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.

(NPR)   It just feels like 1936 all over again   (npr.org) divider line 79
    More: Obvious, human beings, Alan Abramowitz, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, electoral colleges, Social welfare in Canada, War of 1812, malaise, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

6837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 May 2012 at 2:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-30 02:04:37 AM
Only with way more derp. And birther conspiracies.
 
2012-05-30 02:30:41 AM
Only this time the R-tard candidate won't do as well as Landon.

Yes, I know how "well" Landon did.
 
2012-05-30 02:34:19 AM
But the GOP came together in 1980 and are coming together in 2012, while the economy continues to drag at the incumbent."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!
 
2012-05-30 02:36:50 AM
Only waiting for Romney to ask if you're better off than you were four years ago.

Yes, Rmoney. Ask that. In no way could that backfire.
 
2012-05-30 02:43:21 AM
Not until a large mass of people (who can still vote) are living in the streets, are not in prison and are eating dirt pies will they stop voting for the people who keep putting the interest of the 1% above them will we see any real progress.
 
2012-05-30 02:44:32 AM
LOL I love the stupid things in the 1980 comparison - "problems with Iran".

What problems? Israel is sabre-rattling at them? There's no problem with Iran. They're not holding hostages. They're not holding world oil supply at the throat. They're complying with world nuclear regulations. They aren't building bombs that we know right now. They're not good guys but right now, they're not doing active evil on any important level. They're still working on internal changes related to the Green Revolutions.
 
2012-05-30 02:45:56 AM

saintstryfe: LOL I love the stupid things in the 1980 comparison - "problems with Iran".

What problems? Israel is sabre-rattling at them? There's no problem with Iran. They're not holding hostages. They're not holding world oil supply at the throat. They're complying with world nuclear regulations. They aren't building bombs that we know right now. They're not good guys but right now, they're not doing active evil on any important level. They're still working on internal changes related to the Green Revolutions.


I dunno ... executing gay people is pretty evil. But I guess on a scale of 1 to Holocaust it's not that bad.
 
2012-05-30 02:47:25 AM
UNACCEPTABLE! WE SHALL NOT REST UNTIL AMERICAN CULTURE AND POLITICS ARE DRIVEN BACK INTO THE 18TH CENTURY AS GOD WANTS

img32.imageshack.us


Or maybe the 13th century, depending on which republican you ask.
 
2012-05-30 02:47:54 AM
Recently I've been reading contemporary news accounts of that election ... and it seems to me that if the rich couldn't buy their way out of a Roosevelt re-election then, they're not going to buy their way out of an Obama re-election now. Granted, Mr. Obama doesn't have fireside chats going for him, but back then there was some serious money to shovel into candidates' campaigns.
 
2012-05-30 02:49:08 AM

themindiswatching: Only with way more derp. And birther conspiracies.


Also Fox, corporate people and SuperPACs
 
2012-05-30 02:49:49 AM
Anyone comparing this election to 1980 is insane. Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Say waht you will about the man's policies, but Reagan had charisma. He wasn't a robotic windsock incapable of connecting with people and unable to project anything beyond and over-weening sense of entitlement.

Go ahead, Rmoney, and ask people if they're better off than they were four years ago. All that will do is invite the media to compare you to Reagan, and you won't come off well in that comparison.

No, 2004 is a much more likely model. Rmoney's only strength, his business experience, will become an albatross around his neck as Team Obama Swift Bains him, and he'll be rejected by the people as an out-of-touch blue-blood elitist prick, just like Kerry was.
 
2012-05-30 02:50:51 AM

austerity101: saintstryfe: LOL I love the stupid things in the 1980 comparison - "problems with Iran".

What problems? Israel is sabre-rattling at them? There's no problem with Iran. They're not holding hostages. They're not holding world oil supply at the throat. They're complying with world nuclear regulations. They aren't building bombs that we know right now. They're not good guys but right now, they're not doing active evil on any important level. They're still working on internal changes related to the Green Revolutions.

I dunno ... executing gay people is pretty evil. But I guess on a scale of 1 to Holocaust it's not that bad.


We have allies like Saudi Arabia who do that. Of course they're evil. But they're not trying to hurt us.

Beside, people like who are writing here don't give one shat about gay people when it won't hurt Obama.

/anyone who says this Administration hasn't helped gay people is a troll. No exceptions.
 
2012-05-30 02:52:55 AM

skepticultist: No, 2004 is a much more likely model. Rmoney's only strength, his business experience, will become an albatross around his neck as Team Obama Swift Bains him, and he'll be rejected by the people as an out-of-touch blue-blood elitist prick, just like Kerry was.


You know they're just setting up so if Obama is anything under his 2008 total even if he wins by 3+ points, and if either house of Congress goes conservative, they'll be crowing victory.
 
2012-05-30 03:04:50 AM
Thank you, sincerely, for your concern.

Have a f*ckin banana.
 
2012-05-30 03:05:56 AM

saintstryfe: You know they're just setting up so if Obama is anything under his 2008 total even if he wins by 3+ points, and if either house of Congress goes conservative, they'll be crowing victory.


Oh shut your face. If any chamber goes conservatives it's the GOP's win. If any chamber goes democrat, it's the Tea Party's fault.

Here's the thing: in either case, the GOP "doesn't lose"
 
2012-05-30 03:34:14 AM

propasaurus: But the GOP came together in 1980 and are coming together in 2012, while the economy continues to drag at the incumbent."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!!


They're pushing that narrative, trying to make it true via repetition. They WANT the economy to be bad.
 
2012-05-30 03:45:56 AM
I'm so looking forward to the rending of garments and incoherent screams of uncontrolled rage from the 'baggers and birthers when Obama wins re-election.
 
2012-05-30 03:51:27 AM

Old enough to know better: I'm so looking forward to the rending of garments and incoherent screams of uncontrolled rage from the 'baggers and birthers when Obama wins re-election.


So, about the same as now?
 
2012-05-30 03:57:36 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Recently I've been reading contemporary news accounts of that election ... and it seems to me that if the rich couldn't buy their way out of a Roosevelt re-election then, they're not going to buy their way out of an Obama re-election now. Granted, Mr. Obama doesn't have fireside chats going for him, but back then there was some serious money to shovel into candidates' campaigns.


Yeah, well, back then they didn't have Citizens United. Most of the time they could get away with a lot more spending by keeping separate sets of books, nowadays it's easier to figure out when someone's lying about how much they're receiving. But fark it, it's now legal to receive unlimited money, so may the biggest sell-out win.

I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.
 
2012-05-30 04:02:57 AM

ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.


They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.
 
2012-05-30 04:09:39 AM
But if this is just like 1936, who will be born in 2012 to become this year's Walter Koenig? Who, just happened to be born in 1936! Coincidence? I think not!

www.geekworldordersite.com
Starfleet Command supersedes your order, sir!

Because, only with God's good grace and the sacred teachings teachings of Hartcourt Fenton Mudd....

images.wikia.com

Will I be able to summon the illogical principles, that will defeat the Romneybot.

goddamnliberal.com

And just who am I? You might very well ask.

John Connor Mall Security. That's who!

www3.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2012-05-30 04:11:28 AM

Alphax: ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.

They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.


I'm not talking about exaggerations or out-of-context statements or intentional skewing of the data, I'm talking about outright, pants-on-fire LYING.

Like what they already said a Fox affiliate could be fired for NOT doing.
 
2012-05-30 04:12:53 AM

Alphax: ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.

They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.


"...they CLAIM that taking President Obama for long periods doesn't cause irritable bowels, insomnia, drymouth and/or stigmata. They CLAIM that taking President Obama does not cause weight gain or loss of sexual function.

But can we REALLY be sure? After 4 years of his failed policies to cure our economy or your Uncle Murray of his out, can we afford to take that risk?"

This ad paid for MetaMitt Romneytrex for President
 
2012-05-30 04:13:04 AM

Alphax: ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.

They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.


I'm LucklessWonder and I approve this message.
 
2012-05-30 04:15:19 AM

Shadowknight: Alphax: ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.

They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.

"...they CLAIM that taking President Obama for long periods doesn't cause irritable bowels, insomnia, drymouth and/or stigmata. They CLAIM that taking President Obama does not cause weight gain or loss of sexual function.

But can we REALLY be sure? After 4 years of his failed policies to cure our economy or your Uncle Murray of his out, can we afford to take that risk?"

This ad paid for MetaMitt Romneytrex for President


In case of an election lasting more than 4 hours, consult your spin doctor.
 
2012-05-30 04:15:52 AM
Uncle Murray of his out,

That was supposed to be "gout." Damn autocorrect ruined my gag.
 
2012-05-30 04:18:58 AM

Alphax: They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.


pastorerik.files.wordpress.com

Dear Penthouse,

I never thought I'd have a reason to write you until now. They told me to notify a physician if I got an election lasting more than four hours. Wait a minute. This isn't Japan! Am pretty sure I was suppose to notify a physician if I got an ERECTION lasting more than four hours. But that doesn't make any sense, either. Because if I get an erection lasting more than 4 hours... I ain't calling no doctor. I'm calling my ex-wife to brag about it.

Bob
 
2012-05-30 04:24:59 AM

ox45tallboy: Alphax: ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.

They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.

I'm not talking about exaggerations or out-of-context statements or intentional skewing of the data, I'm talking about outright, pants-on-fire LYING.

Like what they already said a Fox affiliate could be fired for NOT doing.


Fox already went to court and won for the right to lie on the air.

Or is that the case you were talking about?
 
2012-05-30 04:25:29 AM

Shadowknight: Uncle Murray of his out,

That was supposed to be "gout." Damn autocorrect ruined my gag.


americannewspost.com

"I could cure your Uncle Murray of his 'out'!"
 
2012-05-30 04:27:42 AM

Britney Spear's Speculum: Not until a large mass of people (who can still vote) are living in the streets, are not in prison and are eating dirt pies will they stop voting for the people who keep putting the interest of the 1% above them will we see any real progress.


Horrendous grammar aside, I agree.

Wisconsinites are about to re-vote in perhaps the most unpopular governor in our nation's history, North Carolinians just effectively eliminated all legal recognition of unmarried couples just to keep teh gheys from marrying, and Kansas just became a Koch Brothers, Inc. paradise. I'm really hoping I can leave this country before we get to that horribly low point where we have no choice but to wake up and say, like the big doofus in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, "Heeeeyyyyy, WAITAMINIT!!"
 
2012-05-30 04:31:01 AM
FTFA: Hmmm. The 2012 Election Reminds Me Of Something

Your jeep?
 
2012-05-30 04:39:44 AM

fusillade762: ox45tallboy: Alphax: ox45tallboy: I can't wait until SCOTUS decides it's perfectly legal to tell outright lies in campaign ads.

They're doing a ton of that already. Apparently 'truth in advertising' only applies to the side effects of commercial drugs.

I'm not talking about exaggerations or out-of-context statements or intentional skewing of the data, I'm talking about outright, pants-on-fire LYING.

Like what they already said a Fox affiliate could be fired for NOT doing.

Fox already went to court and won for the right to lie on the air.

Or is that the case you were talking about?


That's the one. I'm waiting to see how this might apply in a tussle between the FCC and FEC - who has the right to control the content of political advertising on broadcast media? And, once that's determined, do they have the right to punish or even censure a campaign who breaks the rule? What about an "independent" SuperPAC that breaks the rule? Is a network or broadcast station responsible for airing blatantly incorrect information as a political ad? (Remember, only CBS was ever charged with indecency after showing Janet Jackson's boobie - not Janet Jackson or Justin Timberlake, not MTV who produced the halftime show, not the NFL for producing the program, only CBS.
 
2012-05-30 04:40:43 AM

LordJiro: Only waiting for Romney to ask if you're better off than you were four years ago.

Yes, Rmoney. Ask that. In no way could that backfire.


Indeed. Four years ago my department was at risk of being dumped and replaced with contract security officers. I have received a steady raise and no cuts in benefits every single year of Obama's administration, and the Coalition of Unions my union is a part of negotiated a new contract earlier this month that ensures we get raises and no loss of benefits each year through 2015.

Doing better under Obama? You bet I am, and largely it is because I am a Union member.
 
2012-05-30 04:45:09 AM

MmmmBacon: Doing better under Obama? You bet I am, and largely it is because I am a Union member.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-30 04:47:09 AM

ox45tallboy: MmmmBacon: Doing better under Obama? You bet I am, and largely it is because I am a Union member.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x303]


ILWU Local 28, represent! Eat that, Romneybot!
 
2012-05-30 04:53:02 AM

MmmmBacon: ox45tallboy: MmmmBacon: Doing better under Obama? You bet I am, and largely it is because I am a Union member.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x303]

ILWU Local 28, represent! Eat that, Romneybot!


Why are Union divisions always known as "Local"? Does anyone represent the "AFGE Remote 152"? If so, are their Union meetings by teleconference?
 
2012-05-30 04:59:31 AM

ox45tallboy: MmmmBacon: ox45tallboy: MmmmBacon: Doing better under Obama? You bet I am, and largely it is because I am a Union member.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x303]

ILWU Local 28, represent! Eat that, Romneybot!

Why are Union divisions always known as "Local"? Does anyone represent the "AFGE Remote 152"? If so, are their Union meetings by teleconference?


I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with the Locals being smaller chapters of the larger National and (in some cases) International union bodies. Why they decided to call us Locals instead of Chapter, Club, or whatever, I really can't say. I'll have to ask a Steward about that sometime.
 
2012-05-30 05:10:11 AM
Article photo contradicts the argument. No way in hell would Romney's or Obama's people allow them to be seen smiling at one another.
 
2012-05-30 05:19:22 AM

MmmmBacon: I really can't say. I'll have to ask a Steward about that sometime.


That's right, they are unionized. I'll ask one on my next flight.

shininghappypeople.net

But how would their "local" work when they're flying all over the freakin' country, in some cases the whole planet?
 
2012-05-30 06:21:25 AM
1936 all over again?

Sweet, that means I can catch Mr Deeds at the Bijou Theatre for a nickel.

Ring a ding ding!

/Hepcat.
 
2012-05-30 06:52:57 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Because the black guy is going to win by a huge margin? Look, even the dude who came in second wants to touch him.
 
2012-05-30 06:56:36 AM
At least FDR had enough respect for the Constitution that he put significant effort to end-around it by packing the supreme court with New Deal-friendly justices. Today our "leaders" just ignore it.
 
2012-05-30 07:04:27 AM
image.guardian.co.uk

actung, baby!
 
2012-05-30 07:11:54 AM

skepticultist: Anyone comparing this election to 1980 is insane. Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Say waht you will about the man's policies, but Reagan had charisma. He wasn't a robotic windsock incapable of connecting with people and unable to project anything beyond and over-weening sense of entitlement.

Go ahead, Rmoney, and ask people if they're better off than they were four years ago. All that will do is invite the media to compare you to Reagan, and you won't come off well in that comparison.

No, 2004 is a much more likely model. Rmoney's only strength, his business experience, will become an albatross around his neck as Team Obama Swift Bains him, and he'll be rejected by the people as an out-of-touch blue-blood elitist prick, just like Kerry was.


Also, in 1980, the Neoconservative program seemed new nad untried (it wasn't, but that's another story) and Reagan packaged and sold it, without actually understanding what he was selling.
Now, that product is old and busted - we've seen thirty years of failure from right-wing economic and foreign policy.
"Conservatism" is a rancid pile of philosophical excrement, and no amount of wrapping paper will conceal the smell.
 
2012-05-30 07:19:33 AM

herrDrFarkenstein: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x750]

Because the black guy is going to win by a huge margin? Look, even the dude who came in second wants to touch him.


When ever I see athletes from a pre 1950's era, I can't help but think that I could have fared well going against them. They look wimpy.
 
2012-05-30 07:29:28 AM
All the Republican have this year is pandering to the Right, and trying to point out "failures" of the Obama administration. The problem is, those alleged failures more often than not are the result of the previous administration's policies, an obstructionist Republican Congress, and the cyclical nature of the economy.

Whether the Republicans like it or not, we as a nation are better off now than under Bush. The wars are ending. OBL is dead, and Al-Qaeda is not the threat they once were. The economy - while still weak - has improved. Obamacare has not bankrupted the country (although the Bush tax cuts are doing a great job of that).

The only thing Obama can really be faulted on in my opinion is the erosion of privacy and civil rights which started under Bush and continues now. If Obama were doing away with the Patriot Act and had not signed NDAA into law, then his re-election would be a slam-dunk, as Progressives would support him as strongly as we did in 2008. The President will have to work to regain the trust of the Far Left in the next five months, to keep them from skipping the election altogether.
 
2012-05-30 07:37:06 AM
If it's not 1936, it's 1996 or 2004. RomneyBOT is the less distinguished, less interesting cross between Bob Dole and John Kerry, who may not have had personalities but at least had the whole military veteran thing going for them. There's nothing compelling at all about RomneyBOT, he's like the completely boring version of one of the robots from AI.
 
2012-05-30 07:52:20 AM
RomneyBot reminds me of Dukakis, except I actually kinda liked Dukakis.
 
2012-05-30 07:52:51 AM

rynthetyn: If it's not 1936, it's 1996 or 2004. RomneyBOT is the less distinguished, less interesting cross between Bob Dole and John Kerry, who may not have had personalities but at least had the whole military veteran thing going for them. There's nothing compelling at all about RomneyBOT, he's like the completely boring version of one of the robots from AI.


I was gonna go with "a boring version of a robot from Westworld" but I like yours too.

/The Romney Campaign 2012, where nothing can possibly go wrong... go wrong... go wrong...
 
2012-05-30 07:54:46 AM
Nothing about Romney appeals to me. Even the Club for Growth said they don't know what he'll do in office; he's such a casual liar, that no one can trust him.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 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