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.

(The New Republic)   McAuliffe's win disproves media myth of NRA electoral dominance. Again   (newrepublic.com) divider line 90
    More: Interesting, Terry McAuliffe, NRA, Colorado State Senators, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, humans, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine  
•       •       •

1085 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2013 at 11:29 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-06 12:02:45 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli.


no, he wasn't.

this is virginia in an off-year election. it should have been an easy win for the GOP. the only reason that polls said that mcauliffe - a universally despised washington insider - was "crushing" cuccinelli in the polls is that cuccinelli was such an extreme far-right candidate.
 
2013-11-06 12:03:34 PM
I love seeing Fark Tards get owned.
 
2013-11-06 12:05:51 PM

ferretman: If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


I get it now, winning is losing. And we've always been at war with Eastasia
 
2013-11-06 12:05:55 PM

ferretman: Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him


And Ron Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz stumped for Cuccinelli. A Tea Party dream team. Oh and the Duggars!

Whoopdi do!
 
2013-11-06 12:08:50 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli. With the DNC outspending the RNC by $20 million dollars, Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him....he barely won....against a guy no Republican cared for.

If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


Way to double down.
 
2013-11-06 12:10:08 PM

Wasilla Hillbilly: I Thought anti-sodomy laws were effectively unconstitutional now. What's the use of running on that platform?


Showing your wife that you understand her and don't think she is cold biatch and boring lay.
 
2013-11-06 12:12:02 PM
Isn't cross-posting in multiple threads a violation of the rules?
 
2013-11-06 12:17:38 PM

Felgraf: Isn't cross-posting in multiple threads a violation of the rules?


talking about the rules is a violation of the rules.

/not sure if that is true
 
2013-11-06 12:19:16 PM

thurstonxhowell: One thing I will say about the Virginia gubernatorial election: These people are exactly what I expect from that shiathole of a crappile of a dickweasel of a state.

Two major candidates and not a single likable trait between them.


Good lord, what did Virginia do to you?  Rape your favorite kitten?
 
2013-11-06 12:25:21 PM
Remember, the left doesn't want to ban your guns.
 
2013-11-06 12:31:07 PM

R.A.Danny: SilentStrider: FlashHarry: take a lesson from christie's easy victory in democratic new jersey. if you are to become a national party once again, you will have to return to the center.

While he's certainly more sane than the average tea partier, I'd not say that Christie is close to the center.

That depends on how far right or left YOU are. He's pretty damn moderate. Anti-gun even.


No, Christie isn't moderate. Gun policies don't really matter, especially in a state like NJ where the book is already closed on that issue.

Not hating Obama withe the heat of a thousand suns is not an indicator of your political compass.
Not being pro-rape is not an indicator of your "moderateness"
and on and on and on. The problem is that much of the Republican leadership is so over the top with their insanity, it is almost refreshing to hear from a right-wing ideologue who doesn't advocate repealing the 19th amendment. That makes that candidate almost normal in comparison to the rest of the freakshow.

Christie throws away federal school grants, is anti public transportation (except for his helicopter rides to ball games) threw away a grant for infrastructure in the form of a rail tunnel that actually cost money to stop, plus he's a fattie and he's rude.
 
2013-11-06 12:32:26 PM

ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/


"HAHA! You should have won by MORE!"

Truly a ROUSING battlecry!
 
2013-11-06 12:33:30 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Lost Thought 00: NRA dominates Republican politics, but no one outside of Republican circles listens to them. ie: There will never be an anti-gun Republican Presidential candidate

Romney was.


Not once the Republicans and NRA retconned him.
 
2013-11-06 12:35:18 PM
The only thing the NRA dominates is the wallets of scared people. That and the left side of the bell curve.
 
2013-11-06 12:37:00 PM

Empty Matchbook: ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

"HAHA! You should have won by MORE!"

Truly a ROUSING battlecry!


scienceblogs.com

If that's the typical NRA member, I don't think you want to excite him with a battlecry.
 
2013-11-06 12:45:51 PM

mrshowrules: Wasilla Hillbilly: I Thought anti-sodomy laws were effectively unconstitutional now. What's the use of running on that platform?

Showing your wife that you understand her and don't think she is cold biatch and boring lay.


Meh. She's probably blowing someone.
 
2013-11-06 12:47:55 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli. With the DNC outspending the RNC by $20 million dollars, Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him....he barely won....against a guy no Republican cared for.

If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


What you're saying is that McAuliffe led Cuccinelli the whole time, campaigned and won as a Democrat, and it's a poor performance?

ARE YOU SERIOUS?
 
2013-11-06 12:48:36 PM

ManateeGag: FlashHarry: but, no - just as you did in missouri and indiana last year and in nevada and delaware before (and, hell, the presidential contest last year), you lost a seat you should have easily won because your party is too extreme.

didn't they lose at least 8 seats because of "rape" candidates?


I think that also falls under the banner of "too extreme".
 
2013-11-06 12:49:36 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli. With the DNC outspending the RNC by $20 million dollars, Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him....he barely won....against a guy no Republican cared for.

If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


You are physically incapable of admitting that your party sucks or made bad calls. 'Even though the dems won it wasn't perfect so they actually lost!' You surround yourself with lies and bullshiat just to go forward each day.

I honestly just pity you.
 
2013-11-06 01:01:28 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli. With the DNC outspending the RNC by $20 million dollars, Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him....he barely won....against a guy no Republican cared for.

If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


So...when did you get this new talking point?
 
2013-11-06 01:12:06 PM

ferretman: If anything, the razor thin win is an undeniable mandate from the people to push forward the entire Democratic Party platform with absolute urgency.


As the GOP has explained to us over and over again (seriously, where the f*ck have you been?) when a politician wins, regardless of the margins, it constitutes an unassailable mandate from the people backing your platform.  This is not debatable, it's been your policy for over a decade now.

Elections have consequences.  Stop your blubbering and celebrate all the things that the GOP holds dear and true about both the process and the outcome.
 
2013-11-06 01:14:25 PM

sabreWulf07: Fark used to enjoy a much higher caliber of paid corporate troll.


[Citation needed]
 
2013-11-06 01:18:02 PM

paygun: Remember, the left doesn't want to ban your guns.


It is by definition impossible to be a leftist and be fascist. So those people who want to limit an individual's rights in any way and specifically limit a person's right to be armed in favor of arming local police, the military and about 50 other government agencies that carry arms, are right wingers, not leftists. They are just pretending to be left wing on other issues as part of a false flag operation by the right to paint the left as being restrictive of individual rights and in favor of the state or the collective. Those righties are pretty tricky. You have to keep an eye on em.  They've been doing this on school vouchers as well.  Never trust them, or a junkie.
 
2013-11-06 01:18:31 PM

GoodDoctorB: vpb: ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

Derpity derpity doo!

[msg-ctrl.com image 800x565]


Herpety doo dah, derpety ay.
My, oh my, what a derpety day.
Plenty of morans votin' my way.
Herpety doo dah, derpety ay!

Got a chip here on my shoulder.
Don't know the truth, don't know what's actual,
Everything is counterfactual.

Herpety doo dah, derpety ay.
Votin' for teatards, wonderful day!
 
2013-11-06 01:19:09 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli. With the DNC outspending the RNC by $20 million dollars, Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him....he barely won....against a guy no Republican cared for.

If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


You are the Wimp Lo of political trolling. Your nuts to my fist style of combat is most intimidating.
 
2013-11-06 01:31:32 PM

somedude210: ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

Didn't I just saw you write this exact thing in another thread?

and really? You're gonna call corruption? Cooch secured his nomination by making sure he didn't face anyone in the primary.


Well, duh... He's going to post it in multiple threads. Shills are paid by the post.
 
2013-11-06 01:35:35 PM

Pocket Ninja: So, basically, what you're saying is that  Cuccinelli lost.


Lost an election in a Republican leaning state, in an off year, with lower turnout (I'm guessing), but it's all because of freedom of speech. I mean, er, evil bundled out of state (must be) campaign money.

Something like that, some poutrage.
 
2013-11-06 01:44:06 PM
McAuliffe's win disproves media myth of NRA electoral dominance

That fact that someone who wants to outlaw blowjobs got more than 26% of the vote disproves the a above statement.
 
2013-11-06 01:54:14 PM

lilbjorn: McAuliffe's win disproves media myth of NRA electoral dominance

That fact that someone who wants to outlaw blowjobs got more than 26% of the vote disproves the a above statement.


It's not the No Rimjobs Association.
 
2013-11-06 01:59:28 PM

R.A.Danny: Great_Milenko: "Albanian Trolley Stop"

Wow!

[img.fark.net image 850x305]


My wife and I tried an Albanian Trolley Stop one night after some heavy drinking.

I twisted my back and accidentally kicked her in the nose.  I would recommend you only try it with an experienced professional.
 
2013-11-06 02:02:36 PM

ferretman: The point I was trying to make regarding the extremely close election in Virginia was that McAuliffe was supposed to crush Cuccinelli. With the DNC outspending the RNC by $20 million dollars, Bill & Hillary campaigning for him and President Obama campaigning for him....he barely won....against a guy no Republican cared for.

If anything, the razor thin win is a reflection on the poor performance of Obama and fellow Democrats.


Or a reflection of a fantastic performance by Democrats in winning the governorship in farking Virginia.

And besides that, since when is a 3% margin of victory "razor thin" ? That is such a bullshiat attempt at spin it's amazing.
 
2013-11-06 02:06:43 PM

ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/


Reason really tears that stupid narrative apart.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/read-this-if-you-believe-your-cand id ate


/Not a libertarian
 
2013-11-06 02:15:22 PM
GOP: This close loss PROVES that Obamacare is a failure.  We don't need to present more viable candidates, we just have to improve our messaging.

The rest of us: Please proceed GOP.
 
2013-11-06 02:45:38 PM

Wasilla Hillbilly: I Thought anti-sodomy laws were effectively unconstitutional now. What's the use of running on that platform?


The fallacy of "Believing Your Own Hype Machine." These idiots truly believe the tiny minority of voters who want Taliban-like restrictions on their activities in public and private speak for the country.
 
2013-11-06 02:45:59 PM
freedomoutpost.com

"Hmmmmm."
 
2013-11-06 02:50:01 PM

jigger: lilbjorn: McAuliffe's win disproves media myth of NRA electoral dominance

That fact that someone who wants to outlaw blowjobs got more than 26% of the vote disproves the a above statement.

It's not the No Rimjobs Association.


Well it disproves "dominance," since that would mean the NRA's single-issue politics are somehow the deciding "my way or else" position.  But no one believed that the second amendment was the ONLY amendment that mattered to a majority of voters.

But to play devil's advocate for a moment, this could guarantee virginia goes red in 2014.  McAuliffe pushes gun control -> Republicans run for congress and hammer the gun control issue -> GOP win in 2014 and possibly 2016.

Thing about gun control is that without a concrete bill or law or politician to fight against the topic doesn't get out much of a vote.
 
2013-11-06 03:12:34 PM

fenianfark: ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/

Reason really tears that stupid narrative apart.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/read-this-if-you-believe-your-cand id ate


/Not a libertarian


Actually, I read that and the comments, and it came off as a bunch of naval-gazing (like here at fark!).  I thought this was a much more accurate response to Sarvis siphoning votes away from Cooch:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/06/no-robert-sarvis-did-not-cost-ke n- cuccinelli-the-virginia-election/

thefederalist.com
 
2013-11-06 03:27:40 PM
They need to ask themselves how did Sarvis get that 7%, my understanding is that he was far more moderate on social issues.  I seriously would have considered him if I wasn't completely panicked that Cuccinelli was going to be Bob McDonnell without the pretense that he's moderate on social issues.  Also Sarvis sounded like one of the "Lower taxes on the rich increases economic growth" guys, and that logic has never made sense to me.  You can't be about small government AND about telling people how to conduct their most intimate and private of affairs.  Now we just have to hope Terry can obtain and make productive use of bipartisan support.  However, I expect our republican lawmakers will become as contrarian and obstructionist as their Washington counterparts when forced to deal with executive leadership from the opposing party.

The two party system is consuming itself.  Plurality with elimination folks, let's make it happen.
 
2013-11-06 06:46:30 PM

UseLessHuman: "Lower taxes on the rich increases economic growth"


So the argument (and I don't know if I buy it, but I get where it's coming from):

1) The private sector is funded by rich people.  Rich person invests $1 Million that he's not really doing anything with right now in your little company in the hopes that your company turns his million into $N Million.
2) This is a risk.  If your company goes under, he loses $1 Million.  If your company blows up, he gets $N Million - $Taxes
3) Therefore, lowering the downside of his bets (taxes) means that he's more likely to fund your company, because it's more likely that your company makes him money.
4) Since that rich guy just invested in more companies, more companies were able to immediately turn around and start hiring people.   So that rich guy is directly responsible for you and a bunch of other people having your job.
5) And since now there are a bunch more companies, you can go grab tax money out of the much larger middle class instead of screwing over the rich guy who is directly responsible for that .

and corollary: It doesn't matter that that guy is rich and getting richer because he's singlehandedly funded this giant middle class that you can now fleece (Seriously, see the US tax policy) and anyways if you tried to tax him more, he can just throw a couple million at lobbyists and lawyers to get a loophole.

and corollary 2:
The data on Capital Gains income is noisy (recession kills income for obvious reasons), but the average percentage of GDP at 15% Cap. Gains Tax is HIGHER then it was at 30%.

Mind you, this requires that you have:

a) An environment of well-educated, hard-working workers.
b) An environment where creating a business is easy, all businesses are on an even playing field, and there isn't a minefield of regulations (carefully crafted by BigCorp lobbyists) to get through.
c) Actual functional infrastructure.
d) An environment where rich people have to go through those middle men and fund the middle class to make money instead of just playing stupid farking games.
e) The ability to wait a few years while the newly freed-up money cycles through the economy.

Seriously, read a CATO institute on Sweden at some point.  It's basically "Yeah, the taxes are high, but you get a crazy-educated workforce, decent infrastructure, and reasonable simple and fair regulations, and a much lower corporate tax rate than the USA.  Therefore, we must give Sweden a B+".

/Heck, from a certain perspective, the 90's are the single best argument for trickle-down ever.  Massive investment in the tech sector led to a bunch of new millionaires and billionaires, continuous 5% growth, and 5% unemployment when those tech millionaires went to spend all their money.
//And then the aftermath of WW2.  Massive recession in 1946 when we spin down from WW2, and then the combination of the GI Bill and lowered taxes as well as lowered spending frees up the money, and we go from 1.8 Trillion in 1946 to 3 Trillion in 1961, which is the equivalent of going from 8.4 Trillion in 1992 to 14 Trillion in 2005 instead of 12.8 like we actually went.
 
2013-11-06 07:41:49 PM

ferretman: McAuliffe's win only happened because an Obama bundler provided money to the Libertarian candidate, DNC out spent the RNC ~$34 million to $14 million and it was still a razor thin victory. Dems/libs originally stated that McAuliffe would win in a landslide. No comments about that from MSM....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/revealed-obama-campaign-b un dler-helping-fund-libertarian-in-tight-va-gubernatorial-race/


fc03.deviantart.net
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report