn't just talk a good game, he's actually putting his (lack of ) money where his mouth is


Indeed, I figured he wasn't on the radar because he's...well...normal (and a Democrat up until 1991). It's kind of shocking to see him actually adhering to the principles of his campaign platform.
 
2012-01-09 10:54:39 AM
is anyone sane anymore? they're all nuckingfutz!
 
2012-01-09 10:55:46 AM

Rashnu: I'm also going to enjoy the precedent all this has set when down the line we get a good ol' fashioned, staid, white, "middle"-of-the-road Dem president who the Right will rabidly and histrionically attack, condemn and refuse to work with just to prove that their frothing and nation-damaging hatred isn't race-based. Should be lulz.


Um, where were you during the 1990s?
 
2012-01-09 10:57:17 AM

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.


In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!
 
2012-01-09 10:57:40 AM

your average maint. man: is anyone sane anymore? they're all nuckingfutz!


Maybe the guys that never made it to debates.
 
2012-01-09 10:59:52 AM
Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.
 
2012-01-09 11:04:07 AM

karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.


See, real information, not sound bite. You sound like an adult now. Now, show they, the management. did something wrong, with forethought and malice, in the first place.
 
2012-01-09 11:04:32 AM

karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.


The fact that you still believe ACORN stole the election shows you're one of the greatest fools on Fark. Conspiracy theorists are the most gullible people on the planet.
 
2012-01-09 11:07:57 AM

sigdiamond2000: "Obama is exactly like the idiot I spent 8 years defending, that's why he must be voted out of office or we'll all die from socialisms."


Naw, this guy is black. We need a white guy with good hair.
 
2012-01-09 11:08:51 AM

ReaverZ: What did I deny? Can you even read? How can you post but not be able to read?


Looks like you. Not sure I'm outraged at Obama being more conservative than Romney or Bush. But you seem offended.
 
2012-01-09 11:09:18 AM

Rashnu: Calling a center-right president a socialist usurper is retarded and poisons the political process


EyeballKid: Rashnu: I'm also going to enjoy the precedent all this has set when down the line we get a good ol' fashioned, staid, white, "middle"-of-the-road Dem president who the Right will rabidly and histrionically attack, condemn and refuse to work with just to prove that their frothing and nation-damaging hatred isn't race-based. Should be lulz.

Um, where were you during the 1990s?


I know there's always been that element, on both sides, but I do feel like it's burrowing ever deeper in and they've been prying extra hard at the cultural and social divides which they love to frame the battle around lest we realize that viciously fighting over our relatively few and surface differences comes at cost of advancing our many shared interests. The center cannot hold, things fall apart.
 
2012-01-09 11:11:28 AM

I_C_Weener: ReaverZ: What did I deny? Can you even read? How can you post but not be able to read?

Looks like you. Not sure I'm outraged at Obama being more conservative than Romney or Bush. But you seem offended.


Please post my denial. I am offend at your inference that he is stupid. Obama being conservative is pretty obvious.
 
2012-01-09 11:11:44 AM

ReaverZ: your average maint. man: is anyone sane anymore? they're all nuckingfutz!

Maybe the guys that never made it to debates.


I have a theory. All the other people were invited to the debates to make Romney look even better.
 
2012-01-09 11:14:36 AM

I_C_Weener: ReaverZ: your average maint. man: is anyone sane anymore? they're all nuckingfutz!

Maybe the guys that never made it to debates.

I have a theory. All the other people were invited to the debates to make Romney look even better.


But they all seem to have such massive egos, that playing the fall guy is beneath them. Especially Bachman and Santorum, they come off as true believers of there own bullshiat.
 
2012-01-09 11:15:38 AM
Plus, he's white!

/Sarcasm meter activated
/Fascinating all the black leadership and candidates (candidate) have disappeared from the approximately 90% white party just in time for the national election.
 
2012-01-09 11:15:44 AM

ReaverZ: Please post my denial. I am offend at your inference that he is stupid. Obama being conservative is pretty obvious.


Since I never said stupid, I don't think I'll engage you anymore.

i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-09 11:16:45 AM
jso2897

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.

In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!



Is that how you remember it?

plimages.blob.core.windows.net
 
2012-01-09 11:18:20 AM

karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.


www.drugs-expert.com
 
2012-01-09 11:18:58 AM

karnal: jso2897

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.

In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!


Is that how you remember it?

[plimages.blob.core.windows.net image 300x300]


OMG isn't posting a picture that terrifying a violation of the rules of Fark? I won't sleep for weeks!
 
2012-01-09 11:20:11 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: karnal:


Is that how you remember it?

[plimages.blob.core.windows.net image 300x300]

OMG isn't posting a picture that terrifying a violation of the rules of Fark? I won't sleep for weeks!


To be fair, I can see that being scary if black people terrify you.
 
2012-01-09 11:20:33 AM

I_C_Weener: I have a theory. All the other people were invited to the debates to make Romney look even better.


I've thought about that. It was clear even two years ago that the Republican primary was going to be an epic derp-fest, and thus highly damaging to whoever emerged as the nominee. By putting people like Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry up there alongside him, Romney's current positions look moderate by comparison, which can dull the edge of the "fringe right-wing agenda" sword come the general election. I've also considered the possibility that Gingrich and Perry are still in the race to derp it up for much the same reason. I can't imagine Perry being on board with that, but Gingrich is exactly the kind of guy who could (and would) try that. It also burnishes his credentials for VP, which would be perfect for him, since he doesn't have to do anything.
 
2012-01-09 11:21:15 AM
TFerWannaBe


karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.

The fact that you still believe ACORN stole the election shows you're one of the greatest fools on Fark. Conspiracy theorists are the most gullible people on the planet.



I never said they stole the election - I said they brought busses and paid voters to cast votes....but since it was for the Obama cause, it is totally legal.
 
2012-01-09 11:23:38 AM

SixPaperJoint: karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.

www.drugs-expert.com


"Studies have shown that older adults with dementia (a brain disorder that affects the ability to remember, think clearly, communicate, and perform daily activities and that may cause changes in mood and personality) who take antipsychotics (medications for mental illness) such as trifluoperazine have an increased chance of death during treatment."
 
2012-01-09 11:25:01 AM

karnal: TFerWannaBe


karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.

The fact that you still believe ACORN stole the election shows you're one of the greatest fools on Fark. Conspiracy theorists are the most gullible people on the planet.


I never said they stole the election - I said they brought busses and paid voters to cast votes....but since it was for the Obama cause, it is totally legal.


{Citation Needed}

/This should be good for a laugh
 
2012-01-09 11:25:10 AM

I_C_Weener: ReaverZ: Please post my denial. I am offend at your inference that he is stupid. Obama being conservative is pretty obvious.

Since I never said stupid, I don't think I'll engage you anymore.

[i586.photobucket.com image 500x375]


Really, this is Fark numbnuts.
 
2012-01-09 11:25:38 AM

karnal: TFerWannaBe


karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.

The fact that you still believe ACORN stole the election shows you're one of the greatest fools on Fark. Conspiracy theorists are the most gullible people on the planet.


I never said they stole the election - I said they brought busses and paid voters to cast votes....but since it was for the Obama cause, it is totally legal.


It means kisses the way you wrote it, which makes your post all weird and stuff.
 
2012-01-09 11:26:44 AM
I'm sure this will help Romney's chances. el oh el Link (new window)
 
2012-01-09 11:29:09 AM

ReaverZ: I_C_Weener: ReaverZ: Please post my denial. I am offend at your inference that he is stupid. Obama being conservative is pretty obvious.

Since I never said stupid, I don't think I'll engage you anymore.

[i586.photobucket.com image 500x375]

Really, this is Fark numbnuts.


Welcome to Fark, "Namecaller for arguments".
 
2012-01-09 11:30:24 AM

karnal: jso2897

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.

In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!


Is that how you remember it?

[plimages.blob.core.windows.net image 300x300]


One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.
 
2012-01-09 11:31:02 AM

ReaverZ: I_C_Weener: ReaverZ: Please post my denial. I am offend at your inference that he is stupid. Obama being conservative is pretty obvious.

Since I never said stupid, I don't think I'll engage you anymore.

[i586.photobucket.com image 500x375]

Really, this is Fark numbnuts.


Dude, don't even bother with him. He's the Politics tab's equivalent to The English Major. Except that he's a damn "moderator" who greenlights all these awful trolling headlines. He's just here to stir things up and drive pageclicks.
 
2012-01-09 11:31:02 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-01-09 11:31:24 AM
Obama isn't perfect, far from it, but i'd gladly take a thousand of him over anyone the GOP nominated. The debates showed us just how completely insane, unethical, or just plan indecisive their candidates are.

If this is the best they could come up with, they are in serious trouble.
 
2012-01-09 11:32:36 AM

BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.


Your plan is to count cards in Vegas? Isn't that a euphamism for what got us in this mess in the first place.

//almost forgot. 0/10.
 
2012-01-09 11:33:52 AM

karnal: Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.


Perhaps you should check IRS regulations as to why this occurred. Also you do realize that ACORN did dissolve, hence these name changes of it's local affiliates, just because their parent organization folds does not mean the locals fold also. This is very similar to when a National Chain that has Franchisees folds, the Franchisees still own their business and may continue their services albeit under a different name, also they do not change Tax and Employer Id's either.

Final thought: You do realize that the Attorney Generals of several states -after granting Mr. O'Keefe full immunity in exchange for viewing his unaudtied videos- found that ACORN committed no illegal acts. Which leads one to ask why Mr. O'Keefe demand immunity before he would turn this "evidence" over to the proper authorities? Now why would he do that?
 
2012-01-09 11:34:18 AM

Old enough to know better: He may be moderate, but unfortunately hes still a Republican, and those guys are heavily into Groupthink. Even if Mitt were to win the election, we'd find him quickly falling into line with the party.
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, a vote for any Republican, no matter how reasonable they sound is a vote for the likes of Boehner and Bachmann.


Yup.

It's important to remember that GWB the candidate was far more moderate than GWB the president, and when Nader went around telling everyone that Bush and Gore were the same, it actually got traction.
 
2012-01-09 11:34:43 AM

Riothamus: Dude, don't even bother with him. He's the Politics tab's equivalent to The English Major. Except that he's a damn "moderator" who greenlights all these awful trolling headlines. He's just here to stir things up and drive pageclicks.


First, Mods don't green light. Second...nope. Just a Romney voter. Third...that guy has issues.
 
2012-01-09 11:35:02 AM

TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, you are right. Letting the State have a monitor in your bedroom to make sure that any sexual activity with your wife is done in such a way as to allow the possibility of pregnancy is just a reasonable regulation of commerce like any other.

That's a bit of a leap.

I would hope though that there's a govt. body, somewhere along the way, making sure her birth control pills are safe, or that the x-x-large condoms Im using have been tested and proved effective.


Yes, it's called the FDA and the Republicans want to dismantle it.
 
2012-01-09 11:35:22 AM
>jso2897

karnal: jso2897

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.

In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!


Is that how you remember it?

[plimages.blob.core.windows.net image 300x300]

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.

didn't scare me at all.....the subject was voter intimidation.
 
2012-01-09 11:37:03 AM

karnal: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]


Well,. that's a clever picture. But it doesn't change anything. The fact is that, failing having committed a felony in some places, every adult American has a right to vote. Some even believe it to be a duty. The assertion that there is something wrong with encouraging and helping Americans to vote says volumes about your world view - and nothing about ACORN.
Tough titty, m'lord - they're letting the peasantry vote now, and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
2012-01-09 11:37:39 AM

Tarkus: TomD9938: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, you are right. Letting the State have a monitor in your bedroom to make sure that any sexual activity with your wife is done in such a way as to allow the possibility of pregnancy is just a reasonable regulation of commerce like any other.

That's a bit of a leap.

I would hope though that there's a govt. body, somewhere along the way, making sure her birth control pills are safe, or that the x-x-large condoms Im using have been tested and proved effective.

Yes, it's called the FDAevery agency and the Republicans want to dismantle it.


I know you were being specific, but I thought I'd broaden the scope a bit.
 
2012-01-09 11:38:05 AM

Antimatter: Obama isn't perfect, far from it, but i'd gladly take a thousand of him over anyone the GOP nominated. The debates showed us just how completely insane, unethical, or just plan indecisive their candidates are.

If this is the best they could come up with, they are in serious trouble.


Given the Republican candidates have pretty much guaranteed if they are elected, we are going to war with Iran (a country 4 times the size of Iraq, into which we put 1.5 million military personnel over 9 years), pretty much A GREAT BIG THIS!

If you love what our country used to be, it would be prudent for Republicans like me to continue voting for Democratic presidential candidates.
 
2012-01-09 11:38:50 AM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-01-09 11:39:08 AM

karnal: >jso2897

karnal: jso2897

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.

In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!


Is that how you remember it?

[plimages.blob.core.windows.net image 300x300]

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.

didn't scare me at all.....the subject was voter intimidation.


Lolwut? I'm really starting to think you're just having me on, here.
 
2012-01-09 11:39:48 AM

karnal: TFerWannaBe


karnal: Where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise

California ACORN changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.
New York ACORN renamed itself New York Communities for Change.
Acorn Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America yet has retained the same tax and employee identification numbers that it held under its former name.

The fact that you still believe ACORN stole the election shows you're one of the greatest fools on Fark. Conspiracy theorists are the most gullible people on the planet.


I never said they stole the election - I said they brought busses and paid voters to cast votes....but since it was for the Obama cause, it is totally legal.


Don't stop believing!
 
2012-01-09 11:40:41 AM

coeyagi: our plan is to count cards in Vegas? Isn't that a euphamism for what got us in this mess in the first place.


jesus - there are still people who don't have that asshole on ignore?
 
2012-01-09 11:42:05 AM

FlashHarry: coeyagi: our plan is to count cards in Vegas? Isn't that a euphamism for what got us in this mess in the first place.

jesus - there are still people who don't have that asshole on ignore?


I only ignore people who persist with their nonsense. BillCo is kind of a hit and run troller, i.e., he doesn't clog up a thread with utter dogcrap.
 
2012-01-09 11:49:40 AM

Magorn: Philip Francis Queeg: shivashakti: Philip Francis Queeg: You could go with Newt.

Newt's an utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever. He makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband.
.

Yeah, but he's not a religious zealot. And let's be honest Cain isn't far behind in the "utter scumbag with no morality whatsoever who makes Bill Clinton look like a good husband" category.

What's sad is that there is a guy running for the GOP nomination that, liberal though I am, I would give serious thought to voting for. He's a charismatic speaker, and a lot of what he says about how to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics really resonates with me. Also as a former Governor and Congressman, he's better qualified than most of the GOP field. Sadly however he's polling in the nearly negative numbers.

An no his name isn't Huntsman, or even Johnson. Let's leave it as an exercise to the reader to see if anyone even knows he's running or whether the media blackout on him is almost total.


Roemer? I like his assertive stance on campaign finance. Walking the walk is to be commended.
 
2012-01-09 12:29:22 PM
In order to take the White House back from the dangerous, liberal, radical socialist who has nearly destroyed America, it looks like the GOP has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas

But he's not black, so vote for him.
 
2012-01-09 12:43:42 PM
Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...
 
2012-01-09 12:52:20 PM

CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...


Obama: This bill has other good stuff and the bad stuff I won't enforce.

CeroX: I am gonna vote for the guy who supports the gold standard, thinks consumers can go fark themselves and die of food poisoning, and doesn't care a lick if blacks / atheists / gays' rights are sodomized by state legislatures.

Seems reasonable, bro.
 
2012-01-09 12:52:48 PM

CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...


Are you somehow of the opinion that the NDAA would not be law if Ron Paul was president? Because that's not how a veto override works.
 
2012-01-09 12:54:49 PM
As a progressive, I don't mind the prospect of a Romney presidency. He's the kind of guy who would work with Democrats in Congress to achieve some progressive goals in order to build bipartisan consensus. Given his pro-choice past, I don't even think he would appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices. He'd be more likely to appoint an old school New England conservative like, say, Mr. Justice Souter. Liberal on some issues, libertarian on others.
 
2012-01-09 12:57:43 PM

CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...


I was angry at Obama about the NDAA - until I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the situation. Without regard to what he says (and he lies a lot) Ron Paul would have signed the exact same bill.
Now if you want to vote for him, that's your right, of course. Indeed, if you wish, you could just wipe your ass with your ballot and flush it down the toilet.
Same thing, so suit yourself.
 
2012-01-09 12:59:24 PM

bugontherug: As a progressive, I don't mind the prospect of a Romney presidency. He's the kind of guy who would work with Democrats in Congress to achieve some progressive goals in order to build bipartisan consensus. Given his pro-choice past, I don't even think he would appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices. He'd be more likely to appoint an old school New England conservative like, say, Mr. Justice Souter. Liberal on some issues, libertarian on others.


To follow that up, nominating someone like Santorum would be the best way for conservatives to say "f*ck you" to liberals. Santorum would definitely promote a kooky conservative agenda. Since he would be elected by conservatives more than independents, he just wouldn't have the wiggle room to appoint the kinds of judges Romney would. Doing so would alienate his core support. Romney, by contrast, would anger the moderates and independents who voted for him if he appointed some far right activist judge.
 
2012-01-09 01:02:15 PM
images.cheezburger.com
 
2012-01-09 01:02:17 PM
jso2897 [TotalFark] Edit/Remove Favorite UserAdd Favorite User

*
* Smartest
*
* Funniest
*

Quote 2012-01-09 11:39:08 AM Edit/unIgnore User Ignore User

karnal: >jso2897

karnal: jso2897

vygramul: Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: ReaverZ

karnal: Cletus C.

Obama vs. Romney should be an interesting election. Economy is improving, it seems, which will certainly favor Obama if it continues. But will he be able to generate the excitement he did last time now that people have seen he really isn't that much different than the rest of them?

A lot of the Obama vote depends on getting people to vote who generally don't. A lot of the Republican vote depends on getting people to vote who are far right of Romney.

Yep, should be interesting


I am sure ACORN has that covered already......bring in the buses and gift cards.

Wow, they are soo powerful they can change elections even though they don't exist anymore? Please, let us in on this secret information you have? Are you one of the guys that went to Mars with Obama??!!


gul·li·ble (gl-bl) adj.
Easily deceived or duped.

ACORN is everywhere! Even under your bed.

Clearly, we need a Simon Wiesenthal-like institute to chase down former ACORN electoral criminals who perpetrated massive voter fraud and packed 6 million votes for McCain/Palin into boxcars and incinerated them - even separating chads from their vote cards and packing them into voter-suppression chambers all in a continent-wide campaign of destroying an entire culture of derp.

In one horrible example of voter intimidation, they stationed an old, drunk black man with a stick in from of a polling place, as an act of terrorism.
A drunk black man with a STICK!!
It's the Nazis all over again!


Is that how you remember it?

[plimages.blob.core.windows.net image 300x300]

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.
 
2012-01-09 01:03:27 PM

bugontherug: As a progressive, I don't mind the prospect of a Romney presidency. He's the kind of guy who would work with Democrats in Congress to achieve some progressive goals in order to build bipartisan consensus. Given his pro-choice past, I don't even think he would appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices. He'd be more likely to appoint an old school New England conservative like, say, Mr. Justice Souter. Liberal on some issues, libertarian on others.


You sure about that?

Mitt Romney would govern in the way he determines is best for Mitt Romney. If he thinks that "fark the Democrats" is what will help him get reelected, then that's what he would do. Since most of his base is half-convinced he's a closet liberal, he will need to do things like this.

I also seriously doubt that Romney would send the nomination of a justice like Souter to a GOP-led Senate. GOP President + GOP Senate = Roberts and Alito.
 
2012-01-09 01:05:00 PM
Oh and Im not taking side, just clarifying the identity of those two clowns. I hate all the politicians involved and cant see myself voting for any of them from the GOP, and I dont know with NDAA if I can vote for Obama again.
 
2012-01-09 01:09:15 PM

qorkfiend: CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...

Are you somehow of the opinion that the NDAA would not be law if Ron Paul was president? Because that's not how a veto override works.


Oh i know how it works, but what were the numbers passed the first time? 2/3rd? I honestly don't think that both the house and senate would feel so passionately about being able to imprison american citizens that they would override a veto for it
 
2012-01-09 01:10:28 PM
Isn't karnal forgetting something?

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-09 01:11:36 PM

qorkfiend: You sure about that?

Mitt Romney would govern in the way he determines is best for Mitt Romney. If he thinks that "fark the Democrats" is what will help him get reelected, then that's what he would do. Since most of his base is half-convinced he's a closet liberal, he will need to do things like this.


I think this is almost the complete opposite of reality. There's a saying in Washington: "you dance with who brung ya." If Romney gets elected, it will be because of support from moderates and independents, not the conservatives who are suspicious of him. Romney won't want to risk alienating the people who put him in office by appointing far right judges.

I also seriously doubt that Romney would send the nomination of a justice like Souter to a GOP-led Senate. GOP President + GOP Senate = Roberts and Alito.

Justice Souter was appointed by Bush Sr. For basically the same reason I think Romney would appoint a Souter. He wanted to appeal to the political center, and not the far right. Romney is no Bush Jr. He draws his support from a very different crowd. New Hampshire moderates like Romney much more than do red blooded conservatives.
 
2012-01-09 01:11:43 PM

CeroX: Oh i know how it works, but what were the numbers passed the first time? 2/3rd? I honestly don't think that both the house and senate would feel so passionately about being able to imprison american citizens that they would override a veto for it


The vote was something along the lines of 90-7 in the Senate, and two-thirds majority in the House. If the Senate and House didn't feel so passionately about the detention provisions, why did they include them in the farking bill?
 
2012-01-09 01:16:25 PM

jso2897: CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...

I was angry at Obama about the NDAA - until I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the situation. Without regard to what he says (and he lies a lot) Ron Paul would have signed the exact same bill.
Now if you want to vote for him, that's your right, of course. Indeed, if you wish, you could just wipe your ass with your ballot and flush it down the toilet.
Same thing, so suit yourself.


You might want to do a youtube search for ron pauls speech against the NDAA. Why would you say he WOULD vote for it when he did NOT vote for it. And spoke against it quite passionately? For show? Because his track record on voting pretty much is in alignment of how i feel about things. Last election i didn't know who ron paul was, other than every pot head i knew or saw wanted him in office. Which didn't exactly make me thrilled to want to know who the guy is. But this year i got to hear a little more, and do a little research and frankly, the guy has guts and his track record shows it.

I think the in-step republicans fear him because he could actually change how they do business. He's rocking the status quo boat and that's good enough for me...
 
2012-01-09 01:21:05 PM

bugontherug: I think this is almost the complete opposite of reality. There's a saying in Washington: "you dance with who brung ya." If Romney gets elected, it will be because of support from moderates and independents, not the conservatives who are suspicious of him. Romney won't want to risk alienating the people who put him in office by appointing far right judges.


The center by itself is not enough for Romney; he needs the right wing.

bugontherug: Justice Souter was appointed by Bush Sr. For basically the same reason I think Romney would appoint a Souter. He wanted to appeal to the political center, and not the far right. Romney is no Bush Jr. He draws his support from a very different crowd. New Hampshire moderates like Romney much more than do red blooded conservatives.


Romney the man may want to, but Romney the President and de facto leader of the GOP would be in a very tough spot. Bush Sr. was also faced with an opposition Senate in 1990, 56-44; Romney would probably be looking at a friendly Senate with roughly the same split, and it would be catastrophic for his presidency if a friendly Senate rejected his nomination.
 
2012-01-09 01:22:15 PM

qorkfiend: CeroX: Oh i know how it works, but what were the numbers passed the first time? 2/3rd? I honestly don't think that both the house and senate would feel so passionately about being able to imprison american citizens that they would override a veto for it

The vote was something along the lines of 90-7 in the Senate, and two-thirds majority in the House. If the Senate and House didn't feel so passionately about the detention provisions, why did they include them in the farking bill?


I find this fact terrifying. Yeah there's some good in that bill, but should the cost of some decent provision be the cost of our freedom? The deconstruction of our constitution?

Can you toe the party line so much that you would tear apart the constitution for them? Because that's what i'm seeing. I feel anyone who voted for the bill should be brought on charges of treason.
 
2012-01-09 01:24:24 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: Oh and Im not taking side, just clarifying the identity of those two clowns. I hate all the politicians involved and cant see myself voting for any of them from the GOP, and I dont know with NDAA if I can vote for Obama again.


That really doesn't "clarify" anything for me. There was a charge made of deliberate "voter intimidation". I have looked into that incident, and see no evidence thereof. What I am offered is a picture of a couple of guys standing somewhere one of them had a right to be, and from where the other was asked to leave and did, and bothering no one. Neither was arrested for any weapons violation, so apparently whatever they were allegedly carrying were not weapons.
I guess I'm supposed to be scared of them, but they just look like a couple of sad sacks to me - and as to how they allegedly feel about white folks, I could care less, and it's none of my business. Last time I checked, my right to participate in the democratic process was not dependent upon my stating that I like black folks.
And let's quit bullshiatting anyway. The only thing about those two clowns that is intimidating to anyone is their appearance and their race - this was never anything but pants pissing hysteria - as the police who were called by some hysterical flibbertygibbet established. The only problem was that one of them was not a proper poll observer, and was intoxicated - he was asked to leave, and did so peacefully.
And my question - what was there here for any mentally healthy person to be scared of - still goes unanswered.
 
2012-01-09 01:27:17 PM

CeroX: qorkfiend: CeroX: Oh i know how it works, but what were the numbers passed the first time? 2/3rd? I honestly don't think that both the house and senate would feel so passionately about being able to imprison american citizens that they would override a veto for it

The vote was something along the lines of 90-7 in the Senate, and two-thirds majority in the House. If the Senate and House didn't feel so passionately about the detention provisions, why did they include them in the farking bill?

I find this fact terrifying. Yeah there's some good in that bill, but should the cost of some decent provision be the cost of our freedom? The deconstruction of our constitution?

Can you toe the party line so much that you would tear apart the constitution for them? Because that's what i'm seeing. I feel anyone who voted for the bill should be brought on charges of treason.


The only people responsible for the content of the NDAA is Congress. If there's bad mixed in with the good, the responsibility for that lies solely at the feet of Congress.
 
2012-01-09 01:31:18 PM

CeroX: jso2897: CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...

I was angry at Obama about the NDAA - until I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the situation. Without regard to what he says (and he lies a lot) Ron Paul would have signed the exact same bill.
Now if you want to vote for him, that's your right, of course. Indeed, if you wish, you could just wipe your ass with your ballot and flush it down the toilet.
Same thing, so suit yourself.

You might want to do a youtube search for ron pauls speech against the NDAA. Why would you say he WOULD vote for it when he did NOT vote for it. And spoke against it quite passionately? For show? Because his track record on voting pretty much is in alignment of how i feel about things. Last election i didn't know who ron paul was, other than every pot head i knew or saw wanted him in office. Which didn't exactly make me thrilled to want to know who the guy is. But this year i got to hear a little more, and do a little research and frankly, the guy has guts and his track record shows it.

I think the in-step republicans fear him because he could actually change how they do business. He's rocking the status quo boat and that's good enough for me...


You misunderstand me. I did not mean that he did not vote for it in his capacity as congressman - rather that he would not have vetoed it as president - and he wouldn't have, because of the consequences - he's not that irresponsible.
And nobody fears him - he will never be anything but a congressman from some jerkwater district in Texas, and after next term he won't even be that anymore. He isn't scary - he's irrelevant.
By the way as a REAL Libertarian, I have been following his career since 1988, when he led the right-wing incursion into the Libertarian Party of which I was then a member, beginning the process of subverting the party into Republican mini-Me. I have forgotten more than you know about the guy - and he is a huge fraud - check him out for real sometime.
 
2012-01-09 01:34:29 PM
"In order to take the White House back from the dangerous, liberal, radical socialist who has nearly destroyed America, it looks like the media along with the rest of the left are doing everything they can to convince the GOP that the GOP has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas"
FIXED!

/dream on
 
2012-01-09 01:34:36 PM
jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.



johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....
 
2012-01-09 01:37:24 PM

qorkfiend: bugontherug: I think this is almost the complete opposite of reality. There's a saying in Washington: "you dance with who brung ya." If Romney gets elected, it will be because of support from moderates and independents, not the conservatives who are suspicious of him. Romney won't want to risk alienating the people who put him in office by appointing far right judges.

The center by itself is not enough for Romney; he needs the right wing.

bugontherug: Justice Souter was appointed by Bush Sr. For basically the same reason I think Romney would appoint a Souter. He wanted to appeal to the political center, and not the far right. Romney is no Bush Jr. He draws his support from a very different crowd. New Hampshire moderates like Romney much more than do red blooded conservatives.

Romney the man may want to, but Romney the President and de facto leader of the GOP would be in a very tough spot. Bush Sr. was also faced with an opposition Senate in 1990, 56-44; Romney would probably be looking at a friendly Senate with roughly the same split, and it would be catastrophic for his presidency if a friendly Senate rejected his nomination.


We're used to "base elections" these days. I.e., elections where the parties strive to energize their bases more than occupy the center. Since the American left is so weak, Obama has already spent most of his administration appealing to the center, and that will be the type of campaign he runs. Romney, on the other hand, is weak with the conservative base, and so he'll have to run an old school "appeal to the center" campaign. It will be a very different campaign from what we're used to, and if Romney wins, a very different presidency. Romney as president will act more like Bush Sr. than Bush Jr.

To put your argument that Romney needs the right to win into perspective, look at his primary campaign. Yes, Romney has derped a little to appeal to the crazy right. But even in the Republican primary, where his victory depends much more heavily on the approval of conservatives, Romney has purposely refrained from going fully off the derp end specifically so he could run a centrist campaign in the general. Romney is smarter than Scott Walker. Romney won't run a centrist campaign, only to alienate voters by implementing a far right agenda he didn't campaign on.

In short, if Romney doesn't need to electrify conservatives in order to win the GOP primary, he won't in the general. And he won't as president, either.
 
2012-01-09 01:39:49 PM

jso2897: CeroX: jso2897: CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...

I was angry at Obama about the NDAA - until I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the situation. Without regard to what he says (and he lies a lot) Ron Paul would have signed the exact same bill.
Now if you want to vote for him, that's your right, of course. Indeed, if you wish, you could just wipe your ass with your ballot and flush it down the toilet.
Same thing, so suit yourself.

You might want to do a youtube search for ron pauls speech against the NDAA. Why would you say he WOULD vote for it when he did NOT vote for it. And spoke against it quite passionately? For show? Because his track record on voting pretty much is in alignment of how i feel about things. Last election i didn't know who ron paul was, other than every pot head i knew or saw wanted him in office. Which didn't exactly make me thrilled to want to know who the guy is. But this year i got to hear a little more, and do a little research and frankly, the guy has guts and his track record shows it.

I think the in-step republicans fear him because he could actually change how they do business. He's rocking the status quo boat and that's good enough for me...

You misunderstand me. I did not mean that he did not vote for it in his capacity as congressman - rather that he would not have vetoed it as president - and he wouldn't have, because of the consequences - he's not that irresponsible.
And nobody fears him - he will never be anything but a congressman from some jerkwater district in Texas, and after next term he won't even be that anymore. He isn't scary - he's irrelevant.
By the way as a REAL Libertarian, I have been following his career since 1988, when he led the right-wing incursion into the Libertarian Party of which I was then a member, beginning the process of subverting the party into Republican mini-Me. I have forgotten more than you know about the guy - and he is ...


I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...
 
2012-01-09 01:42:09 PM

BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.



So the powers that be have added Smart and Funny buttons but still nothing for Asinine or Troll.


I guess they wanted a smaller test first...
 
2012-01-09 01:42:14 PM

Bo Giggity: "In order to take the White House back from the dangerous, liberal, radical socialist who has nearly destroyed America, it looks like the media along with the rest of the left are doing everything they can to convince the GOP that the GOP has settled on running the guy with nearly identical policies and ideas"
FIXED!

/dream on


You're right. You are dreaming.
 
2012-01-09 01:43:02 PM

CeroX: I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...


What did Paul finish 2nd place in?
 
2012-01-09 01:48:04 PM

CeroX: I find this fact terrifying. Yeah there's some good in that bill, but should the cost of some decent provision be the cost of our freedom? The deconstruction of our constitution?


I'm less than pleased with the indefinite detention law myself. But please read this extended discussion by an informed technocrat before repeating so much of the derp that has been spread about it.

Link (new window)

While the law is important, it's not the "ZOMG!!! OSAMA THE CIVIL LIBERTIES DESTROYER HAS REDUCED US ALL TO SERFS" tyranny it's been presented as.

From the link:

So if it doesn't significantly expand the government's detention authority, doesn't authorize detention of citizens, doesn't really mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects, and doesn't do more to prevent the closure of Gitmo than does current law, what's all the fuss about? Is it even important?

"The final bill is, indeed, far less consequential than earlier versions would have been. Much of the fuss is overblown. That said, the bill has several important elements:

* The codification of detention authority in statute is a significant development, not because it enables anything that Congress had previously forbidden but because it puts the legislature squarely behind a set of policies on which it had always retained a kind of strategic ambiguity-a tolerance for detention without a clear endorsement of it of the sort that would make members accountable. Congress has now given that endorsement, and that is no small thing.
* The transfer restrictions will continue to have negative effects on administration management of detainee affairs, reducing flexibility and agility and compelling the continued detention of people the administration does not want to detain, in a status the administration does not wish to use, and at a facility it would prefer to vacate. That this is no change from current law-indeed, that the NDAA offers slightly more flexibility than does current law-does not make these restrictions any less troublesome.
* The rump mandatory detention provision remains a bit of a wild card that could have mischievous effects in practice. Though it ends up requiring very little, it does impose-as we have described-a default option of military detention for certain categories of cases. And this option might prove politically difficult to jettison."
 
2012-01-09 01:50:21 PM
pwhp_67


BillCo: Rain Man would be preferable to the moron we have in office now.


So the powers that be have added Smart and Funny buttons but still nothing for Asinine or Troll.

I guess they wanted a smaller test first...



I saw Andrew over in the corner repeatedly pressing the smart button on one of his own comments.....


/whatadim!
 
2012-01-09 01:54:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...

What did Paul finish 2nd place in?


Sorry, that should be 3rd, in the caucus... my bad on that
 
2012-01-09 01:56:00 PM

bugontherug: CeroX: I find this fact terrifying. Yeah there's some good in that bill, but should the cost of some decent provision be the cost of our freedom? The deconstruction of our constitution?

I'm less than pleased with the indefinite detention law myself. But please read this extended discussion by an informed technocrat before repeating so much of the derp that has been spread about it.

Link (new window)

While the law is important, it's not the "ZOMG!!! OSAMA THE CIVIL LIBERTIES DESTROYER HAS REDUCED US ALL TO SERFS" tyranny it's been presented as.

From the link:

So if it doesn't significantly expand the government's detention authority, doesn't authorize detention of citizens, doesn't really mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects, and doesn't do more to prevent the closure of Gitmo than does current law, what's all the fuss about? Is it even important?

"The final bill is, indeed, far less consequential than earlier versions would have been. Much of the fuss is overblown. That said, the bill has several important elements:

* The codification of detention authority in statute is a significant development, not because it enables anything that Congress had previously forbidden but because it puts the legislature squarely behind a set of policies on which it had always retained a kind of strategic ambiguity-a tolerance for detention without a clear endorsement of it of the sort that would make members accountable. Congress has now given that endorsement, and that is no small thing.
* The transfer restrictions will continue to have negative effects on administration management of detainee affairs, reducing flexibility and agility and compelling the continued detention of people the administration does not want to detain, in a status the administration does not wish to use, and at a facility it would prefer to vacate. That this is no change from current law-indeed, that the NDAA offers slightly more flexibility than does current law-does not ...


Don't cloud the issues with the facts.
 
2012-01-09 02:02:53 PM
Much like Bush 43 Mit is trying to redeem his father's respect. That way he can meet him happily in that very special heaven mormons have concocted for themselves. For O it's either 70 virgins if he goes out a martyr or witch doctor heaven somewhere in Kenya.
 
2012-01-09 02:03:48 PM

CeroX: jso2897: CeroX: jso2897: CeroX: Obama's fate was sealed in my eyes with the NDAA

I will be voting for ron paul this year...

I was angry at Obama about the NDAA - until I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the situation. Without regard to what he says (and he lies a lot) Ron Paul would have signed the exact same bill.
Now if you want to vote for him, that's your right, of course. Indeed, if you wish, you could just wipe your ass with your ballot and flush it down the toilet.
Same thing, so suit yourself.

You might want to do a youtube search for ron pauls speech against the NDAA. Why would you say he WOULD vote for it when he did NOT vote for it. And spoke against it quite passionately? For show? Because his track record on voting pretty much is in alignment of how i feel about things. Last election i didn't know who ron paul was, other than every pot head i knew or saw wanted him in office. Which didn't exactly make me thrilled to want to know who the guy is. But this year i got to hear a little more, and do a little research and frankly, the guy has guts and his track record shows it.

I think the in-step republicans fear him because he could actually change how they do business. He's rocking the status quo boat and that's good enough for me...

You misunderstand me. I did not mean that he did not vote for it in his capacity as congressman - rather that he would not have vetoed it as president - and he wouldn't have, because of the consequences - he's not that irresponsible.
And nobody fears him - he will never be anything but a congressman from some jerkwater district in Texas, and after next term he won't even be that anymore. He isn't scary - he's irrelevant.
By the way as a REAL Libertarian, I have been following his career since 1988, when he led the right-wing incursion into the Libertarian Party of which I was then a member, beginning the process of subverting the party into Republican mini-Me. I have forgotten more than you know about the guy - a ...


I am indifferent to him, and regard him as irrelevant. I'm passionate about arguing about random crap when I'm bored - don't confuse the two. But I'm not lecturing you - I voted Libertarian for 30 years, and understand that there can be reasons to vote for someone one knows won't win. Hell, if the Libertarians ever snap out of it and nominate anyone good again, I might vote that way in certain elections. Since I live in California, I could vote for Donald Duck in 2012 for all the difference it makes, since this is a winner take all state, certain to go to Obama.
So I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, If I did.
 
2012-01-09 02:06:11 PM

karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....


Look up-page - already responded to, though by me, not by a "dim" , whatever that is - so it may not count in your book.
 
2012-01-09 02:12:43 PM
jso2897

karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....

Look up-page - already responded to, though by me, not by a "dim" , whatever that is - so it may not count in your book.



My book is non-fiction....so, no, it does not count.

Dim = dimocrat
 
2012-01-09 02:17:46 PM

karnal: jso2897

karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....

Look up-page - already responded to, though by me, not by a "dim" , whatever that is - so it may not count in your book.


My book is non-fiction....so, no, it does not count.

Dim = dimocrat


Ah. I am not a Democrat - never have been - unaffiliated, former registered Libertarian.
I thought perhaps you meant "dimwit", and seeing as how I'm here posting on Fark, that would be hard to deny.
At any rate, I did respond to that post - but I have noticed that Fark has started cutting off the bottom of quotes if they get too long, which makes things confusing.
I guess I'm going to have to get over my laziness and start editing out the first parts of quotes to contain the size.
 
2012-01-09 02:19:59 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: jso2897

Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.


One of the two was a credentialed poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a police-style nightstick baton. Both were members of the NBPP, however an injunction was sought only on Shabazz with police determining at the scene that the credentialed poll watcher wasn't engaged in intimidation. Baton Boy was removed from the scene at 10 am. He is 41 years old and has some serious farking problems.

The guy you're calling King Malik, is actually named Samir. The other guy has no criminal record and hasn't been associated with some 'record of hating white people' beyond belonging to the NBPP. And it's a bit hard to follow a dead man, considering Khalid Muhammad died in 2001.

The gist of your point is there, but it's so factually inaccurate that it's kind of hard to take it seriously.
 
2012-01-09 02:23:04 PM

bugontherug: We're used to "base elections" these days. I.e., elections where the parties strive to energize their bases more than occupy the center. Since the American left is so weak, Obama has already spent most of his administration appealing to the center, and that will be the type of campaign he runs. Romney, on the other hand, is weak with the conservative base, and so he'll have to run an old school "appeal to the center" campaign. It will be a very different campaign from what we're used to, and if Romney wins, a very different presidency. Romney as president will act more like Bush Sr. than Bush Jr.

To put your argument that Romney needs the right to win into perspective, look at his primary campaign. Yes, Romney has derped a little to appeal to the crazy right. But even in the Republican primary, where his victory depends much more heavily on the approval of conservatives, Romney has purposely refrained from going fully off the derp end specifically so he could run a centrist campaign in the general. Romney is smarter than Scott Walker. Romney won't run a centrist campaign, only to alienate voters by implementing a far right agenda he didn't campaign on.


I don't consider the left as weak as much as apathetic (which does translate to weakness in electoral politics, I suppose); in contrast the right is typically highly energized. Romney has indeed walked an exceedingly fine line between the moderate and radical right-wing factions, and done so very well and for the exact reason you name, but the fact remains that he has to get his base out to vote on election day to have any hope of winning. Obama is faced with a similar problem, albeit for different reasons, so Romney's chief strategy would be to cater to his base, pick up whatever disaffected moderates he can, and try to suppress turnout on the left.

I don't think Romney would be a Bush Jr.-esque president, but I do think he'd be to the right of Bush Sr., who was probably forced to move to his left due to Democratic control of both Houses of Congress from day 1. Similarly, GOP control of Congress would push whoever was the President to the right.
 
2012-01-09 02:24:22 PM

karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....


Apart from pointing out that it's largely incorrect? Not particularly. I'd add, before it becomes the *next* issue, that the justice dept. found the *party* innocent of wrongdoing, and that it did indeed file charges against Samir Shabazz. Since that tends to follow.

And I might add as well that there were no complaints whatsoever from voters in that district.

On an unrelated note, I'll also include that you're kind of a sad sack.
 
2012-01-09 02:29:39 PM
b>jso2897


karnal: jso2897

karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....

Look up-page - already responded to, though by me, not by a "dim" , whatever that is - so it may not count in your book.


My book is non-fiction....so, no, it does not count.

Dim = dimocrat

Ah. I am not a Democrat - never have been - unaffiliated, former registered Libertarian.I thought perhaps you meant "dimwit", and seeing as how I'm here posting on Fark, that would be hard to deny.
At any rate, I did respond to that post - but I have noticed that Fark has started cutting off the bottom of quotes if they get too long, which makes things confusing.
I guess I'm going to have to get over my laziness and start editing out the first parts of quotes to contain the size.



I have decided that I like you....not that it matters to you probably.
 
2012-01-09 02:47:07 PM

BeesNuts: johan heggs tiny man nipples: jso2897

Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.

One of the two was a credentialed poll watcher, while the other was a New Black Panther member who had brought a police-style nightstick baton. Both were members of the NBPP, however an injunction was sought only on Shabazz with police determining at the scene that the credentialed poll watcher wasn't engaged in intimidation. Baton Boy was removed from the scene at 10 am. He is 41 years old and has some serious farking problems.

The guy you're calling King Malik, is actually named Samir. The other guy has no criminal record and hasn't been associated with some 'record of hating white people' beyond belonging to the NBPP. And it's a bit hard to follow a dead man, considering Khalid Muhammad died in 2001.

The gist of your point is there, but it's so factually inaccurate that it's kind of hard to take it seriously.


And I still fail to see any "intimidation". What, exactly, am I supposed to find "intimidating" about these two guys? They look like a couple of the winos that hang out on the Boardwalk (I live in Venice, CA). I see fifty guys that look like that every day - the most aggressive thing they ever do is ask me for change or try to sell me some home cooked hip-hop CD.
They "hate white people"? Well whoopdie-frickin'-doo. There's no shortage of black folks that hate white folks, or white folks that hate black folks. Both are mostly total pussies, in my experience, and I have no fear of, or respect for, either one.
The drunk guy had a "truncheon"? Was threatening people with it? And the cops just shooed him off (you can't be drunk around a polling place, no matter how you are behaving) but somehow, mysteriously made no arrest?
I'm sorry - I was raised on a farm, and I know what bullshiat smells like.

I ask once more - what is there here for any rational person to be intimidated by?
And this incident - this one , single incident, is supposed to be evidence of some sort of concerted campaign to intimidate people?

Look - if you think that only people who look like you, dress like you, and act like you should be allowed to participate in democracy, just come out and say it. But don't try to tell me that you are intimidated by a certified election observer and a drunk with a stick. Even if it's true, it says a lot more about you than it does about them.
 
2012-01-09 02:48:33 PM

BeesNuts: karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....

Apart from pointing out that it's largely incorrect? Not particularly. I'd add, before it becomes the *next* issue, that the justice dept. found the *party* innocent of wrongdoing, and that it did indeed file charges against Samir Shabazz. Since that tends to follow.

And I might add as well that there were no complaints whatsoever from voters in that district.

On an unrelated note, I'll also include that you're kind of a sad sack.


He didn't call them sad sacks - I did. It's not a term I apply to people I find intimidating.
 
2012-01-09 02:52:17 PM

karnal: b>jso2897


karnal: jso2897

karnal: jso2897

One of those guys was a registered poll observer, who had every right and reason to be there. the other is a random drunk . Those are the facts - check 'em.
But anyway - are you telling me that you actually find those two sad sacks FRIGHTENING?
Damn, son. Don't take much to scare you.


johan heggs tiny man nipples



Actually the one with Dreadlocks is King Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther party and the tall one is his lackey who's name I forget. They are both on record as hating white people, they are followers of Khallid Muhammud, famous for the "Kill White babies" speech. Neither are registered poll observers, both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions.



Any Dim like to respond to this? coeyagi? I didn't think so.....

Look up-page - already responded to, though by me, not by a "dim" , whatever that is - so it may not count in your book.


My book is non-fiction....so, no, it does not count.

Dim = dimocrat

Ah. I am not a Democrat - never have been - unaffiliated, former registered Libertarian.I thought perhaps you meant "dimwit", and seeing as how I'm here posting on Fark, that would be hard to deny.
At any rate, I did respond to that post - but I have noticed that Fark has started cutting off the bottom of quotes if they get too long, which makes things confusing.
I guess I'm going to have to get over my laziness and start editing out the first parts of quotes to contain the size.


I have decided that I like you....not that it matters to you probably.


Sure it does - I don't dislike people just because I argue with them furiously - that's what we're here for, and I regard 99% of the people I meet here as my friends.
But, noticing what you bolded - I hope you don't say that just because of my political affiliations. Some of my favorite people here are people I regard to be completely insane - that's the fun part of Fark.
 
2012-01-09 03:14:55 PM
beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly.
 
2012-01-09 03:25:11 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly.

lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.
 
2012-01-09 03:25:41 PM

imontheinternet: The one good thing that could possibly come from an Obamney general election is that it would encourage Ron Paul to make a third party run. Even if he doesn't win, a strong showing could plant the seed for a third party of malcontents, which another candidate could bring to prominence in the future.


I know I've seen this episode before, but I wonder who will play Admiral Stockdale this time.
 
2012-01-09 03:37:44 PM

qorkfiend: I don't consider the left as weak as much as apathetic (which does translate to weakness in electoral politics,


I don't find the left apathetic. I would characterize them as "alienated." They don't feel that even the progressive party represents them. The problem is, it's a vicious cycle. The less progressives engage, the more the Democrats move to the right, further alienating them from progressives, who in turn become still less engaged.

The way to move the party back to the left is more engagement, especially at the primary level. And yes, it means holding your nose and voting even for Democrats you don't like because they're "too centrist." Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and others are all politicians. If their voters move to the left, so will they. But if because of low progressive voter turnout their voters default back to the right, so will they.
 
2012-01-09 03:40:19 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly.


Oh, sure. But a lot of that crap goes on, from all sides of the political spectrum. Asshole behavior is endemic to every level of politics. But voter intimidation is a serious charge, and not one to be made out of hysteria.

No actual voter complained - only one poll worker. And this is where I start to feel the cold crisp sting of hyperbole - because the cops came, appropriately ran Drunky McStickerson off, and didn't arrest him or confiscate his "weapon". Now, if in fact, this guy had something truly dangerous, and was really "brandishing" it at people, would that have been the outcome? That sounds like very un-coplike behavior to me. Because we all know how lenient cops are with raggedy-assed drunkards with weapons.
No, I think some hysteric saw somebody they felt was alien and scary, and panicked. And I sure don't see how this was spun into (as one RW pundit said) a "campaign of intimidation".
The whole story is 20% fact, and 80% hysteria and hyperbole, and it's annoying that they try to recycle it every few months, apparently hoping that people have forgotten that it's bullshiat.
 
2012-01-09 03:41:37 PM

bugontherug: qorkfiend: I don't consider the left as weak as much as apathetic (which does translate to weakness in electoral politics,

I don't find the left apathetic. I would characterize them as "alienated." They don't feel that even the progressive party represents them. The problem is, it's a vicious cycle. The less progressives engage, the more the Democrats move to the right, further alienating them from progressives, who in turn become still less engaged.

The way to move the party back to the left is more engagement, especially at the primary level. And yes, it means holding your nose and voting even for Democrats you don't like because they're "too centrist." Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and others are all politicians. If their voters move to the left, so will they. But if because of low progressive voter turnout their voters default back to the right, so will they.


Good points all.
 
2012-01-09 03:48:47 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.


Jonathan - please stop insisting that anyone who doesn't see this your way is uniformed, or hasn't seen the media that is so freely available. I have. I don't see anything that would intimidate me for an instant. Having a drunk hanging around a polling place would annoy me, and I might even say something about it - but intimidated? Please.
And I don't have to imagine that I am white - I'm white, and 61 years old, and don't strap. I live in a pretty chaotic and diverse community, and I think I have a pretty good handle on who is or isn't a danger to me - and those two clowns just ain't scary - not by any reasonable standard.
Annoying - yes. Scary? I just can't see it.
 
2012-01-09 04:00:02 PM

qorkfiend: bugontherug: qorkfiend: I don't consider the left as weak as much as apathetic (which does translate to weakness in electoral politics,

I don't find the left apathetic. I would characterize them as "alienated." They don't feel that even the progressive party represents them. The problem is, it's a vicious cycle. The less progressives engage, the more the Democrats move to the right, further alienating them from progressives, who in turn become still less engaged.

The way to move the party back to the left is more engagement, especially at the primary level. And yes, it means holding your nose and voting even for Democrats you don't like because they're "too centrist." Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and others are all politicians. If their voters move to the left, so will they. But if because of low progressive voter turnout their voters default back to the right, so will they.

Good points all.


Seconded. And another thing - in a little while, a lot of the Washington establishment will have to start moving away from the right-wing orientation that has become its default. A good piece in yesterday's NY magazine (about the demotion of Obama's chief of staff) points out the reason: that establishment has completely misunderstood the prevailing mood of the electorate.

Daley's Demotion: How Washington Elites Got Obama Wrong (new window)
 
2012-01-09 04:02:30 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly.


Ok. He calls himself King Shabazz. Goody. That doesn't change the fact that YOU called him "King Malik Shabazz", when his name is actually King Samir Shabazz. Two different people. Factually incorrect.

One can follow a dead man's teachings, but you said they followed the man. Which is factually incorrect. The current leader of the NBPP is not the one who died in 2001. And, in fact, he denounced the actions of the one who armed himself. Which reminds me.

Yes. He had a nightstick (truncheon works to describe it as well), but that wasn't what I was calling factually incorrect. This was:
"both were dressed to intimidate and were carrying trunchions."

Not knowing what "dressed to intimidate" means. Unless you find leather intimidating. But only one was carrying a nightstick. Saying both were is factually incorrect.

And you specifically said that neither were poll workers when one of them absolutely was. Factually incorrect.

And your "point" was stated in your very next post where you said, "Oh and Im not taking side, just clarifying the identity of those two clowns." And you incorrectly 'clarified their identities'. So saying that "my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly." is also factually incorrect.

You and facts need to have a beer together and sort this out before you come on the internet and make things up to try and sound informed.
 
2012-01-09 04:04:20 PM
jso2897

I have decided that I like you....not that it matters to you probably.

Sure it does - I don't dislike people just because I argue with them furiously - that's what we're here for, and I regard 99% of the people I meet here as my friends.
But, noticing what you bolded - I hope you don't say that just because of my political affiliations. Some of my favorite people here are people I regard to be completely insane - that's the fun part of Fark.


Nope....your political affliations was just the icing on the cake.
 
2012-01-09 04:04:30 PM

Wooly Bully: qorkfiend: bugontherug: qorkfiend: I don't consider the left as weak as much as apathetic (which does translate to weakness in electoral politics,

I don't find the left apathetic. I would characterize them as "alienated." They don't feel that even the progressive party represents them. The problem is, it's a vicious cycle. The less progressives engage, the more the Democrats move to the right, further alienating them from progressives, who in turn become still less engaged.

The way to move the party back to the left is more engagement, especially at the primary level. And yes, it means holding your nose and voting even for Democrats you don't like because they're "too centrist." Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and others are all politicians. If their voters move to the left, so will they. But if because of low progressive voter turnout their voters default back to the right, so will they.

Good points all.

Seconded. And another thing - in a little while, a lot of the Washington establishment will have to start moving away from the right-wing orientation that has become its default. A good piece in yesterday's NY magazine (about the demotion of Obama's chief of staff) points out the reason: that establishment has completely misunderstood the prevailing mood of the electorate.

Daley's Demotion: How Washington Elites Got Obama Wrong (new window)


That was a very interesting read; thanks.
 
2012-01-09 04:06:18 PM

johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.


You suck at formatting, and I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just your acquaintance with the facts of the case. Which, for someone who is jumping in mid-conversation to provide erudite clarification, is kind of inexcusable.

Dear god this thread has gotten far too arduous to deal with.

As for jso: I wasn't calling you a sad sack, I was calling karnal a sad sack. Because the term had already been overused in the thread, and it actually describes someone who is intimidated by a video of a situation that didn't intimidate any of the live witnesses to that situation quite well.
 
2012-01-09 04:08:04 PM

qorkfiend: That was a very interesting read; thanks.


Thank you too - it's too bad they don't link to more actually informative stories like that one on here.
 
2012-01-09 04:10:55 PM
I didn't call them scary, I called them inappropriate. and to be honest my only point was to identify the two idiots. if your ok with all this then more power to you. but showing bewilderment at others calling foul on such behavior seems a bit smug.
 
2012-01-09 04:12:30 PM
BeesNuts


johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.

You suck at formatting, and I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just your acquaintance with the facts of the case. Which, for someone who is jumping in mid-conversation to provide erudite clarification, is kind of inexcusable.

Dear god this thread has gotten far too arduous to deal with.

As for jso: I wasn't calling you a sad sack, I was calling karnal a sad sack. Because the term had already been overused in the thread, and it actually describes someone who is intimidated by a video of a situation that didn't intimidate any of the live witnesses to that situation quite well.



Well, now, aren't you just the bees nuts? So full of yourself......I called what they did "voter intimidation".....since I wasn't there I was not intimidated....nor did the video intimidate me.....but what they were doing was "trying" to intimidate voters.....that is a fact and it doesn't really matter what you say about it.
 
2012-01-09 04:13:09 PM

CeroX: cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...

What did Paul finish 2nd place in?

Sorry, that should be 3rd, in the caucus... my bad on that


Making him, basically, irrelevant. Thank you.
 
2012-01-09 04:16:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...

What did Paul finish 2nd place in?

Sorry, that should be 3rd, in the caucus... my bad on that

Making him, basically, irrelevant. Thank you.


Distant third. And also tracking POORLY in NH. So, vote RON PAUL! Because a vote for a Paul is a vote for shredding Nutrition Labels!
 
2012-01-09 04:17:34 PM

coeyagi: cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...

What did Paul finish 2nd place in?

Sorry, that should be 3rd, in the caucus... my bad on that

Making him, basically, irrelevant. Thank you.

Distant third. And also tracking POORLY in NH. So, vote RON PAUL! Because a vote for a Paul is a vote for shredding Nutrition Labels!


In all fairness, it wasn't that distant. I had Gingrich on the brain.
 
2012-01-09 04:18:42 PM
BeesNuts

johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.

You suck at formatting, and I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just your acquaintance with the facts of the case. Which, for someone who is jumping in mid-conversation to provide erudite clarification, is kind of inexcusable.

Dear god this thread has gotten far too arduous to deal with.

As for jso: I wasn't calling you a sad sack, I was calling karnal a sad sack. Because the term had already been overused in the thread, and it actually describes someone who is intimidated by a video of a situation that didn't intimidate any of the live witnesses to that situation quite well.



Wow - a Dim that believes in God! Who would've thunk it?
 
2012-01-09 04:19:11 PM

Wooly Bully: qorkfiend: bugontherug: qorkfiend: I don't consider the left as weak as much as apathetic (which does translate to weakness in electoral politics,

I don't find the left apathetic. I would characterize them as "alienated." They don't feel that even the progressive party represents them. The problem is, it's a vicious cycle. The less progressives engage, the more the Democrats move to the right, further alienating them from progressives, who in turn become still less engaged.

The way to move the party back to the left is more engagement, especially at the primary level. And yes, it means holding your nose and voting even for Democrats you don't like because they're "too centrist." Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and others are all politicians. If their voters move to the left, so will they. But if because of low progressive voter turnout their voters default back to the right, so will they.

Good points all.

Seconded. And another thing - in a little while, a lot of the Washington establishment will have to start moving away from the right-wing orientation that has become its default. A good piece in yesterday's NY magazine (about the demotion of Obama's chief of staff) points out the reason: that establishment has completely misunderstood the prevailing mood of the electorate.

Daley's Demotion: How Washington Elites Got Obama Wrong (new window)


Good reading. I will say though that one result of the Daley strategy--offering to meet Republicans 3/4s of the way on what would have been a historic budget compromise--is that it exposed the total unreasonability of the Republicans. Reasonable people now know that conservatives boil with such rage that Obama occupies the White House, that they've put defeating him ahead of the best interests of the country. That accurate perception will not enhance Congressional Republican electoral success this fall.
 
2012-01-09 04:21:04 PM
coeyagi NotSmartestFunniest


coeyagi: cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: cameroncrazy1984: CeroX: I don't doubt your feelings about the guy, you obviously are very passionate about them. But I don't consider 2nd place irrelevant...

What did Paul finish 2nd place in?

Sorry, that should be 3rd, in the caucus... my bad on that

Making him, basically, irrelevant. Thank you.

Distant third. And also tracking POORLY in NH. So, vote RON PAUL! Because a vote for a Paul is a vote for shredding Nutrition Labels!

In all fairness, it wasn't that distant. I had Gingrich shiat on the brain.

FTFY
 
2012-01-09 04:27:45 PM

BeesNuts: johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.

You suck at formatting, and I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just your acquaintance with the facts of the case. Which, for someone who is jumping in mid-conversation to provide erudite clarification, is kind of inexcusable.

Dear god this thread has gotten far too arduous to deal with.

As for jso: I wasn't calling you a sad sack, I was calling karnal a sad sack. Because the term had already been overused in the thread, and it actually describes someone who is intimidated by a video of a situation that didn't intimidate any of the live witnesses to that situation quite well.


sorry blame my phone
 
2012-01-09 04:39:19 PM

karnal: jso2897

I have decided that I like you....not that it matters to you probably.

Sure it does - I don't dislike people just because I argue with them furiously - that's what we're here for, and I regard 99% of the people I meet here as my friends.
But, noticing what you bolded - I hope you don't say that just because of my political affiliations. Some of my favorite people here are people I regard to be completely insane - that's the fun part of Fark.

Nope....your political affliations was just the icing on the cake.


I prefer to think of it as the Santorum on the chimichanga.

karnal: BeesNuts


johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.

You suck at formatting, and I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just your acquaintance with the facts of the case. Which, for someone who is jumping in mid-conversation to provide erudite clarification, is kind of inexcusable.

Dear god this thread has gotten far too arduous to deal with.

As for jso: I wasn't calling you a sad sack, I was calling karnal a sad sack. Because the term had already been overused in the thread, and it actually describes someone who is intimidated by a video of a situation that didn't intimidate any of the live witnesses to that situation quite well.


Well, now, aren't you just the bees nuts? So full of yourself......I called what they did "voter intimidation".....since I wasn't there I was not intimidated....nor did the video intimidate me.....but what they were doing was "trying" to intimidate voters.....that is a fact and it doesn't really matter what you say about it.


Well, I can't DENY that they were "trying" to intimidate people - but I'm not convinced of it either, and I can't read minds. I just don't have much sympathy with anyone who was intimidated. If either of them - especially the drunk with the stick - had really been doing much of anything they would have been arrested.
To flip it over - if a black person told me they were "intimidated" because they saw some drunk redneck with a sheet over his head staggering around with a stick, I'd tell him the same thing.
I really think that this was a molehill that got made into a mountain for political capital. Good people died so that I can go into that booth and pull that lever - and I'll be good and godammned if I would let some drunken fool who thinks he's dressed up like a "revolutionary" scare me away from that - and apparently, all the people who voted there that day felt the same, because the whole deal was based on a complaint by one poll worker.
We ALL need to stop blowing shiat up to many times it's real magnitude in this country - it's getting old.
 
2012-01-09 04:50:32 PM

CPennypacker: vygramul: I_C_Weener: Mitt has better hair and doesn't lecture. Neither does he claim he will avoid Congres and "go it alone". But I think Obama will kill more bad guys

Mitt's also white.

Mitt is twice the white man Obama is


That doesn't say much. Nancy Pelosi is twice the (white) man as either.
 
2012-01-09 05:56:03 PM

jso2897: karnal: jso2897

I have decided that I like you....not that it matters to you probably.

Sure it does - I don't dislike people just because I argue with them furiously - that's what we're here for, and I regard 99% of the people I meet here as my friends.
But, noticing what you bolded - I hope you don't say that just because of my political affiliations. Some of my favorite people here are people I regard to be completely insane - that's the fun part of Fark.

Nope....your political affliations was just the icing on the cake.

I prefer to think of it as the Santorum on the chimichanga.

karnal: BeesNuts


johan heggs tiny man nipples: johan heggs tiny man nipples: beewnuts...He calls himself king shabazz. and really, one cannot follow the teachings and ideas of a dead man? . (insertion pic of Jesus, Buddah and Mohammud laughing.jpg). ok, sorry nightstick. and if one was an election official, then fine, but I suppose I think he could have dressed a bit more the part. I guess my point is they are both sad sacks acting inappropriatly. lol "insertion pic" damnyouautocorrect. and as to what was inappropriate, imagine your a white person, and you go to a polling station where two back men in combat boots, military style clothes and berets, one of who has a nightstick pacing agressivly up and down the line....you can't see how this might not be a proper expression of democracy? really?

watch a video of it, its not two sad sacks.standing there.

You suck at formatting, and I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just your acquaintance with the facts of the case. Which, for someone who is jumping in mid-conversation to provide erudite clarification, is kind of inexcusable.

Dear god this thread has gotten far too arduous to deal with.

As for jso: I wasn't calling you a sad sack, I was calling karnal a sad sack. Because the term had already been overused in the thread, and it actually describes someone who is intimidated by a video of a situation that didn't intimidate any ...


Are we really still talking about an event that even the Bush-era Justice Department didn't find criminal?
 
2012-01-09 11:33:14 PM

make me some tea: Hey look, a Santorum voter, in the wild!


No, he's a troll. People who'd vote for Santorum aren't capable of using the internet.
 
Displayed 239 of 239 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report