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.

(Washington Times)   Russia TV, Al Jazeera the only networks to cover the third party presidential debate tonight. Potential audience: 760 million. Gary Johnson still pinching himself   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 239
    More: Interesting, Russia TV, human beings, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, presidential debates, Ross Perot, Green Party, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

1588 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 8:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-23 10:32:20 PM

GanjSmokr: I believe it's on DirecTV 375 - "Link" - in about 15 minutes. It's also streaming here.



GOT DAMMIT!  I just saw the "good night people"  part.
 
2012-10-23 10:35:08 PM
What were the six questions again?
 
2012-10-23 10:39:09 PM

ipsofacto: What were the six questions again?


Do you hate the two party system, do you want to legalize drugs, oh fark forgot the opening statements, do you want to Syria, should education be free, and if you could wish for anything what would it be.
 
2012-10-23 10:41:06 PM
There was also the question about indefinite detention.
 
2012-10-23 10:43:47 PM
OK, voting is up at freeandequal
 
2012-10-23 10:46:19 PM

tomWright: OK, voting is up at freeandequal


I don't see the audio-triggered vibrator on the list.
 
2012-10-23 10:49:33 PM

sprawl15: tomWright: OK, voting is up at freeandequal

I don't see the audio-triggered vibrator on the list.


You need the new iPwned 6 for that
 
2012-10-23 10:51:27 PM

tomWright: OK, voting is up at freeandequal


I voted Johnson, Anderson, Stein and Goode in that order.
 
2012-10-23 10:53:24 PM

buzzcut73: tomWright: OK, voting is up at freeandequal

I voted Johnson, Anderson, Stein and Goode in that order.


My list was the same.
 
2012-10-23 10:54:37 PM

sprawl15: do you want to Syria


The whole thing?
 
2012-10-23 10:58:25 PM
I voted Johnson, Anderson, Goode and Stein but I don't know if it took my vote, it just went to a white page. I'll try again later.
 
2012-10-23 10:59:42 PM
Whoever else is running, Gary Johnson is just a farking scam.

Gulper Eel: tomWright: Johnny Swank: You know, these 3rd, 4th, 5th parties all have their heads up their asses, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. They need to concentrate on small, local elections and work their way up the food chain and gain credibility instead of this silly nonsense of just putting some schmo up for president every four years. Yes, it'll take 20-30 years, but they may would actually have a chance in hell of doing something effective.

Some of us consider them the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th parties.

SO far as working the way up, have you ever tried that?

I have, The laws and rules are deliberately stacked against them by the R and D parties in order to prevent that.

There was, once, a thriving multi-party environment in this country. after the nations political environment stabilized small parties arose. For about a century starting in the 1820's, until the laws were changed to encourage first-past-the-post elections and eliminate at-large congressional elections, replaced by single district offices.

The entire system is rigged to make it defacto illegal for an alternative party to gain traction, without expressly writing it in the law.

Aaaaaand THIS.

Many state ballot-access laws are some of the most notorious forms of legalized corruption. So why the fark would you bother running for the ultimate backbench spot in a legislature designed to shiat all over you even in the unlikely event you were to win? If the rules are set up to stifle you, fark it - swing for the fences.

Besides, Johnson's been governor of New Mexico and demonstrated there that he had his shiat together. We elected a governor from Arkansas and he seems to have done okay by more Americans than either of his successors.


Because it won't work?

Ballot access laws are a hassle but they aren't a barrier, and whining about them is especially ridiculous for the only third party with money and numbers (Libertarians) since it's less of a barrier of entry than being homeless is to getting back out of being homeless. Not to mention running for president is at least as hard (if not harder) than getting your name on the ballot for congresscritter.

But there is a simpler problem, it's the same problem as above, Libertarians have enough money and pull to grab house seats, maybe even Senate seats if they could/would communistically focus the national campaign money into a local race. Locals fight their local fights, but none of them are organized/funded enough to win those local seats, and national players fight for the Presidency with the same problems and results.

And they aren't necessarily wrong. If a non-corrupt Gary Johnson (900 FARKING DOLLARS until the internet started SHAMING him into doing more, and not much at that) sent all his money to get some no-name in Indiana (or wherever) into the House of Representatives there is a decent chance his followers and donors would biatch and complain that he was wasting proud Texan dollars (or wherever) on stupid other states. biatch, complain, and not donate next year.

Is that true? I don't know as I'm not a pollster or a psychic but I can understand the fear it might be true.

Also one further problem is that most third parties' official platforms are batshiat insane and/or fairly incoherent. The LP has members, (weird, mostly-disavowed members, but members nonetheless) who promote the reinstatement of sodomy laws. That works if you're throwing stones from the sidelines but it doesn't work as a real national player.
 
2012-10-23 11:17:35 PM

TheBigJerk: Whoever else is running, Gary Johnson is just a farking scam.

Gulper Eel: tomWright: Johnny Swank: You know, these 3rd, 4th, 5th parties all have their heads up their asses, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. They need to concentrate on small, local elections and work their way up the food chain and gain credibility instead of this silly nonsense of just putting some schmo up for president every four years. Yes, it'll take 20-30 years, but they may would actually have a chance in hell of doing something effective.

Some of us consider them the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th parties.

SO far as working the way up, have you ever tried that?

I have, The laws and rules are deliberately stacked against them by the R and D parties in order to prevent that.

There was, once, a thriving multi-party environment in this country. after the nations political environment stabilized small parties arose. For about a century starting in the 1820's, until the laws were changed to encourage first-past-the-post elections and eliminate at-large congressional elections, replaced by single district offices.

The entire system is rigged to make it defacto illegal for an alternative party to gain traction, without expressly writing it in the law.

Aaaaaand THIS.

Many state ballot-access laws are some of the most notorious forms of legalized corruption. So why the fark would you bother running for the ultimate backbench spot in a legislature designed to shiat all over you even in the unlikely event you were to win? If the rules are set up to stifle you, fark it - swing for the fences.

Besides, Johnson's been governor of New Mexico and demonstrated there that he had his shiat together. We elected a governor from Arkansas and he seems to have done okay by more Americans than either of his successors.

Because it won't work?

Ballot access laws are a hassle but they aren't a barrier, and whining about them is especially ridiculous for the only third party with money and numbers (Libertarians) ...


a sodomy law has no footing on a libertarian platform.
 
2012-10-23 11:23:18 PM

BeesNuts: Cletus just brought a new idea to the table. Green Card Moratorium until UE is under 5%. Interesting. We can talk about that.

 
2012-10-23 11:27:30 PM

Girion47: a sodomy law has no footing on a libertarian platform.


No LOGICAL footing, but I have met LP members who support such things loudly and proudly who still get invitations and still speak "for the party" and don't get particularly shouted at or silenced by their fellows. It is because the party can't afford to ostracize anyone willing to claim membership and lack the coherency to do so. And these members manage to twist logic until they come up with an "interpretation" of the Libertarian philosophy that promotes oppressing the gays. Usually with lots of whining about "shoving their gayness down our throats" because what would a good homophobe be without his unintentional and oblivious innuendo.

It i a small issue, a result of the party being too small to turn anyone away as much as anything, but another obstacle to larger recognition/acceptance.
 
2012-10-23 11:34:33 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: tomWright: Johnny Swank: You know, these 3rd, 4th, 5th parties all have their heads up their asses, and I mean that in the nicest possible way. They need to concentrate on small, local elections and work their way up the food chain and gain credibility instead of this silly nonsense of just putting some schmo up for president every four years. Yes, it'll take 20-30 years, but they may would actually have a chance in hell of doing something effective.

Some of us consider them the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th parties.

SO far as working the way up, have you ever tried that?

I have, The laws and rules are deliberately stacked against them by the R and D parties in order to prevent that.

There was, once, a thriving multi-party environment in this country. after the nations political environment stabilized small parties arose. For about a century starting in the 1820's, until the laws were changed to encourage first-past-the-post elections and eliminate at-large congressional elections, replaced by single district offices.

The entire system is rigged to make it defacto illegal for an alternative party to gain traction, without expressly writing it in the law.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Especially hate my state's BS practice where Judges and University reps are listed as non partisan... but are all nominated by the RNC or DNC. Real f--king non-partisan.


In many cases in my state, the same person runs on the Democratic and Republican lines for a judgeship. However, that seems to be changing a bit lately at the state level. At the local level, if both candidates nominate somebody for an office, I get to choose between John Smith the Democrat, and John Smith the Republican.
 
2012-10-23 11:38:29 PM

TheBigJerk: Girion47: a sodomy law has no footing on a libertarian platform.

No LOGICAL footing, but I have met LP members who support such things loudly and proudly who still get invitations and still speak "for the party" and don't get particularly shouted at or silenced by their fellows. It is because the party can't afford to ostracize anyone willing to claim membership and lack the coherency to do so. And these members manage to twist logic until they come up with an "interpretation" of the Libertarian philosophy that promotes oppressing the gays. Usually with lots of whining about "shoving their gayness down our throats" because what would a good homophobe be without his unintentional and oblivious innuendo.

It i a small issue, a result of the party being too small to turn anyone away as much as anything, but another obstacle to larger recognition/acceptance.


well as a member, those assholes can kiss my ass.
 
2012-10-23 11:57:24 PM

sprawl15: Frederick: And yes, it is primarily about remotely killing people off the battle field without due process,

Again, what's the difference between a drone and lobbing a missile from a cruiser or just using a manned aerial vehicle?

If the person doesn't get due process, it doesn't matter who drops the bomb on him.


Effectively there is no difference. Drone use is far more prevalent than those others; and perhaps more offensive due to the anonymous and detached nature of the killing. I can also understand those who do not have the technology being particularly offended.

Personally, I think drones are a huge technological military advantage. I wish though that we didnt use them so indiscriminately and off battlefield. I disagree with their use in fighting terrorism or crime. I endorse their use against uniformed military opponents.
 
2012-10-24 12:13:13 AM

Frederick: And yes, it is primarily about remotely killing people off the battle field without due process,


Okay, so what's the difference between using a drone and using an assassin? ...or an elite black ops squad?
 
2012-10-24 01:30:58 AM

Ishkur: Frederick: And yes, it is primarily about remotely killing people off the battle field without due process,

Okay, so what's the difference between using a drone and using an assassin? ...or an elite black ops squad?


I am becoming unclear about the direction of questions. What are you getting at?

Effectively there is no difference. They were both against our law at one point in time. The War Against Terror (TWAT) changed all that.

The subject of drone use is relevant to foreign policy due to the offense it generates among the world; whether or not Americans agree or even understand.
 
2012-10-24 02:43:46 AM

Frederick: I am becoming unclear about the direction of questions. What are you getting at?


I was wondering what the opposition to drone use was (just curious), and the phrase "remotely killing people off the battle field without due process" was said. Well, that's been going on well before drone use, so what's the issue?
 
2012-10-24 03:16:03 AM

Ishkur: Frederick: I am becoming unclear about the direction of questions. What are you getting at?

I was wondering what the opposition to drone use was (just curious), and the phrase "remotely killing people off the battle field without due process" was said. Well, that's been going on well before drone use, so what's the issue?


Ah. If I understand correctly the context is on regard to foreign relations and opposition, not domestic opposition (although that occurs too). Under US law, before the war against terror (because I like the twat acronym) extra judicial killing -assassinations- were officially illegal. It may have happened prior, but it was much more clandestine and never officially sanctioned. I cant recall of a single event where a Bin Laden type figure was killed before (I will google it shortly).

IMHO, the opposition is about the killings; the drone use just makes that opposition more offended. It is seen as blatant, cowardly, and immoral -and uniquely American. And since the US is perceived as the worlds #1 antagonist, any offense is elevated. 

I think it is important to understand the motivations of those who claim to be our enemies whether or not I agree with them.
 
2012-10-24 03:18:35 AM

TheBigJerk: Whoever else is running, Gary Johnson is just a farking scam.


You're a fool. If you look at the other candidates, you may discover that the smaller the campaign, the larger the share going to admin. I doubt you're smart enough to figure out why, but have a go.
 
2012-10-24 03:29:12 AM
True. I was thinking mostly domestically (of course the international community is going to be upset. They get upset when the President mispronounces their country's names, there's no pleasing them. It's hopeless to even try).

But it would seem rather silly for the Republicans to condemn the Obama Administration for relying heavily on drone strike campaigns when they spent a decade torturing and imprisoning people indefinitely. It's like Gary Ridgeway calling James Holmes a psychopath.

Then again, if the Nuremberg laws were applied today, it's likely that every President since WWII would have to be hanged. Taking the moral high ground has never been a characteristic of American governments.

Drone missions don't put any Americans in harms way. So they got that going for it.
 
2012-10-24 04:46:05 AM
Drones are useful surveillance tools over hostile areas. I remember being shocked when that first one fired a missile and killed some AQ. Wait they can do that? It was a good conversation I had with my childhood friend who now pilots them.

The disconnect of killing someone on the other side of the planet and then eating papa johns with the kids two hours later is not good, and there's no denying that. I like that we have the option and the capability though. I hope the oversight and the beforehand intelligence is outstanding, or else our mindless aerial automatons are no better than their mindless suicide-bombing automatons.
 
2012-10-24 05:01:49 AM
 
2012-10-24 08:20:12 AM

Frederick: IMHO, the opposition is about the killings; the drone use just makes that opposition more offended. It is seen as blatant, cowardly, and immoral -and uniquely American.


None of that had anything to do with the complaints during the debate. They argued either as if drones were exceptionally unconstitutional or as if drones had the unique problem of causing collateral damage. Both are total nonsense.
 
2012-10-24 08:47:48 AM

TheBigJerk: It i a small issue, a result of the party being too small to turn anyone away as much as anything, but another obstacle to larger recognition/acceptance.


Worked for a Democrat running for a House seat in Washington state several years ago. It was a long shot in a conservative district but maybe with the right national tide we might have a chance. There was also a Libetarian candidate running. Figured he might take a couple percentage points off the Republican incumbent. When we finally wrangled a debate schedule, we didn't object to him being included in the first debate.

Big mistake. In his opening statement, he endorsed the Republican incumbent and then spent the rest of the debate spouting Republican talking points. Utter joke.

Same year, the Green party in Seattle nominated a guy running on a Purity of Bodily Fluids platform - anti-vaxxer and anti-fluoride. But I guess when you're running against Jim McDermott, there's not a lot of room on the Left without going into la-la land.

Like you said, it's a consequence of being too small to turn the nut jobs away.
 
2012-10-24 09:21:24 AM

knobmaker: TheBigJerk: Whoever else is running, Gary Johnson is just a farking scam.

You're a fool. If you look at the other candidates, you may discover that the smaller the campaign, the larger the share going to admin. I doubt you're smart enough to figure out why, but have a go.


Additionally, Johnson's raised a total of barely a million bucks.

By way of comparison, there's one single Crossroads GPS superPAC media buy for just Ohio and Wisconsin kicking in this week that's going for $4.2 million.

The best Johnson could hope for with this million of his, were he to spend it on traditional media, is to spend the lot of it in the last minute in one market in hopes of farking up one state's race.
 
2012-10-24 09:22:33 AM

Aexia: Like you said, it's a consequence of being too small to turn the nut jobs away.


Do you think the Republicans or Democrats are getting to 50%+1 without nutjobs?
 
2012-10-24 09:25:46 AM

Gulper Eel: The best Johnson could hope for with this million of his, were he to spend it on traditional media, is to spend the lot of it in the last minute in one market in hopes of farking up one state's race.


It's much more effective to give it to advisers.
 
2012-10-24 09:28:55 AM

Frederick: It is seen as blatant, cowardly, and immoral -and uniquely American. And since the US is perceived as the worlds #1 antagonist, any offense is elevated.


You're saying that the world doesn't appreciate the fact that America can kill people from afar without having any real vested interest in the process. No Americans were Harmed in the Making of this Assassination, and all that.

I'll happily concede that this does indeed create a moral dilemma, but Cowardly, Immoral and Blatant? That's just throwing mean words around. 300 years ago, it would have been considered Cowardly to not march in column across an open field at your opponent. 100 years ago, it was considered cowardly to not run directly towards machine gun fire.

War is becoming a MORE precise process, not less. The collateral, as well as direct casualties are dropping. Drones are helping to prevent needless deaths, not promoting them. And they are a tool, above all. Like any other tool of war, the primary source of their moral standing is in how they are being used.

If you disapprove of how these tools are being used, please give specific examples so that we might respond directly to them.
 
2012-10-24 09:35:44 AM

BeesNuts: Frederick: It is seen as blatant, cowardly, and immoral -and uniquely American. And since the US is perceived as the worlds #1 antagonist, any offense is elevated.

You're saying that the world doesn't appreciate the fact that America can kill people from afar without having any real vested interest in the process. No Americans were Harmed in the Making of this Assassination, and all that.

I'll happily concede that this does indeed create a moral dilemma, but Cowardly, Immoral and Blatant? That's just throwing mean words around. 300 years ago, it would have been considered Cowardly to not march in column across an open field at your opponent. 100 years ago, it was considered cowardly to not run directly towards machine gun fire.

War is becoming a MORE precise process, not less. The collateral, as well as direct casualties are dropping. Drones are helping to prevent needless deaths, not promoting them. And they are a tool, above all. Like any other tool of war, the primary source of their moral standing is in how they are being used.

If you disapprove of how these tools are being used, please give specific examples so that we might respond directly to them.


What about to kill U.S. Citizens? They at least, deserve due process.
 
2012-10-24 09:46:46 AM

Girion47: BeesNuts: Frederick: It is seen as blatant, cowardly, and immoral -and uniquely American. And since the US is perceived as the worlds #1 antagonist, any offense is elevated.

You're saying that the world doesn't appreciate the fact that America can kill people from afar without having any real vested interest in the process. No Americans were Harmed in the Making of this Assassination, and all that.

I'll happily concede that this does indeed create a moral dilemma, but Cowardly, Immoral and Blatant? That's just throwing mean words around. 300 years ago, it would have been considered Cowardly to not march in column across an open field at your opponent. 100 years ago, it was considered cowardly to not run directly towards machine gun fire.

War is becoming a MORE precise process, not less. The collateral, as well as direct casualties are dropping. Drones are helping to prevent needless deaths, not promoting them. And they are a tool, above all. Like any other tool of war, the primary source of their moral standing is in how they are being used.

If you disapprove of how these tools are being used, please give specific examples so that we might respond directly to them.

What about to kill U.S. Citizens? They at least, deserve due process.


But his argument wasn't constitutional. It was moral and emotional. From a legal perspective, yes. Anwar al-Awlaki's (and most of his family)'s assassination should make us all uneasy, as should federal dismissal of the subsequent lawsuit.

An "America, I Am Disappoint" might be warranted. But disparaging drone use as cowardly, blatant and immoral makes me think he's one of the internet legion who were outraged by the principle of the thing when it happened, and then lost sight of what the real problems were, instead opting for a more base rationale.
 
2012-10-24 09:52:12 AM

BeesNuts: Girion47: BeesNuts: Frederick: It is seen as blatant, cowardly, and immoral -and uniquely American. And since the US is perceived as the worlds #1 antagonist, any offense is elevated.

You're saying that the world doesn't appreciate the fact that America can kill people from afar without having any real vested interest in the process. No Americans were Harmed in the Making of this Assassination, and all that.

I'll happily concede that this does indeed create a moral dilemma, but Cowardly, Immoral and Blatant? That's just throwing mean words around. 300 years ago, it would have been considered Cowardly to not march in column across an open field at your opponent. 100 years ago, it was considered cowardly to not run directly towards machine gun fire.

War is becoming a MORE precise process, not less. The collateral, as well as direct casualties are dropping. Drones are helping to prevent needless deaths, not promoting them. And they are a tool, above all. Like any other tool of war, the primary source of their moral standing is in how they are being used.

If you disapprove of how these tools are being used, please give specific examples so that we might respond directly to them.

What about to kill U.S. Citizens? They at least, deserve due process.

But his argument wasn't constitutional. It was moral and emotional. From a legal perspective, yes. Anwar al-Awlaki's (and most of his family)'s assassination should make us all uneasy, as should federal dismissal of the subsequent lawsuit.

An "America, I Am Disappoint" might be warranted. But disparaging drone use as cowardly, blatant and immoral makes me think he's one of the internet legion who were outraged by the principle of the thing when it happened, and then lost sight of what the real problems were, instead opting for a more base rationale.


I'm not against drones, and I appreciate that lives lost is being reduced. It just seems that we're getting far to cavalier with where we're taking them and what we're doing with them. Do we even respect sovereign airspace any longer? At what point does Congress have to approve bombing in a country? Why can the President invade Pakistan without congressional approval to get Bin Laden(I'm glad he did, it was ballsy. absolutely wrong legally, but ballsy)?

My concern isn't over the use, but the abuse of drones.
 
2012-10-24 09:58:25 AM

Girion47: They at least, deserve due process.


Due process does not mean jury trial. Note that we did not convict him of anything, which would require a jury trial.

Due process granted to military targets consists of assurance that they are killed in accordance with rules of engagement and to a lesser extent international law.

BeesNuts: Anwar al-Awlaki's (and most of his family)'s assassination should make us all uneasy, as should federal dismissal of the subsequent lawsuit.


Bullshiat. What should have made people uneasy was exercising war powers on a potentially unlimited entity via the AUMF. His killing was absolutely constitutional and by the book. If we want to stop that, we need to change the book, not get butthurt that a member of al Qaeda was killed under explicit Congressional authorization to go forth and kill al Qaeda.

If anything, the argument made by people that his citizenship matters one farking bit is the most offensive part of the whole debate.
 
2012-10-24 12:43:20 PM

violentsalvation: Drones are useful surveillance tools over hostile areas. I remember being shocked when that first one fired a missile and killed some AQ. Wait they can do that? It was a good conversation I had with my childhood friend who now pilots them.


If I was a drone operator, I would totally label the missile firing button "smite".
 
2012-10-24 03:09:35 PM

sprawl15: Virgil Goode sounds like a farking cartoon character. That's not his real voice, is it? Is that Sasha Baren Cohen?


sprawl15: Virgil Goode's nickname in high school was Dolan.


violentsalvation: I just figured it out, Virgil Goode reminds me of any random lawyer from a John Grisham book.


cepson: This has been a far more enjoyable experience than I expected. And while I would never vote for Virgil Goode for anything, I love listening to him. Jill is a bit unprepared, but Rocky's got her back. Gary looks a bit feral, but at least he knows where he stands and what he wants to do.


Girion47: buzzcut73: tomWright: OK, voting is up at freeandequal

I voted Johnson, Anderson, Stein and Goode in that order.

My list was the same.


violentsalvation: I voted Johnson, Anderson, Goode and Stein but I don't know if it took my vote, it just went to a white page. I'll try again later.


Just for y′all:
♪♫ Deep mid-dle of Vir-gin-ia, close to Ro-a-noke, ♫♪
♫♪ Way up in Rock-y Mount right near a big live oak. ♪♫
♪♫ It was-n't a log cabin made of earth nor wood, ♫♪
♫♪ Where lived a city boy name of Vir-gil H. Goode, ♪♫
♪♫ Who never ever learned to think or rea-son well, ♫♪
♫♪ But he could sure spout some derp just like a Tea-bag-ger yell. ♪♫

(Chorus:)
♪♫ So, run! ♫♪
♫♪ Run, Vir-gil, run run! ♪♫
♪♫ Run, Vir-gil, run run! ♫♪
♫♪ Run, Vir-gil, run run! ♪♫
♪♫ Run, Vir-gil, run run! ♫♪
♫♪ Vir-gil H. Goode! ♪♫

♪♫ As pol-i-ti-cians go, you could call him a hack, ♫♪
♫♪ De-rail-in' leg-is-la-tion was his on-ly knack. ♪♫
♪♫ There was no con-tro-ver-sy'n which he wouldn't wade, ♫♪
♫♪ The Con-sti-tu-tion Par-ty's nom-in-a-tion made. ♪♫
♪♫ The People passing by, they would stop and see, ♫♪
♫♪ If he could take 'nuff votes from Mitt Rom-ney. ♪♫

(Chorus)

♪♫ His mother told him someday you will be a man, ♫♪
♫♪ And ev-en run for leader of this great big land. ♪♫
♪♫ Many people coming from miles around, ♫♪
♫♪ Check your name on their bal-lot 'ere the sun go down. ♪♫
♪♫ Maybe someday your name will be shouted, hey, ♫♪
♫♪ Vote for Vir-gil Goode today! ♪♫

(Chorus)
(Repeat Chorus)
 
2012-10-25 01:47:54 PM

Gulper Eel: knobmaker: TheBigJerk: Whoever else is running, Gary Johnson is just a farking scam.

You're a fool. If you look at the other candidates, you may discover that the smaller the campaign, the larger the share going to admin. I doubt you're smart enough to figure out why, but have a go.

Additionally, Johnson's raised a total of barely a million bucks.

By way of comparison, there's one single Crossroads GPS superPAC media buy for just Ohio and Wisconsin kicking in this week that's going for $4.2 million.

The best Johnson could hope for with this million of his, were he to spend it on traditional media, is to spend the lot of it in the last minute in one market in hopes of farking up one state's race.


Which is dumb because late-buys are less effective. Also he raised 1 million specifically for ad buys out of around 2 million. Also right next door to him the green party managed to do the same amount with less, and their spending is questionable.
 
Displayed 39 of 239 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report