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.

(NewsBusters)   CNN: Obama only lost Arkansas and Kentucky because they aren't and never have been Democrat strongholds even though nearly every election since 1900 they went Democrat including 1996 and Obama beat Hillary there in 2008   (newsbusters.org) divider line 120
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, CNN, Kentucky, Arkansas, Lyndon B. Johnson, republican governors, democratic primary, Carol Costello  
•       •       •

1195 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 May 2012 at 10:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-24 09:13:35 AM

Deucednuisance: I'm still trying to figure out how winning a non-open primary 60-40 is "losing".

But then again, I'm dealing with people who think 51-49 is a "mandate"....


Conservatism stopped being based on anything but obvious lies about fifteen years ago. Once they realized that there were a couple million people out there who would not only accept whatever was fed to Fox News and AM talk radio without question, but then relentlessly regurgitate the same drivel to friends, family, and co-workers without even being asked, republicans knew there was no reason anymore to have any kind of honest platform.

They craft whatever narrative they want, no matter how blatantly untrue it is, even to the point that they will craft one that is completely opposite to prior realities they've created, and several million useful idiots will just go with it.

At this point, I honestly believe that being conservative literally means that you have no capacity or willingness to think for yourself. There is just no other explanation for the brazen, constant lying and obvious objective wrongness that has completely defined everything about conservative "thinking" over the last ten to fifteen years. It's been going this way for awhile, but I think we finally fell completely over the edge when they realized they could just claim whatever they wanted about Iraq and WMDs and people would just accept it without debate or question. From that point on, all bets were off and whatever they wanted to say they said.

/ or, I dunno, maybe it's all a giant liberal conspiracy to destroy the country that made the elitists so wealthy so that people in bumfark Idaho have to gay marry a Mexican... whatever....
 
2012-05-24 09:23:50 AM
My favorite part of this derptastic headline is "And Obama beat Hillary in 2008"

Yes you Farktard, Obama won a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. It's near impossible for a Republican to win a race that they aren't allowed to run in.
 
2012-05-24 09:33:58 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-24 09:39:52 AM
Never was probably a poor choice of words, but since the mid-'60s at least, those states were not going blue. LBJ alienated them by signing the Civil Rights Act.

And Clinton only got them because he was from Arkansas. Reagan won California twice, but nobody would call it a Republican hotbed.
 
2012-05-24 10:00:08 AM
So you're telling me Clinton won in his home state? NO WAI
 
2012-05-24 10:00:35 AM
Obama hasn't "lost" anything. Newsflash, "newsbusters", the election isn't for months to come. And even if you are refering to the squawking about dumbass primaries held while the party has the incumbent in office he STILL didn't "lose", but won with a comfortable margin.

So I guess the strategy really is just to flat out lie and hope it sticks now.
 
2012-05-24 10:08:18 AM
Actual headline in the Lexington Herald-Leader today: "Without Lexington and Louisville, Obama would have lost primary to 'uncommitted'."

Well, holy shiat. You're saying that without the two largest (and bluest) cities in this predominantly rural state, which together account for approximately one third of the population, things might have gone differently? Next you'll be telling me that Pennsylvania would be way easier for Republicans to win without Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
 
2012-05-24 10:14:43 AM

Thorndyke Barnhard: Obama hasn't "lost" anything. Newsflash, "newsbusters", the election isn't for months to come. And even if you are refering to the squawking about dumbass primaries held while the party has the incumbent in office he STILL didn't "lose", but won with a comfortable margin.

So I guess the strategy really is just to flat out lie and hope it sticks now.


Perhaps you've been in cryonic suspended animation for a while and need to be filled in: that has been the primary GOP strategy since the mid 90s.
 
2012-05-24 10:31:51 AM

jcooli09: Perhaps you've been in cryonic suspended animation for a while and need to be filled in: that has been the primary GOP strategy since the mid 90s.


I've just found them to prefer the deniable insidious dishonesty route rather than the overt lie route.
 
2012-05-24 10:40:40 AM
I say whenever the gop use the word Democrat instead of Democratic we use the word Rethuglican or Republicoont
this will surely prove us their intellectual equal.


/sarcasm
 
2012-05-24 11:25:34 AM

Deucednuisance: PirateKing: Romney was running against 3 other candidates, and still managed to get the lion's share.

All three of whom are no longer running, so he essentially was unopposed as well, don't you think?


True, but they were on the ballot, and got votes. Not many, but some. If Romney had been runnning unopposed, he'd have gotten more votes in the R primary than Obama did in the D primary (assuming everyone voted for Romney instead of Uncommitted).

Louisville is a pretty liberal town, depending on where you are, but the rest of the state is pretty solidly conservative, if not specifically Republican.
 
2012-05-24 12:02:12 PM

Hobodeluxe: I say whenever the gop use the word Democrat instead of Democratic we use the word Rethuglican or Republicoont
this will surely prove us their intellectual equal.


/sarcasm


How about Republican't?
 
2012-05-24 12:16:47 PM

PirateKing: If Romney had been runnning unopposed, he'd have gotten more votes in the R primary than Obama did in the D primary (assuming everyone voted for Romney instead of Uncommitted).


That's a HUGE assumption, and an unwarranted one at that.

Voting for someone who is not even running is a mighty good indicator of voting for "Candidate NotRomney". What basis is there for the argument that such voters would have voted Romney if the non-running candidates had been removed from the ballot (as opposed to voting for "Uncommitted" or "Fark it, I'm staying home")?

If it's this: Louisville is a pretty liberal town, depending on where you are, but the rest of the state is pretty solidly conservative, if not specifically Republican it seems to me to argue rather against those votes reverting to Romney, who is perceived as insufficiently conservative by hardliners.
 
2012-05-24 12:17:30 PM

HeartBurnKid: How about Republican't?


Replicant?
 
2012-05-24 12:53:44 PM

DarnoKonrad: What gets lost in this media narrative is the fact Obama got more votes in KY than Romney.


Obama to Romney:

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-05-24 02:20:09 PM
 
2012-05-24 04:07:13 PM

PirateKing:
True, but they were on the ballot, and got votes. Not many, but some. If Romney had been runnning unopposed, he'd have gotten more votes in the R primary than Obama did in the D primary (assuming everyone voted for Romney instead of Uncommitted).


What? Why the heck would you add Uncommitted votes to Romney? Add in the votes of the other three Repub (shorthand for response to "Democrat" in the Fark headline) candidates received. Romney have more than Obama now?

If you want to add Uncommitted, you'll need to add them to both Obama and Romney. Romney have more than Obama now?
 
2012-05-24 09:27:23 PM

jcooli09: Thorndyke Barnhard: Obama hasn't "lost" anything. Newsflash, "newsbusters", the election isn't for months to come. And even if you are refering to the squawking about dumbass primaries held while the party has the incumbent in office he STILL didn't "lose", but won with a comfortable margin.

So I guess the strategy really is just to flat out lie and hope it sticks now.

Perhaps you've been in cryonic suspended animation for a while and need to be filled in: that has been the primary GOP strategy since the mid 90s.


In fairness, NewsBusters got it right, pointing out that Obama won those states by "only" 58%. It was subby who got it wrong and said that Obama had lost those states.
 
2012-05-24 09:45:16 PM

Fireproof: In fairness, NewsBusters got it right, pointing out that Obama won those states by "only" 58%. It was subby who got it wrong and said that Obama had lost those states.


Well ok that is technically true, though the Newsbusters piece really is a big concern troll meant to convey the warped general message that subby obviously got from it.
 
2012-05-26 12:41:04 PM
quatchi: What I got out of the article:

CNN: Should Obama be worried about his support among Democrats because WV, Arkansas and KY?

Cardona: No, he shouldn't be. Look, Arkansas and Kentucky have never been hotbeds of the Democratic Party. There's no real infrastructure there. There's no organization by the Obama campaign there.
.


He may not stand much chance of winning AR,KY,or WV, anyways but having such a high negative in those states doesn't serve as a good omen for him pulling off a repeat of NC, VA, and FL from '08
 
Displayed 20 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report