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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mitch McConnell bravely ran away. When reporters reared their ugly heads, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Bravest of the brave, Mitch McConnell   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 385
    More: Amusing, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, John Barrasso, Jon Kyl, romney  
•       •       •

18658 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2012 at 6:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-19 08:56:53 PM

buckler: hubiestubert: And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

Motherfarking THIS. You know, if they hadn't ousted Huntsman as a science-and-common-sense-addled RINO, I probably still would vote for Obama, but I sure as hell wouldn't be tearing my hair out if Huntsman won. The man's got sense and sensibility, and I'd be happy enough having him as my President (and I'm sure our allies would, too). This goddamned "team spirit" thing is tearing us apart as a country, and it needs to end pronto. Unfortunately, in the astroturfing of the Tea Party, Fox news (the most egregious cheerleaders for their team), corporate America and the GOP created a golem they can no longer control, and it's only pushed us into the depths of hyperpartisanship.


Amen, brother.
 
2012-09-19 08:57:22 PM

mongbiohazard: I honestly thought Romney was going to make a much more challenging opponent for Obama then he has been proving to be. Yes, it's not over until it's over but his weakness is endemic. It's not something to be easily overcome with a pithy slogan.

I thought Romney would be challenging for Obama because he would point to his record in MA and portray himself as a sane moderate alternative. Little did I know that his campaign would decide to portray him as a full-on conservative instead. What fools - you don't win general elections in this age without being able to appeal outside of your base to the "other" side. The republican base was always going to vote for Romney no matter what... So he really had to swing only so many voters away from Obama to win.

Instead he abandons those hopes and tries to portray himself as a deep conservative, and gets a supposed conservative to run with him. I think the root problem is that Romney does not actually HAVE an ideology of his own. He has ambition, he has a sense of entitlement - but he has shown every sign of actually having no significant ideology of his own besides achieving his own personal ambitions. I thought his lack of ideology would be a strength for him as it would allow him to pretend to be what he needed to be. I failed to realize that having absolutely NO actual philosophical ideology of his own would instead be a weakness because 1. he'd be just as likely to pretend to be something OTHER than what he needed to be to win the general election and 2. his insincerity would be impossible to hide considering the depth and breadth of his utter lack of his own philosophy.


This is the same thamn ding that happened to McCain. While I didn't vote for him and never planned to, if he talked during the campaign like he talked during his concession speech, he'd have won over a lot more voters.

The insanecrazypsycho right wing base forces their candidates so far right they can't juggle the competing demands of primary and general election rhetoric. And the more they lose, the crazier they get.

This does not look good for the the RNC. Not that I am too concerned about that.
 
2012-09-19 08:58:36 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

"These are the people who never pay taxes." - Mitt Romney, 2012
 
2012-09-19 08:58:50 PM

Girion47: fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.


/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


no
 
2012-09-19 08:59:00 PM
Gads that man is hideous of appearance. He is truly dick headed.
 
2012-09-19 08:59:31 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


Even though you did not provide a link to the text of the law that was broken, I am sure you double and triple-checked the entire statute to make sure the taping met all of the requirements of an illegal act, lest you mislead us, right?
 
2012-09-19 08:59:43 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


Unless somehow you want to claim Romney's a teacher.
 
2012-09-19 09:00:16 PM
It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.

Why can't the Republican candidates learn how to lie like the Democrats at least until the election is over?!

If Republicans were better liars, we wouldn't be down in this ditch Obama paid illegal immigrants to dig for us.
 
2012-09-19 09:01:26 PM
Still waiting for a last-minute reveal of Mittser Burns' multi-year tax filling, which have been held as a red herring. Or they're so dense that they can't be parsed in time to get the info to the public.

Also, I'm not underestimating the anti-Obama-no-matter-what vote.

As well as the Mormons who will all come out to vote for their candidate, so that he can fulfill the prophecy.
 
2012-09-19 09:02:17 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

Even though you did not provide a link to the text of the law that was broken, I am sure you double and triple-checked the entire statute to make sure the taping met all of the requirements of an illegal act, lest you mislead us, right?



Nope, but I did RTFA. I don't really care what the law says, and I don't care what you think it says either. Neither of us are lawyers. If we were, we'd be sitting on a beach, sipping mai tais instead of wasting time on Fark.
 
2012-09-19 09:02:50 PM

amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.


If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)
 
2012-09-19 09:03:49 PM

TOSViolation: Indubitably: Oh, please.

Just stop.

Thank you.


No. The issue isn't what Romney did or did not say. If you believe that anything a presidential candidate says during campaign fundraisers should be public information, then go ask for that to be made into law. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion. That's not what interests me.

What interests me is why anyone thinks this is ok to do. Let's remove the presidential campaign aspect of this. Suppose this was a CEO talking about an upcoming product. Would not corporate espionage laws apply? When an event is held as a PRIVATE HOME, why cannot a reasonable level of privacy be expected?

This whole social media, I get to know everything about everyone, voyeurism mentality is ridiculous.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

Another GED in law.


Nope. No law degree of any sort. That statement was not a statement of law. It was a statement of opinion. Note the word MIGHT in there. For all we know, the person who recorded the event was hired under a confidentiality agreement in her contract. I just feel like a crime occurred in the secret recording. I'm not sure how hidden camera shows and news investigations get away with some of the things they do either.

Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.


Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from the same policies. What was his entitlement over the last ten years? Oh, right, he won't reveal that...nss?"

"Doublethink squared."
 
2012-09-19 09:04:43 PM

theoe: Girion47: fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.


/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?

no


No? That batshiat insane witch? Keep her in your state, if you must keep her, bit don't inflict her on the rest of the country.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:02 PM

Indubitably: TOSViolation: Indubitably: Oh, please.

Just stop.

Thank you.


No. The issue isn't what Romney did or did not say. If you believe that anything a presidential candidate says during campaign fundraisers should be public information, then go ask for that to be made into law. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion. That's not what interests me.

What interests me is why anyone thinks this is ok to do. Let's remove the presidential campaign aspect of this. Suppose this was a CEO talking about an upcoming product. Would not corporate espionage laws apply? When an event is held as a PRIVATE HOME, why cannot a reasonable level of privacy be expected?

This whole social media, I get to know everything about everyone, voyeurism mentality is ridiculous.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

Another GED in law.


Nope. No law degree of any sort. That statement was not a statement of law. It was a statement of opinion. Note the word MIGHT in there. For all we know, the person who recorded the event was hired under a confidentiality agreement in her contract. I just feel like a crime occurred in the secret recording. I'm not sure how hidden camera shows and news investigations get away with some of the things they do either.

Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.

Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from t ...


Bam and boom.

;)
 
2012-09-19 09:05:11 PM

TOSViolation: Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.


This is the United States of America. Unlike England, you can publish anything you can find out about public figures if it's for the public good. This has been true since Jefferson was president.

Would you have been against Woodward and Berstein as well? This was about the same thing, in the way the the New Testament and Life of Brian are about the same thing.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:27 PM

TOSViolation: It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.

Why can't the Republican candidates learn how to lie like the Democrats at least until the election is over?!

If Republicans were better liars, we wouldn't be down in this ditch Obama paid illegal immigrants to dig for us.


Thanks for clearing that up.

I mean, it's broad, implausible, partisan hackery and in no way connected with anything factual, it is, however, bound to rile people up and toss Mitt a couple of votes.

And he'll need a few.

Cause he's alienated everybody who isn't pigf*cking and P&L statements can't actually vote.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:28 PM

TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?


It is, if it's INFORMATION, like a patent or copyrighted material. It can be, if there is any falsehood or slander by use of the information, which is likely why Romney (the lawyer-hating attorney from Harvard) wanted the whole tape produced: If the clips by virtue of misuse placed him in a "false light", there would be ground for a defamation charge. (False light, in the sense of defamation, means it seems to show the speaker taking a stance he did not take, or saying something he didn't actually say)

But here, neither of those apply. Although it was a "private" speech, speech itself does not "belong" to the speaker, once it's left his mouth. It is, as they say "in the air" and therefore becomes free to all takers. Suppose someone at the speech had been making a longhand transcription of the speech and then published that. What, exactly has been stolen in that case? Romney said it, someone else heard it and wrote it down, and then someone else printed it. What was stolen, and from whom?

Now it's also possible that if the private speech was held in a private location with prominently posted signs that said "NO AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDINGS ALLOWED" that the recorder could be charged with violation if any statutes applied; those are like the laws prohibiting you from filming in a movie theater or at a speech that will be recorded and sold later. But in any of those cases, the burden is on the person claiming his movie or copyrighted speech was taken in violation of posted signs. Otherwise, Free Speech Doctrine assumes that if you're saying it, you want it heard, and you have no recourse if someone takes you more literally than you intended.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:29 PM

TOSViolation: It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.


Please, the GOP candidates were all over the Tea Party rallies.

Or do you think all those folks with no other plans at 1 PM on a Wednesday were all "small business owners?"
 
2012-09-19 09:05:33 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.



And yet you're going to be extremely unhappy for the next 4 years.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:56 PM

coyo: amquelbettamin: coyo:

Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.



You know how I know you don't understand the significance of Adam Smith?

Aside from that, the argument is that people receiving capital gains income should be taxed at a higher rate than those who's income comes from a job. The job increases the wealth of society and is useful. The income from capital gains is fallow - it has no benefit to society.


I agree that my flippant response was not rigorous. However how much of the tax burden do you think the starving masses are carrying in this country? Even a flat tax would disproportionately affect the rich.

While we're on that Smith quote: what would you consider a luxury good? Is a cellular telephone a luxury good?
 
2012-09-19 09:05:58 PM

Indubitably: Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from t ...



Is there someone in your house with you? I think you may be having a stroke. Don't wait. Call 911 now. Time lost is brain lost.
 
2012-09-19 09:06:34 PM

TOSViolation: Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.


www.crabbygolightly.com

There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line....

ARREST THEM! 
 
2012-09-19 09:07:24 PM
Who used to spout on and on about "sneering liberals"? He's missing out I think.
 
2012-09-19 09:09:01 PM

TOSViolation: Indubitably: Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from t ...


Is there someone in your house with you? I think you may be having a stroke. Don't wait. Call 911 now. Time lost is brain lost.


*rumble*
 
2012-09-19 09:09:03 PM
Oh, Mitch Mc...I thought you said MikeMc
 
2012-09-19 09:10:04 PM
 
2012-09-19 09:10:08 PM

Indubitably: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Typical Republican tactic: deny discourse.


lol...you make discourse you asshat. And I DO DENY YOU...FARKwad
 
2012-09-19 09:10:50 PM

Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)


If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.
 
2012-09-19 09:11:54 PM

KrispyKritter: i wish more usa citizens were as concerned and aware as you Farkers are. i know too many people in 'real life' that have their heads so far up their arse they would still vote romney if he raped a babby live on TV.



Actually it's worse. There are about 100 million who are eligible to vote but seemingly don't know or care who's running.
 
2012-09-19 09:12:05 PM

Snapper Carr: We all know where Mittens fits in that spectrum.


imageshack.us

Romney reminds me of Spaulding Smails from Caddyshack. Born spoiled-rotten filthy stinking rich, but arrogant as Hell as dumber than a sack of Stupid.

i440.photobucket.com

Bet Mittens eats his own boogers too.
 
2012-09-19 09:12:08 PM
are we into finding obama with a dead girl or live boy for him to lose this yet?
 
2012-09-19 09:12:24 PM
We have a populace armed with data capable portable phones with video cameras and small condenser mics in them and the ability to post the footage on a global refrigerator door in about 20 sec. flat. Wake the f*ck up, mister candidate man, cause you can't just park your ass on a caboose and whistle stop through the US, spouting whatever the people in Otter Titty, IN want to hear until you get to Moose Nipple IL and then change your tune. It's not a microscope it's a 50' screen, and you can't bribe the director or just keep sending thugs to taze them and take their cameras. Your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, cause the times they are a changin'.
 
2012-09-19 09:13:06 PM

Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?


It's not a different set of opinions. The GOP is a cancer on the American landscape. And seriously, you claim to be a centrist leaning right and you're using term leftist? Here's a clue: the Democrats are hardly left much less hard left enough to be considered leftist. Obama, of anything is slightly left of center.

The reason people are happy that the GOP appears to be self destructing is because people want the GOP to eject the teabaggers and other hard right elements and become the party of conservatives again.

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

There is very little "extreme leftist" anything. And nobody thinks there should't be a counterbalance. The problem is that the current GOP is destructive.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

Hey! Look! it's a Fark Independent.
 
2012-09-19 09:13:10 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: OriginalGamer: The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

lol... you think your vote matters

I'm tired of being offered a "choice" between 2 equally shiatty options. "only those with an R or a D in parentheses can possibly win, all others are to be ignored or mocked/shouted down"
The 2 party system needs to die. now. then and only then will we be able to discuss actual issues rather than "platforms" and "talking points".


LoL, you think your vote doesn't matter.

We have more than 2 parties, vote for one of them. Not voting makes you an idiot with no right to biatch.
 
2012-09-19 09:13:40 PM

Gyrfalcon: TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?

It is, if it's INFORMATION, like a patent or copyrighted material. It can be, if there is any falsehood or slander by use of the information, which is likely why Romney (the lawyer-hating attorney from Harvard) wanted the whole tape produced: If the clips by virtue of misuse placed him in a "false light", there would be ground for a defamation charge. (False light, in the sense of defamation, means it seems to show the speaker taking a stance he did not take, or saying something he didn't actually say)

But here, neither of those apply. Although it was a "private" speech, speech itself does not "belong" to the speaker, once it's left his mouth. It is, as they say "in the air" ...



I don't know. I don't care enough to read into the Martin Luther King Jr. speech, but I know they'll sue your ass if you try to publish it, whatever their justification may be.

Yes. I'm really pissed at Romney for saying that. I just wish, if he was going to say it, he would have said it at an undeniably PUBLIC venue. I still think it was wrong for the person to record the event.

Why can't we get a BLACK, well-educated, Republican, candidate without an unreasonable sense of entitlement to run for president?

I'd vote for Colin Powell any day.
 
2012-09-19 09:14:12 PM

TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?


Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?
 
2012-09-19 09:14:42 PM

Kit Fister: hubiestubert: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: PlatinumDragon: Hmmm.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.

What it boils down to is that WE, as an electorate, have to stop treating elections like they're sports events. There are no teams, just Americans making choices for their representatives. And that is what we have to reclaim. Representation. And that means NOT voting for folks, EVEN IF they're on your "team" if they show themselves to be amoral, reprehensible slime balls who put their own benefit before that of the people and the nation.

How many folks, would be voting for Romney if he were an Independent? How many would be voting for the man, not the "side"? Take that little letter away, and vote for the man, vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job. Based on words actually spoken. Based on past policies supported and enacted. Based on the job that they've done.

I am STILL fairly Conservative, but the party has abandoned those principles, but there are still folks I will vote for, based on their policy decisions. Based on their record. Some of them are Republicans. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them won't be either, this time around. I can say, for certain, that Mitt is NOT a good choice for the nation. If he were a Democrat, the folks who are decrying his treatment would be screaming for his head.

And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

This


I think most American citizens agree with these ideas, but in this rigged two-party system it seems like there is nothing that can be done short of a total revamp of our entire electoral process.
 
2012-09-19 09:15:38 PM

Rindred: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Nice full-throated defense of Romney's policy statements. I, for one, am convinced.


wow...you so show your brainpower here. I never said anything about "CatchersMitt" Rom...

Don't like the guy...like you worse. You and those like you that think with your asses. Try thinking with your brains and common sense for a change. Both candidates would be strung up if we did.

This site...brains not needed
 
2012-09-19 09:16:02 PM

jmr61: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

And yet you're going to be extremely unhappy for the next 4 years.


It's OK. They like being angry and feeling persecuted, it seems.
 
2012-09-19 09:16:11 PM

Dahnkster: TOSViolation: Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.

www.crabbygolightly.com

There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line....

ARREST THEM!



I don't even know what in the Hell you're trying to say there. Not a single one of those cameras is hidden. They're all outside, in a public venue.

Are you having a stroke too? (it's definitely not one of genius)
 
2012-09-19 09:17:49 PM
I can put a halt to all this sh*t in about 10 seconds. It's astoundingly easy, works flawlessly and it will never happen.
 
2012-09-19 09:18:20 PM

mongbiohazard: you don't win general elections in this age without being able to appeal outside of your base to the "other" side. The republican base was always going to vote for Romney no matter what... So he really had to swing only so many voters away from Obama to win.


I know this, you know this, we all know this - they MUST know this. So the question is, why don't they apparently even want to try and win?
 
2012-09-19 09:18:21 PM

TOSViolation: It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.

Why can't the Republican candidates learn how to lie like the Democrats at least until the election is over?!

If Republicans were better liars, we wouldn't be down in this ditch Obama paid illegal immigrants to dig for us.


They used to be.

You have only yourselves to blame, pandering to the fringie Teahadist base in 2010. Some of us Democrats (me) warned you and warned you that you were opening Pandora's box with that one, and you scoffed and said you'd rein them back as soon as the midterm elections were done. But some of THEM got elected as well, and they insisted on driving the GOP farther into the fringe.

The GOP used to fight the dirtiest, ugliest campaigns ever--they still have the record for most money spent to smear a candidate and dirtiest tricks ever played (both Nixon, IIRC), but they never alienated the people who had to vote for them, and they always went back to running the country when they were done. Since 2008, they've been lying, cheating, stealing and slandering right out in the open and still your fringies want more. So you have only your pandering selves to blame, I'm afraid.
 
2012-09-19 09:19:17 PM

Gestankfaust: Rindred: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Nice full-throated defense of Romney's policy statements. I, for one, am convinced.

wow...you so show your brainpower here. I never said anything about "CatchersMitt" Rom...

Don't like the guy...like you worse. You and those like you that think with your asses. Try thinking with your brains and common sense for a change. Both candidates would be strung up if we did.

This site...brains not needed


Wow, aren't you a little ray of sunshine? I'm thinking perfectly fine, thanks. Your comment didn't deserve better, Snoop Trolly Troll.
 
2012-09-19 09:19:17 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?



Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?
 
2012-09-19 09:21:19 PM

TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?


Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?


I think I'm gonna shut you off now. You have nothing useful to say and you're not witty. Nothing personal.
 
2012-09-19 09:21:24 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


So you think Jammy Okeefe should be in jail and ACORN should still be in business? Am I reading you correctly?
 
2012-09-19 09:21:50 PM

ivan: To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.


Ah, thanks for the clarification.
 
2012-09-19 09:22:02 PM

ivan: He will make DAMN SURE Obama does NOT become a three-term president.


Hopefully he'll fail in that too.
 
2012-09-19 09:22:21 PM

bunner: TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?


Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?

I think I'm gonna shut you off now. You have nothing useful to say and you're not witty. Nothing personal.



Did you forget what site you're on? Seriously? You want wit and intelligence? I think you got lost.
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report