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.

(Rolling Stone)   This campaign "will be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like a hand job in a Bangkok bathhouse"   (rollingstone.com) divider line 85
    More: Amusing, handjob, Bangkok  
•       •       •

3434 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2012 at 10:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-08 12:00:20 PM

Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.


And here's that pragmatic argument I was talking about.

Personally I'm probably going to vote Green if they get on the ballot in my state. I don't think this race is so close that my vote going to a third party, so they can possibly boost their voting percentage enough to overcome funding hurdles in the future, will split the vote and give Romney the win.
 
2012-05-08 12:00:55 PM

imontheinternet: Notabunny: imontheinternet: Neither party is really enthusiastic about their guy,

You can just hear the lack of enthusiasm in their cheering and applause

If they cheer loud enough, maybe they can drown out the sound of the drones strikes and screams of detainees being tortured.


My sense is that most Americans think torture is detestable. But I doubt many care one way or the other about drone strikes.
 
2012-05-08 12:01:11 PM
Yes, this election is all but done and the outcome is inevitable.
So don't bother to show up and actually vote, Obama supporters.

What this article is trying to accomplish I don't even...
 
2012-05-08 12:03:32 PM

mrshowrules: This campaign "will be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like getting caught in a Target change room getting a hand job"

/and before you ask, we don't have Targets in Canada, yet


So Canadians are proud to get caught getting a hand-job in a Canadian Tire restroom?
 
2012-05-08 12:03:37 PM

verbaltoxin: coco ebert: Meanwhile, Obama has turned out to represent continuity with the Bush administration on a range of key issues, from torture to rendition to economic deregulation. Obama is doing things with extralegal drone strikes that would have liberals marching in the streets if they'd been done by Bush.

In other words, Obama versus Bush actually felt like a clash of ideological opposites. But Obama and Romney feels like a contest between two calculating centrists, fighting for the right to serve as figurehead atop a bloated state apparatus that will operate according to the same demented imperial logic irrespective of who wins the White House. George Bush's reign highlighted the enormous power of the individual president to drive policy, which made the elections involving him compelling contests; Obama's first term has highlighted the timeless power of the intractable bureaucracy underneath the president, which is kind of a bummer, when you think about it.

So much this, especially the first paragraph. I understand that Obama was facing an intractable Congress, but so many of his choices were HIS and his alone- the economic cabinet he formed, his Bush-like foreign policy, record number of ICE deportations, etc. It makes it hard to vote for him again. I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Then vote for Jill Stein if you want to vote for an actual liberal and stick to your principles, regardless of outcomes.

More pragmatic liberals will argue though, that voting for Obama is a much more sensible alternative than letting Mitt Romney win.

coco ebert: Meanwhile, Obama has turned out to represent continuity with the Bush administration on a range of key issues, from torture to rendition to economic deregulation. Obama is doing things with extralegal drone strikes that would have liberals marching in the streets if they'd been done by Bush.

In other words, Obama versus Bush actually felt like a clash of ideological opposites. But Obama and Romney feels like a contest between two calculating centrists, fighting for the right to serve as figurehead atop a bloated state apparatus that will operate according to the same demented imperial logic irrespective of who wins the White House. George Bush's reign highlighted the enormous power of the individual president to drive policy, which made the elections involving him compelling contests; Obama's first term has highlighted the timeless power of the intractable bureaucracy underneath the president, which is kind of a bummer, when you think about it.

So much this, especially the first paragraph. I understand that Obama was facing an intractable Congress, but so many of his choices were HIS and his alone- the economic cabinet he formed, his Bush-like foreign policy, record number of ICE deportations, etc. It makes it hard to vote for him again. I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?


You voted for Nader didn't you? Please dont ever forget, it's your fault Gore lost to Bush.
 
2012-05-08 12:03:41 PM

verbaltoxin: Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.

And here's that pragmatic argument I was talking about.

Personally I'm probably going to vote Green if they get on the ballot in my state. I don't think this race is so close that my vote going to a third party, so they can possibly boost their voting percentage enough to overcome funding hurdles in the future, will split the vote and give Romney the win.


I'm probably going to vote for a 3rd party. If I'm confident Obama will win, I'll vote for a true liberal. I probably won't know for sure until the end of October.
 
2012-05-08 12:03:55 PM

Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.


He certainly ran as both a centrist and a liberal, depending on the issue. I think it's fair to say he's moved further right since taking office. I don't blame him for that completely, but I do think we need to hold him accountable and not get away with sh*t we were so upset with Bush for doing.
 
2012-05-08 12:04:31 PM

verbaltoxin: coco ebert: Meanwhile, Obama has turned out to represent continuity with the Bush administration on a range of key issues, from torture to rendition to economic deregulation. Obama is doing things with extralegal drone strikes that would have liberals marching in the streets if they'd been done by Bush.

In other words, Obama versus Bush actually felt like a clash of ideological opposites. But Obama and Romney feels like a contest between two calculating centrists, fighting for the right to serve as figurehead atop a bloated state apparatus that will operate according to the same demented imperial logic irrespective of who wins the White House. George Bush's reign highlighted the enormous power of the individual president to drive policy, which made the elections involving him compelling contests; Obama's first term has highlighted the timeless power of the intractable bureaucracy underneath the president, which is kind of a bummer, when you think about it.

So much this, especially the first paragraph. I understand that Obama was facing an intractable Congress, but so many of his choices were HIS and his alone- the economic cabinet he formed, his Bush-like foreign policy, record number of ICE deportations, etc. It makes it hard to vote for him again. I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Then vote for Jill Stein if you want to vote for an actual liberal and stick to your principles, regardless of outcomes.

More pragmatic liberals will argue though, that voting for Obama is a much more sensible alternative than letting Mitt Romney win.


Hmm, she looks interesting. I will check this out more thoroughly. Thanks!
 
2012-05-08 12:04:49 PM
best line: He's not insane, which is a tremendous insult to a Republican politician.
 
2012-05-08 12:05:29 PM

verbaltoxin: Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.

And here's that pragmatic argument I was talking about.

Personally I'm probably going to vote Green if they get on the ballot in my state. I don't think this race is so close that my vote going to a third party, so they can possibly boost their voting percentage enough to overcome funding hurdles in the future, will split the vote and give Romney the win.


I don't really see an "argument" here, it's just a statement. If you want to vote third party, that is your right, but can you point to anything in notabunny's post that is untrue?
 
2012-05-08 12:06:31 PM

Cymbal: You voted for Nader didn't you? Please dont ever forget, it's your fault Gore lost to Bush.


No, actually, I didn't. I voted for Gore. I also voted for Obama last time around. But things have moved so far to the right in this country. I dunno, maybe I'll just stay home or vote third-party. I think there are a lot of people like me out there (Scandinavian-style or Bernie Sanders type of democratic socialists) but we're not a very powerful constituency.
 
2012-05-08 12:07:56 PM

coco ebert: Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.

He certainly ran as both a centrist and a liberal, depending on the issue. I think it's fair to say he's moved further right since taking office. I don't blame him for that completely, but I do think we need to hold him accountable and not get away with sh*t we were so upset with Bush for doing.


I agree with you sentiment, but I don't know how to apply it. How do you "hold him accountable" without giving power to Republicans and further hobbling Obama? The best way would seem to be by electing true liberals to Congress. But there aren't very many running.
 
2012-05-08 12:08:53 PM

Notabunny: imontheinternet: Notabunny: imontheinternet: Neither party is really enthusiastic about their guy,

You can just hear the lack of enthusiasm in their cheering and applause

If they cheer loud enough, maybe they can drown out the sound of the drones strikes and screams of detainees being tortured.

My sense is that most Americans think torture is detestable. But I doubt many care one way or the other about drone strikes.


A secret panel can authorize extra-judicial killings of human beings, including American citizens, anywhere in the world with no oversight except a thumbs up from the president,
and you have no problem with that? We'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
2012-05-08 12:14:55 PM

imontheinternet: Notabunny: imontheinternet: Notabunny: imontheinternet: Neither party is really enthusiastic about their guy,

You can just hear the lack of enthusiasm in their cheering and applause

If they cheer loud enough, maybe they can drown out the sound of the drones strikes and screams of detainees being tortured.

My sense is that most Americans think torture is detestable. But I doubt many care one way or the other about drone strikes.

A secret panel can authorize extra-judicial killings of human beings, including American citizens, anywhere in the world with no oversight except a thumbs up from the president, and you have no problem with that? We'll just have to agree to disagree.


I don't know if I agree with it yet, or not. It seems an odd thing to be unsure of, I know, but right now I can see both sides of the issue as equally compelling. If Obama bombed the same guy 183 times, I'd say there's a problem. But right now, I'm undecided.
 
2012-05-08 12:15:49 PM

Notabunny: coco ebert: Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.

He certainly ran as both a centrist and a liberal, depending on the issue. I think it's fair to say he's moved further right since taking office. I don't blame him for that completely, but I do think we need to hold him accountable and not get away with sh*t we were so upset with Bush for doing.

I agree with you sentiment, but I don't know how to apply it. How do you "hold him accountable" without giving power to Republicans and further hobbling Obama? The best way would seem to be by electing true liberals to Congress. But there aren't very many running.


My rep in Central Jersey is pretty great (Frank Pallone). But yeah, outside of voting, I try to be involved with various pressure groups/social movements but undoubtedly I could do more. I'm trying to build an academic career around issues of labor and migration so hopefully I can do more as time goes on. :/
 
2012-05-08 12:18:00 PM
Cymbal
You voted for Nader didn't you? Please dont ever forget, it's your fault Gore lost to Bush.

I didn't vote for Nader. I was the perfect demographic for the Democrats (Young, liberal and college educated) in 2000, but like most young people, I was no where to be found on Election Day. My mistake and I learned from it.

And while I think you're joking, those who say that seriously are exactly why we need 3rd parties in the first place. We joke about the Republicans "falling into line," holding their noses and voting for Romney, but what's happening here with liberals? Are we more pragmatic maybe? I suppose but don't tell me there aren't liberals whom are dissatisfied with Obama so far, and wish there was a more liberal alternative. There is, and her name is Jill Stein, but again that pragmatic argument will insist upon itself to the point where, if you want liberal ideas to be "discussed" before they're ignored, you have to fall in line yourself and give the Democratic Party the vote it feels it's owed. To do otherwise is to get blame for any potential loss in the election, or just the loss in voting percentage.

The Nader ordeal is a perfect example of people on the left criticizing others for not falling into line and voting Democratic like they're supposed to, so our team wins. We have so little confidence in ourselves that we repeatedly settle for less, just to ensure we get to be heard in the most token sense, before being brushed off altogether in favor of the demands of the bureaucracy and establishment.
 
2012-05-08 12:18:43 PM

imontheinternet: A secret panel can authorize extra-judicial killings of human beings, including American citizens, anywhere in the world with no oversight except a thumbs up from the president, and you have no problem with that? We'll just have to agree to disagree.


I think this issue is very distant to most Americans. I've worked with refugees in the past who have been disappeared by their government and know people who were extra-judiciously killed. This is a very, very disturbing trend in my eyes. I think if this were happening to people Americans know, there would be outrage. But it's happening to bad foreigners so who cares...
 
2012-05-08 12:19:09 PM

moriarty23: verbaltoxin: Notabunny: coco ebert: I know I'll get a lot of sh*t now from fellow liberals but why should we settle, really?

Obama never said he was liberal. He's always been a center-right Democrat. But he's at least liberal-leaning on social and economic issues, which means liberal ideas are at least part of the discussions leading up to a decision. That can't be said when a Republican is in the White House.

And here's that pragmatic argument I was talking about.

Personally I'm probably going to vote Green if they get on the ballot in my state. I don't think this race is so close that my vote going to a third party, so they can possibly boost their voting percentage enough to overcome funding hurdles in the future, will split the vote and give Romney the win.

I don't really see an "argument" here, it's just a statement. If you want to vote third party, that is your right, but can you point to anything in notabunny's post that is untrue?


There wasn't an argument. I was pointing out that he said what I was alluding to in another comment.
 
2012-05-08 12:21:18 PM

mrshowrules: Why would that be disappointing? It was over quickly, they had some pretty good technique. Embarrassing? This is perfectly acceptable behavior in a Bangkok bathhouse. Embarrassing would be getting caught getting a hand job in the change room of a Target.

better headline:

This campaign "will be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like getting caught in a Target change room getting giving a hand job"

/and before you ask, we don't have Targets in Canada, yet

 
2012-05-08 12:40:04 PM

divgradcurl: mrshowrules: Why would that be disappointing? It was over quickly, they had some pretty good technique. Embarrassing? This is perfectly acceptable behavior in a Bangkok bathhouse. Embarrassing would be getting caught getting a hand job in the change room of a Target.

better headline:

This campaign "will be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like getting caught in a Target change room getting a hand job"

/and before you ask, we don't have Targets in Canada, yet

cheer up friend. you are supposed to have over 80 by this time next year!


I think I'll still prefer the gentleman's latte at Starbucks. Now off to Buttfarker's for lunch.

Cheers
 
2012-05-08 12:42:45 PM
Matt Taibbi, with sweat and a dead man's balls
 
2012-05-08 12:44:10 PM
Yeah, if you keep saying that the election is over and a sure thing, then it won't be.
 
2012-05-08 12:46:33 PM
Its hard to make predictions, especially about the future. Hell, at this point in 1992 Clinton was losing in the polls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_199 2

Anyone who says they *know* what's going to happen six months from now on election day is deluded.

You what happens when predictions like these turn out to be wrong? The same people write a flood of articles about how "the writing was on the wall" and "anyone could have seen it coming" etc.
 
2012-05-08 01:00:14 PM
"In other words, Obama versus Bush actually felt like a clash of ideological opposites. But Obama and Romney feels like a contest between two calculating centrists,..."

Obama Vs. Bush, huh? I had no idea Bush ran for a third term.
 
2012-05-08 01:29:37 PM

meat0918: Like others before me, I have said this more than once.

The media wants a horse race, and damn it all they will project the image of a neck and neck horse race until mid-October, when the polling will more than likely reveal Romney so far behind Obama that the media will let "Razor blade Halloween Candy" stories overshadow the election.




So much This. (And you tied to an actual example of Fark, +2 Internets for you.)
 
2012-05-08 01:29:56 PM

Muta: mrshowrules: This campaign "will be disappointing, embarrassing, and over very quickly, like getting caught in a Target change room getting a hand job"

/and before you ask, we don't have Targets in Canada, yet

So Canadians are proud to get caught getting a hand-job in a Canadian Tire restroom?


There is a reason the WD40 stand is right there.
 
2012-05-08 01:33:09 PM
I always thought this vid best summed up Bush v Gore, now I'm thinking it also applies to this one too.

cue *thatsracist* gif
 
2012-05-08 01:46:20 PM

verbaltoxin: Cymbal
You voted for Nader didn't you? Please dont ever forget, it's your fault Gore lost to Bush.

I didn't vote for Nader. I was the perfect demographic for the Democrats (Young, liberal and college educated) in 2000, but like most young people, I was no where to be found on Election Day. My mistake and I learned from it.

And while I think you're joking, those who say that seriously are exactly why we need 3rd parties in the first place. We joke about the Republicans "falling into line," holding their noses and voting for Romney, but what's happening here with liberals? Are we more pragmatic maybe? I suppose but don't tell me there aren't liberals whom are dissatisfied with Obama so far, and wish there was a more liberal alternative. There is, and her name is Jill Stein, but again that pragmatic argument will insist upon itself to the point where, if you want liberal ideas to be "discussed" before they're ignored, you have to fall in line yourself and give the Democratic Party the vote it feels it's owed. To do otherwise is to get blame for any potential loss in the election, or just the loss in voting percentage.

The Nader ordeal is a perfect example of people on the left criticizing others for not falling into line and voting Democratic like they're supposed to, so our team wins. We have so little confidence in ourselves that we repeatedly settle for less, just to ensure we get to be heard in the most token sense, before being brushed off altogether in favor of the demands of the bureaucracy and establishment.


I just don't agree with your argument as it pertains to a presidential election. Besides W, one could argue every president we have had going back to FDR, was and still would be considered a centrist. That's what happens when you run for president. In order to be elected you have to appeal to a majority(unless you cheat like W, or get extremely lucky, also W). Fringe candidates can not be counted on to win anything consistently except for National and State Congress seats. So instead of throwing your vote away for some fringe presidential candidate who never has any hope of winning, vote for your fringe candidate in your state's congress elections, where they have a much higher probability of winning. That is the only way we will ever get a viable third or fourth party candidate for president. Support for it has to start from the bottom, not the top.
 
2012-05-08 02:07:59 PM

squidgod2000: National polls: Neck and neck.
Electoral map: Blowout.


This is because Obama is great at playing the game. That, and the fact that a bunch of racist rednecks in red states hate him but don't matter much in the electoral college.
 
2012-05-08 03:13:18 PM

verbaltoxin: The Nader ordeal is a perfect example of people on the left criticizing others for not falling into line and voting Democratic like they're supposed to, so our team wins. We have so little confidence in ourselves that we repeatedly settle for less, just to ensure we get to be heard in the most token sense, before being brushed off altogether in favor of the demands of the bureaucracy and establishment.


When a bloc splits their vote in a FPTP system, the least preferred candidate usually ends up winning. There's nothing wrong with trying to maximize beneficial outcomes or minimize harmful ones.
 
2012-05-08 03:24:48 PM
FTA: "In other words, Obama versus Bush felt like a clash of ideological opposites..."

I do not seem to recall that election. What year was that?
 
2012-05-08 03:26:08 PM
Or, what WhinoRino said...
 
2012-05-08 04:01:22 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: WTF Indeed: The best part of this election will not been seen on TV or covered by the media. It will be the look on Mitt Romney's face as he gets ready to make the 7th stump speech of the week on a Wednesday early afternoon. The internal suffering of having to divorce himself from all sense and reason and talk about female contraception, soviet threats, evil gays, and whichever wacko idea the tea party comes up with next. There is no less demoralizing feeling in the world than having to run for office, any office, and have to totally deny your true feelings on every important issue.

You think Romney actually has true feelings on issues?


I think Romney probably heartily endorses the "I like money" platform
 
2012-05-08 06:27:36 PM
Everybody skip this part There, lighting up an NBC broadcast with her smile, was New Hampshire's Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte, talking about her Vice Presidential qualifications ...



encrypted-tbn2.google.com

Doesn't have big boobies but not nice legs, I guess she would do for a GOP VP candidate.
 
2012-05-09 02:55:43 AM
Sounds like Taibbi is speaking from experience.
 
Displayed 35 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report