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.

(NYPost)   Watch out Democrats, when the GOP talks about giving you the "push back" at your own convention, you'd better watch out   (nypost.com) divider line 146
    More: Interesting, GOP, Democrats, political convention, Republican, Jason Chaffetz, Martin O'Malley, Priebus, Mary Fallin  
•       •       •

3384 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2012 at 1:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-04 02:26:26 PM

dletter: Hey, how about that RNC convention bounce?

FiveThirtyEight Odds of Romney winning the election:
Aug 26: 30.6%
Sep 3: 25.2%


That's the Ryan bounce. When the Convention bounce fully kicks in the results next week, Romney should be around 20%. When both bounces wear off he should be sitting around 10%
 
2012-09-04 02:26:57 PM

mlkmandan: "Every president since the Great Depression, except Jimmy Carter and President Obama, who asked voters for a second term could look back at the last four years and say: 'You are better off today than you were four years ago,' the Charlotte-based team asked Monday"

Housing bubble burst.....yea.......equity is a shackle......you're better off without it
Jobs lost under Bush......hey....more time to spend with family
Lives lost to the war....well.....family time is overrated

What color is the sky in their world?


Depends.
 
2012-09-04 02:26:58 PM

KingPsyz: I'm waiting for anytime now for them to announce they're switching direction...


Funny part is, though. I heard that the main reason that we started our racing heading to the left in the FIRST place(Way back in the day when it was just horses) was because the Brits go to the right. We can't change now, that would be like giving in and saying that we want to be a part of their "empire"... What to do, what to do? Maybe eliminate NASCAR entirely? ;-)
 
2012-09-04 02:27:14 PM

Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.


If you concede that the republican obstructionism was the cuase of the problems of the last 4 years, how can you still claim it was Obama that failed?
 
2012-09-04 02:27:19 PM


bobcesca.com
 
2012-09-04 02:27:55 PM

busy chillin': Il Douchey:

I also like that how this insinuates the Republicans will just start bringing up bills for jobs and debt reduction. Okay guys, time to get to work. Like they will just start farting rainbows all over America. And that their goals will remotely line up with the citizens goals.

Deregulate everything!


This is one of the many insane things I keep hearing from Republicans. They think simply changing Presidents will solve everything and suddenly all will be good again. It won't.

What we have now is a system which favors the super rich and it's been politically engineered to be this way. Now we have a ruling class that basically owns our government lock, stock and barrel. All any of these idiots are doing is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of as many people as they can to get elected. Period. They don't give a rats wrinkled ass about making life better for anyone but themselves and their benefactors.

The only thing that will save this country is change from deep within. The problem with that is the people who are entrusted to make the change are the ones who are bought and paid for by the super rich I spoke of earlier. Republican after Republican has tried in vain to convince me that electing Mitt Romney will magically make everything good again by simple virtue that Obama will be gone. That's all they got. It's pathetic, really.
 
2012-09-04 02:28:05 PM

Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.


replacing the party first members of congress is a good idea.
 
2012-09-04 02:28:52 PM

mlkmandan: "Every president since the Great Depression, except Jimmy Carter and President Obama, who asked voters for a second term could look back at the last four years and say: 'You are better off today than you were four years ago,' the Charlotte-based team asked Monday"


Wow, we were all better off in 2008 than in 2004(Just to name a single example)? hat a bunch of asshats.,
 
2012-09-04 02:29:22 PM

Mikey1969: The Republican National Committee has opened up shop inside the NASCAR Plaza...

Seems like they'll fit right in. Doesn't NASCAR always turn to the left, though? Can't explain that.


Awesome. But actually, it's just like driving a car according to Obama...if you want to go forward, go to D. if you want to go backwards, go to R.
 
2012-09-04 02:29:57 PM

AnEvilGuest: Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.

replacing the party first members of congress is a good idea.


Term limits for every seat in Congress, just like most state legislatures have.
 
2012-09-04 02:30:57 PM

Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.


So you're saying that we should reward the guys who saw Party over Country so that they will finally get to work and quit trying to be douchebags?
 
2012-09-04 02:31:37 PM
Just outside the security perimeter of the Democratic National Convention, Republicans have set up a "rapid response" unit whose job it is to make sure the pro-Obama message this week does not go un-challenged.

And I hope the cops treat these Republicans exactly the same way that cops around the country have been treating the Occupy movement.
 
2012-09-04 02:33:00 PM

zappaisfrank: Term limits for every seat in Congress


With a proper political system, term limits are oppressive.
 
2012-09-04 02:33:35 PM

MattyB65: Mikey1969: The Republican National Committee has opened up shop inside the NASCAR Plaza...

Seems like they'll fit right in. Doesn't NASCAR always turn to the left, though? Can't explain that.

Awesome. But actually, it's just like driving a car according to Obama...if you want to go forward, go to D. if you want to go backwards, go to R.


oh yeah, and this:

image.spreadshirt.com
 
2012-09-04 02:33:56 PM

Weaver95: Just outside the security perimeter of the Democratic National Convention, Republicans have set up a "rapid response" unit whose job it is to make sure the pro-Obama message this week does not go un-challenged.

And I hope the cops treat these Republicans exactly the same way that cops around the country have been treating the Occupy movement.


I'd imagine that the GOP has the necessary permits. Your comparison was excellent otherwise
 
2012-09-04 02:34:13 PM

sprawl15: zappaisfrank: Term limits for every seat in Congress

With a proper political system, term limits are oppressive.


Tough. It's the only way to weed out the career politicians. You don't want term limits? Remove them from the Presidency then.
 
2012-09-04 02:36:41 PM

EighthDay: mlkmandan: "Every president since the Great Depression, except Jimmy Carter and President Obama, who asked voters for a second term could look back at the last four years and say: 'You are better off today than you were four years ago,' the Charlotte-based team asked Monday"

The nice thing about that question is that I can honestly answer "Yes."

Since 2008, I've had a 30+% pay increase, overall tax reduction, adopted a child for no cost aside from medical expenses thanks to the adoption tax credit, reduced household debt by over 10 grand, seen my side business grow in revenue from by over 1000% (yes, revenue has gone up by a factor of ten), and being able to actually take family vacations every year.

Now, a large part of that is due to my own hard work and diligence, but the answer is still yes.

Meanwhile, at the end of Bush's term, my company was laying people off, raises were out, pay cuts were happening, benefits were being suspended, and health care costs nearly crippled my finances.


Yay for you adopting a child.
Consider this an internets pat on the back. Good jorb. You make me proud to be a human.
 
2012-09-04 02:37:00 PM

Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.


And let the babies win? I can't do it.

When my two year old throws a tantrum, I don't give her what she wants.

But dont be surprised when they turn the page you aren't on it. Unless you are super rich. Or threw millions of dollars toward the campaign. They don't pay all that out for nothing in return.
 
2012-09-04 02:37:30 PM

skullkrusher: Weaver95: Just outside the security perimeter of the Democratic National Convention, Republicans have set up a "rapid response" unit whose job it is to make sure the pro-Obama message this week does not go un-challenged.

And I hope the cops treat these Republicans exactly the same way that cops around the country have been treating the Occupy movement.

I'd imagine that the GOP has the necessary permits. Your comparison was excellent otherwise


the Occupy people try to get permits (and often times they have them in hand)...but you know as well as I do that even assuming the OWS people can get a permit without being blocked by local governments, it's no protection from the cops beating the snot out of them.

but you're right - the GOP probably has sufficient cash on hand to bribe the locals and pay off the cops for protection.
 
2012-09-04 02:38:21 PM

zappaisfrank: You don't want term limits? Remove them from the Presidency then.


I'm ok with this.
 
2012-09-04 02:38:55 PM

Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.


In short: Republicans are horrible assholes, so...vote Republican. Can't say I've heard that one before, so points for creativity I guess.
 
2012-09-04 02:39:54 PM
Well no, I'm not better off than I was 4 years ago because I lost a nice little business in St Augustine around that time. With that being said, I still wouldn't vote for the assholes that caused me to lose my business... even if I was living in the woods right now. Most people remember who caused their problems and it wasn't Obama.
 
2012-09-04 02:40:11 PM

zappaisfrank: sprawl15: zappaisfrank: Term limits for every seat in Congress

With a proper political system, term limits are oppressive.

Tough. It's the only way to weed out the career politicians. You don't want term limits? Remove them from the Presidency then.


Then you would just have a rotating front man with the unnamed staff controlling their actions from behind the scenes.
 
2012-09-04 02:40:51 PM

Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.


...Republicans Are Bad So Vote Republican?

Well, that's certainly a new one.
 
2012-09-04 02:40:55 PM

Il Douchey: Calmamity: I'm certainly not better off than I was four years ago, but at least I know why, you obstructionist douche-weasels.

If you blame Obama's failure on GOP obstruction, you should know that the GOP will probably gain strength in both houses of Congress this year. So if Obama wins, it will mean even harder Obama failure, even more Obama excuses and you will be even worse off four years from now.

/We can't survive another term of failure, excuses and decline


So what you're saying is that we should elect Romney so the GOP can fast track the failure unopposed. Sounds like quite the plan there.
 
2012-09-04 02:42:00 PM

zappaisfrank: You don't want term limits? Remove them from the Presidency then.


I'll get right on that, boss.
 
2012-09-04 02:43:22 PM

zappaisfrank: AnEvilGuest: Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.

replacing the party first members of congress is a good idea.

Term limits for every seat in Congress, just like most state legislatures have.


Actually, term limits are a two edged sword. You replace corrupt sitting legislator with corrupt party machines. Who picks the candidates? The political machine. And with constant churn, legislators never have any time to build up their own gravatas apart from that which put them in office.

The real problem is political parties. The Constitution was never designed with them in mind. It was intended to have each legislator be reasonably independent, focusing on the needs of their constituents. Every X amount of people were entitled to a representative. When the number of representative was capped at 435 we started getting perversions like a representative in PA representing 1,000,000 people vs a representative in Wyoming representing 40,000.
 
2012-09-04 02:44:31 PM

zappaisfrank: sprawl15: zappaisfrank: Term limits for every seat in Congress

With a proper political system, term limits are oppressive.

Tough. It's the only way to weed out the career politicians. You don't want term limits? Remove them from the Presidency then.


Why do you assume that a "career politician" is synonymous with "corrupt politician"?

Term limits are an excellent way to replace career politicians - the ones who have actual experience in legislating and the arcane processes by which legislatures work - with unaccountable lobbyists and professional staffers. It's an excellent way to replace career politicians with people whose only concern would be leveraging their influence into a cushy job once they're unable to run for office. It's an excellent way to remove the only power the voters have. It's an excellent way to shield legislators from any long-term consequences of their policies.

If you think term limits solve any problems, you're sadly mistaken. The only "problem" they solve is the problem of elected officials having to go back to their district and be held to account by the voters.

/yes, remove them from the President as well
 
2012-09-04 02:44:44 PM

TheMysticS: Good jorb


We should all strive to do a good "jorb"...

Sorry, that one was too good to pass up.
 
2012-09-04 02:47:43 PM
CPennypacker: If you concede that the republican obstructionism was the cuase of the problems of the last 4 years, how can you still claim it was Obama that failed?

Because it was Obama that failed. It was caused by a variety of factors, but for the sake of argument, let's just say Obama's failure was entirely due to GOP obstruction. That obstruction will be more powerful next term, ergo, his failure would be more profound next term.
 
2012-09-04 02:48:21 PM

Fart_Machine: So what you're saying is that we should elect Romney so the GOP can fast track the failure unopposed. Sounds like quite the plan there.


I know more than a few people across the socialist spectrum, from full-on Marxist-Leninist all the way to Democratic Socialist, who are voting Romney for exactly that reason. Were I to ever vote Romney, that would be why.

The extreme left believes a Romney administration would be such an utter, unforgettable train wreck that it will cause an unprecedentedly hard, nationwide, swing to the left unprecedented by even the leftward swing during the FDR administration. Therefore, quite a few are voting for him.

What does that say about Romney as a candidate, here?
 
2012-09-04 02:51:02 PM

Il Douchey: CPennypacker: If you concede that the republican obstructionism was the cuase of the problems of the last 4 years, how can you still claim it was Obama that failed?

Because it was Obama that failed. It was caused by a variety of factors, but for the sake of argument, let's just say Obama's failure was entirely due to GOP obstruction. That obstruction will be more powerful next term, ergo, his failure would be more profound next term.


Your answer to my question is "because" and then you just repeated your bad argument again. You're a true gem.
 
2012-09-04 02:53:02 PM

TheMysticS: Yay for you adopting a child.
Consider this an internets pat on the back. Good jorb. You make me proud to be a human.


Thanks! Little guy is a miracle every day of my life.

Working on the second adoption now. And in an adoption ministry to educate more people about adoptions and foster care. The tax credit was just the icing on the cake, but it certainly made the expenses of a baby easier - and made those legal costs affordable.
 
2012-09-04 02:55:11 PM
i.telegraph.co.uk

"You guys are going to vote for us because we completely suck at our jobs? Well, well, it is a thing of beauty. Brings a tear to my eye...well, almost everything does, but this is really downright unbelievable...I mean awesome. Thanks. You guys are the best."

*sniffles*

/good luck with that
 
2012-09-04 02:56:03 PM

Il Douchey: CPennypacker: If you concede that the republican obstructionism was the cuase of the problems of the last 4 years, how can you still claim it was Obama that failed?

Because it was Obama that failed. It was caused by a variety of factors, but for the sake of argument, let's just say Obama's failure was entirely due to GOP obstruction. That obstruction will be more powerful next term, ergo, his failure would be more profound next term.


I'm more curious about the "failure" here. Please list said failures, and show that they are more numerous and bigger than any other President.

I'd really like to see him compared to his predecessor. That would be interesting. I'll even give you the full 8 year sof Bush, or just the past 4, your choice. Keep in mind that economic slides don't have 4 wheel anti-lock disc brakes, they don't stop the day a President takes office, so you'll have to factor in the continuing economic slide, and the reaction since it has stopped, to be fair.
 
2012-09-04 02:57:05 PM
Uh...watch out for what, exactly? The GOP spin machine taking things out of context and lying its way to the election? The Democrats would never expect that.
 
2012-09-04 02:57:58 PM
image.spreadshirt.com
/someone had to be first...
 
2012-09-04 03:00:56 PM
CPennypacker: Your answer to my question is "because" and then you just repeated your bad argument again. You're a true gem.

I think we're having communication difficulties. Let's try it this way:

Your quarterback keeps losing football games, but it's only because the other team has such a good defense. Next year their defense will be even better, but your quarterback won't be. You can't get rid of the other team, but you can bench your quarterback. Or, you can keep losing by even larger margins
 
2012-09-04 03:01:18 PM

that bosnian sniper: The extreme left believes a Romney administration would be such an utter, unforgettable train wreck that it will cause an unprecedentedly hard, nationwide, swing to the left unprecedented by even the leftward swing during the FDR administration. Therefore, quite a few are voting for him.


Thats an interesting theory, but it's also one hell of a gamble. If you're wrong, you've basically doomed the country.
 
2012-09-04 03:01:40 PM

Weaver95: the Occupy people try to get permits (and often times they have them in hand)...but you know as well as I do that even assuming the OWS people can get a permit without being blocked by local governments, it's no protection from the cops beating the snot out of them.


OWS got permits from NYC. Just not to camp out indefinitely. See, that's part of what having public space is about.

Weaver95: but you're right - the GOP probably has sufficient cash on hand to bribe the locals and pay off the cops for protection.


or just went through the proper channels to get a permit for a definite period of time
 
2012-09-04 03:02:51 PM

Il Douchey: CPennypacker: Your answer to my question is "because" and then you just repeated your bad argument again. You're a true gem.

I think we're having communication difficulties. Let's try it this way:

Your quarterback keeps losing football games, but it's only because the other team has such a good defense. Next year their defense will be even better, but your quarterback won't be. You can't get rid of the other team, but you can bench your quarterback. Or, you can keep losing by even larger margins


We're having communication difficulties because you're drooling all over yourself
 
2012-09-04 03:03:37 PM

Il Douchey: Your quarterback keeps losing football games, but it's only because the other team has such a good defense. Next year their defense will be even better, but your quarterback won't be. You can't get rid of the other team, but you can bench your quarterback. Or, you can keep losing by even larger margins


Please stop perpetuating the "Politics is a team sport" analogy. It isn't anything like it.
 
2012-09-04 03:04:42 PM

Il Douchey: CPennypacker: Your answer to my question is "because" and then you just repeated your bad argument again. You're a true gem.

I think we're having communication difficulties. Let's try it this way:

Your quarterback keeps losing football games, but it's only because the other team has such a good defense. Next year their defense will be even better, but your quarterback won't be. You can't get rid of the other team, but you can bench your quarterback. Or, you can keep losing by even larger margins


Wouldn't a better analogy be that the president is the quarterback, and Congress is the rest of the offense. Together, they're supposed to score points for the country, not against each other.

To use your example, it would be like the quarterback keeps losing games because his own players are tackling him. Do you replace the quarterback, or the players that don't know how to play the game?
 
2012-09-04 03:06:42 PM

Clint Eastwoods Chair: zappaisfrank: AnEvilGuest: Il Douchey: busy chillin': did I understand you correctly?

Not exactly. I'm saying that if opposition is your excuse for why Obama failed in his first term, he will only fail worse if he gets a second term. So rather than quibble over why it's not working, let's just concede that it's not working so we can turn the page.

replacing the party first members of congress is a good idea.

Term limits for every seat in Congress, just like most state legislatures have.

Actually, term limits are a two edged sword. You replace corrupt sitting legislator with corrupt party machines. Who picks the candidates? The political machine. And with constant churn, legislators never have any time to build up their own gravatas apart from that which put them in office.

The real problem is political parties. The Constitution was never designed with them in mind. It was intended to have each legislator be reasonably independent, focusing on the needs of their constituents. Every X amount of people were entitled to a representative. When the number of representative was capped at 435 we started getting perversions like a representative in PA representing 1,000,000 people vs a representative in Wyoming representing 40,000.


It is time for lottery system.

Want to be a congressmen? Fine, you pay a 20 dollar entrance fee and undergo a simple background check.... age, citizenship, no felonies.
If you pass, you go into a lottery.
We pick 6 names from the lottery, and two weeks later we have a runoff election.
Two weeks later, the general election.
You are not allowed to spend any money on your campaign.


Yeah, its a work in progess, but I think this is kinda where we need to head.
 
2012-09-04 03:09:51 PM

blastoh: Yeah, its a work in progess, but I think this is kinda where we need to head.


So, wait. Because you can't trust stupid, impressionable voters, you want to hand ONE OF THEM the keys, at random?
 
2012-09-04 03:11:45 PM

starsrift: you want to hand ONE OF THEM the keys, at random?


Better stupidity than malice, IMHO.
 
2012-09-04 03:12:46 PM

TsukasaK: Thats an interesting theory, but it's also one hell of a gamble. If you're wrong, you've basically doomed the country.


Well, considering myself (and a good number of my friends) firmly believe the country's politics and society are so endemically broken at this point the only way there will be meaningful, substantive reform is for a total collapse of the government, it's still a win-win.
 
2012-09-04 03:20:02 PM

Il Douchey: CPennypacker: If you concede that the republican obstructionism was the cuase of the problems of the last 4 years, how can you still claim it was Obama that failed?

Because it was Obama that failed. It was caused by a variety of factors, but for the sake of argument, let's just say Obama's failure was entirely due to GOP obstruction. That obstruction will be more powerful next term, ergo, his failure would be more profound next term.


So, what you're saying is that the GOP will hold the country hostage unless we give into their terrorist demands? You're saying America should give into terrorist demands?
 
2012-09-04 03:22:13 PM

TsukasaK: starsrift: you want to hand ONE OF THEM the keys, at random?

Better stupidity than malice, IMHO.


When the effect is the same, the intent is meaningless.

But more to the point, randomization reduces the elements of character and reputation that a politician requires - in other words, they have even less reason not to take bribes and deepen corruption.
 
2012-09-04 03:23:33 PM
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Yes, very much, thank you.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 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