Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

2010 Primaries for Midterm Midtacular!

1246765

Posts

  • SpazHappySpazHappy Registered User
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    That's basically akin to saying the government should be run by the rich.

    Which it pretty much is, but it's kind of unusual to hear someone say that that's a great thing.
    There is an issue with people who pay little or no taxes voting themselves benefits on the backs of people who pay their share (or more than their fair share).

    Retired people vote in disproportionally high numbers, for example. Which is why social security and other programs that benefit the geezers are pretty much the 3rd rail of American politics.

    Well if people don't like they could try actually showing up to vote.

    This. I ignore people who don't vote and then bitch about taxes and spending policy. So do politicians. I also ignore people who think that paying more in taxes somehow entitles you to having a larger say in how said taxes are spent. You already have a mechanism for your money equaling greater political clout in the form of lobbying and political groups, to which you can sink as much money as you'd like. Stop complaining.

    You honestly suggest paying lobbyists as a solution for higher taxpayers to get more representation? You have a more cynical view on government than even I.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man, who, exactly, pays more than their fair share? It's not like taxes have actually increased over the past sixty years.
    People who pay more into the treaury than get back in terms of government services.

    Poor people tend to use government services at a significantly higher rate, per capita, than their wealthier counterparts. This includes everything from various welfare programs to the amount of law enforcement resources they consume. Wealthier people don't use food stamps, don't get welfare payments, tend not to get arrested or sent to jail at the same rate, and so on.

    I didn't know the people being arrested or sent to jail were the ones using the government services. I thought that was the people who had something to protect from crime and who gained the most from an orderly society.
    The person being arrested and/or jailed is the one imposing the cost to the treasury. The taxpayer sitting at home not robbing liquor stores isn't the one requiring the expenditure of taxpayer monies to maintain law and order.

    Sure, everyone gets the benefits of police and a criminal justice system. But it's the criminals (who are typically poor and who do not pay many taxes) that are actually responsible for the need to spend significant amounts of tax money on this line item in budgets.
    So what? It's their potential victims who are benefiting from that money being spent, which was your argument in the first place.

    Spoiler:
  • Best AmericaBest America __BANNED USERS
    Modern Man wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man, who, exactly, pays more than their fair share? It's not like taxes have actually increased over the past sixty years.
    People who pay more into the treaury than get back in terms of government services.

    Poor people tend to use government services at a significantly higher rate, per capita, than their wealthier counterparts. This includes everything from various welfare programs to the amount of law enforcement resources they consume. Wealthier people don't use food stamps, don't get welfare payments, tend not to get arrested or sent to jail at the same rate, and so on.

    I didn't know the people being arrested or sent to jail were the ones using the government services. I thought that was the people who had something to protect from crime and who gained the most from an orderly society.
    The person being arrested and/or jailed is the one imposing the cost to the treasury. The taxpayer sitting at home not robbing liquor stores isn't the one requiring the expenditure of taxpayer monies to maintain law and order.

    Sure, everyone gets the benefits of police and a criminal justice system. But it's the criminals (who are typically poor and who do not pay many taxes) that are actually responsible for the need to spend significant amounts of tax money on this line item in budgets.
    So what? It's their potential victims who are benefiting from that money being spent, which was your argument in the first place.
    But our felons benefit by receiving free room & board!

    right you got it
  • SpazHappySpazHappy Registered User
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people, yes. They also benefit more from the services provided, just not in quite as an immediately apparent way.

    You mean kind of like how trickle down economics also benefits poorer people, just not in ways that are immediately apparent?

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man, who, exactly, pays more than their fair share? It's not like taxes have actually increased over the past sixty years.
    People who pay more into the treaury than get back in terms of government services.

    Poor people tend to use government services at a significantly higher rate, per capita, than their wealthier counterparts. This includes everything from various welfare programs to the amount of law enforcement resources they consume. Wealthier people don't use food stamps, don't get welfare payments, tend not to get arrested or sent to jail at the same rate, and so on.

    Oh, well if you want to go this route, rich people still come out ahead by a mile. Upper income people benefit more than everyone else from:

    The SEC, which regulates and protects the stock market and other financial institutions
    A sound transportation infrastructure, without which commerce would be nigh impossible
    the court system, which handles their civil disputes and puts away criminals who attempt to harm their property
    police and emergency services, which protects their property either directly or by their extra presence
    the FDIC, which insures their assets in banks (up to a certain amount)
    corporate tax policy, which is very favorable to business
    individual tax policy, which is very favorable to upper income brackets.
    Congress, which never seems to be able to do anything without thinking about how it will benefit upper income brackets

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    SpazHappy wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people, yes. They also benefit more from the services provided, just not in quite as an immediately apparent way.

    You mean kind of like how trickle down economics also benefits poorer people, just not in ways that are immediately apparent?

    No, you can't compare horses and unicorns.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD NintendoID: Nailbunny
    steam_sig.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    SpazHappy wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    That's basically akin to saying the government should be run by the rich.

    Which it pretty much is, but it's kind of unusual to hear someone say that that's a great thing.
    There is an issue with people who pay little or no taxes voting themselves benefits on the backs of people who pay their share (or more than their fair share).

    Retired people vote in disproportionally high numbers, for example. Which is why social security and other programs that benefit the geezers are pretty much the 3rd rail of American politics.

    Well if people don't like they could try actually showing up to vote.

    This. I ignore people who don't vote and then bitch about taxes and spending policy. So do politicians. I also ignore people who think that paying more in taxes somehow entitles you to having a larger say in how said taxes are spent. You already have a mechanism for your money equaling greater political clout in the form of lobbying and political groups, to which you can sink as much money as you'd like. Stop complaining.

    You honestly suggest paying lobbyists as a solution for higher taxpayers to get more representation? You have a more cynical view on government than even I.

    I'm not suggesting anything, that's the way things actually work. Sorry that reality doesn't agree with you, but learn to live with it. On the other hand, you're saying that rich people should have a say in government proportional to the amount of money they have. That's one of the worst ideas ever, unless you happen to be rich, then I guess you'd say it's awesome. I know we're devolving into a de facto oligarchy, but I can't believe you actually advocate for it to be explicit.

    EDIT:
    You mean kind of like how trickle down economics also benefits poorer people, just not in ways that are immediately apparent?

    It's apparent that the trickle is just that, a trickle, while at the top it's more like a gusher. Trickle down economics is good for one thing and one thing only: further enriching the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    SpazHappy wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people, yes. They also benefit more from the services provided, just not in quite as an immediately apparent way.

    You mean kind of like how trickle down economics also benefits poorer people, just not in ways that are immediately apparent?

    No, you can't compare horses and unicorns.
    Sure you can. There's only one significant difference between the two animals (well, other than the fact that unicorns don't exist).

    Not sure where I'm going with this......

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote: »
    SpazHappy wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people, yes. They also benefit more from the services provided, just not in quite as an immediately apparent way.

    You mean kind of like how trickle down economics also benefits poorer people, just not in ways that are immediately apparent?

    No, you can't compare horses and unicorns.
    Sure you can. There's only one significant difference between the two animals (well, other than the fact that unicorns don't exist).

    Not sure where I'm going with this......
    The bolded would be the point of the analogy.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    nstf wrote: »
    Right! It's about the media.

    WRONG!

    It's about what their base believes. Which is why nobody backed by progressives, kos, huffpo, can ever be anything but anti military, anti police. And that's why those tactics work. Nobody ever seriously questioned Kerry, they did question those voting for him and if he would cave for them.

    This is amusing. You know Markos of Dailykos was in the military right?

    sig.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Registered User regular
    Man can we not get into that argument again please

    also nstf addressed that complaint, albeit with more ridiculous bullshit

    Spoiler:
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    nstf wrote: »
    Right! It's about the media.

    WRONG!

    It's about what their base believes. Which is why nobody backed by progressives, kos, huffpo, can ever be anything but anti military, anti police. And that's why those tactics work. Nobody ever seriously questioned Kerry, they did question those voting for him and if he would cave for them.

    This is amusing. You know Markos of Dailykos was in the military right?

    At this point I think we should just stop treating nstf as if his opinions about liberals are worthwhile. They're ridiculously dumb, but he clearly has no intention of changing his mind, so it's a useless exercise to argue with him.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Democrats' collective first instinct isn't to glass the entire middle east.

    Hence, they're weak on military issues.

    This is how the media works.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Rich people pay more in taxes than poor people, yes.
    Not by share of income they don't.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man, who, exactly, pays more than their fair share? It's not like taxes have actually increased over the past sixty years.
    People who pay more into the treaury than get back in terms of government services.

    Poor people tend to use government services at a significantly higher rate, per capita, than their wealthier counterparts. This includes everything from various welfare programs to the amount of law enforcement resources they consume. Wealthier people don't use food stamps, don't get welfare payments, tend not to get arrested or sent to jail at the same rate, and so on.

    As a public servant I feel like you're glossing over some very important aspects of the return that the very wealthy get on government services.

    Now while some people may make the argument that the "kinda wealthy" get screwed since they live in suburbia, send their kids to catholic school and aren't subsisting on food stamps or government housing I would like to point out that Mad Max like bands of marauders haven't murdered them for food or gas recently so obviously there are some benefits they're reaping but aren't really consciously aware of.

    But all jesting aside, lets talk about the owners and the large share holders. People have more then just their time invested in a company, but those who may face ruination if it went under.

    Take New England Motor Freight ( http://www.nemf.com/ ) for example. Earlier this year we responded to a fire at their main facility. A forklift had caught on fire inside of the building and was directly threatening both a portion of their freight and in turn the structure itself. To make the situation even more perilous the sprinkler head that the forklift was sitting underneath was later found to be defective and didn't open.

    My ladder company and and engine responded from a Port Authority funded firehouse (built specifically to provide speedy response to the port facilities) and was there within minutes. This was about 7:30 in the morning, a time which would make for much slower response time in volunteer districts since many of their members would already be out of town at work or at least en route.

    Within five minutes or arrival we had the fire extinguished, the propane cylinder that fuels the forklift removed and outside of the building and were working to air the smoke out of the building and to squeegee out the water we had used to put the fire out. Ten minutes after we got there people were allowed to resume normal business in the rest of the facility and within 30 they were working in the direct area of the fire.

    Without a professional fire service that whole facility could have burned to the ground, resulting in millions of lost dollars and having not only a direct effect on NEMF, but on every single company that relies on them for freight service (if you drive on the NJ turnpike, keep your eyes open and you'll see their logo soon enough). Now weigh that benefit vs that of the section 8 renter or even homeowner that makes up the bulk of our fire duty. Who stands to lose more in a sense of real value and not just a sentimental value?

    Hell even look at the NJ turnpike. A government road thats the chosen commuter route for many residents but enables businesses to flourish all over the state. Could Shop Rite operate so many of their stores in this region effectively if they weren't paying basically the same tolls for a 52' tractor trailer filled with food that I was paying just to go to work?

    What big and mid size business lose out in taxes paid to SS, medicaid and the like they're getting huge returns on every dollar they spend towards infrastructure and public security, so this idea that they're getting screwed or that the taxes they pay don't actually help keep them afloat is laughable.
    Not to mention that it doesn't exactly take a leap in logic to argue that things like public schooling, food stamps and housing credits aren't helping keep their low level payroll at the bare minimum like it is in many cases.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Democrats' collective first instinct isn't to glass the entire middle east.

    Hence, they're weak on military issues.

    This is how the media works.

    Incredibly it's because Truman is blamed for "losing China" to Mao. That's the actual, honest to God, origin of the Democrats are weak on defense meme. And it hasn't been re-examined in 60 years.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

  • a5ehrena5ehren Registered User regular
    Barcardi wrote: »
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

    Holy shit that's frightening. Is she as fucking retarded as Palin?

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    She's the one who thinks masturbation should be illegal or something, right?

    sig.gif
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    In all fairness, more attractive than Palin.

    sig.jpg
  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary Your Dark Descent FriendRegistered User regular
    In all fairness, more attractive than Palin.

    A plank of wood is more attractive then Palin.

    2ItqRJ7.jpgSteam/Origin/PSN: Corehealer / Core's Streamtastical Livestream (Streaming Wildstar Beta later this year).
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

    Holy shit that's frightening. Is she as fucking retarded as Palin?

    She's less retarded, but its close. She appears far less competent, though. She hasn't held a steady job in years and her personal finances are a mess. She's a fringe conservative candidate, and this is her third attempt at the Senate seat. She only made it through the 2008 primaries because she was uncontested.

    If she beats Castle, former Governor and 6 time House Rep, I will be very disappointed in this state. On the upside, she'll have a more difficult time in the general.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD NintendoID: Nailbunny
    steam_sig.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

    Holy shit that's frightening. Is she as fucking retarded as Palin?
    Isn't that the "EXTREME ABSTINENCE" lady?

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

    Holy shit that's frightening. Is she as fucking retarded as Palin?
    Isn't that the "EXTREME ABSTINENCE" lady?

    Those two words don't make sense together. o_O

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    Yes, that's her.

    (edit) Abstinence and No Masturbation are pretty extreme when combined.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD NintendoID: Nailbunny
    steam_sig.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

    Holy shit that's frightening. Is she as fucking retarded as Palin?
    Isn't that the "EXTREME ABSTINENCE" lady?

    Those two words don't make sense together. o_O

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man, who, exactly, pays more than their fair share? It's not like taxes have actually increased over the past sixty years.
    People who pay more into the treaury than get back in terms of government services.

    Poor people tend to use government services at a significantly higher rate, per capita, than their wealthier counterparts. This includes everything from various welfare programs to the amount of law enforcement resources they consume. Wealthier people don't use food stamps, don't get welfare payments, tend not to get arrested or sent to jail at the same rate, and so on.

    I didn't know the people being arrested or sent to jail were the ones using the government services. I thought that was the people who had something to protect from crime and who gained the most from an orderly society.
    The person being arrested and/or jailed is the one imposing the cost to the treasury. The taxpayer sitting at home not robbing liquor stores isn't the one requiring the expenditure of taxpayer monies to maintain law and order.

    Sure, everyone gets the benefits of police and a criminal justice system. But it's the criminals (who are typically poor and who do not pay many taxes) that are actually responsible for the need to spend significant amounts of tax money on this line item in budgets.
    Wealthy people also consume more goods which require this stability to be manufactured, imported or supplied, transported to the consumer and regulated to ensure safety, require more financial stability in the banks, markets and personal safety to safeguard their wealth, have greater access to the court system for the resolution of grievances ....
    But wealthy people don't create the crime and general fuckmuppetry that requires law enforcement and the like to maintain the free flow of goods. If you had a society composed of upper-middle class professionals, your law enforcement needs would be pretty modest.
    Really? Putting aside how you come to the idea that being jailed is some kind of service that the incarcerated is incurring on society - which is frankly about as twisted a viewpoint as "let them eat cake" - you're moving goal posts.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    People who pay more into the treaury than get back in terms of government services.
    The person who is arrested is not "getting back" anything by being arrested except punishment and theoretically rehabilitation. The benefit is gained by members of society. Those who would be the biggest targets of crime, especially property crime, in a lawless society are those with the most material wealth and thus are gaining a disproportionate benefit. Similarly in order to maintain the enjoyment of that wealth stability is necessary so the wealthiest disproportionately gain.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ForarForar Registered User regular
    I'm having a sense of deja vu.

    Didn't I ask that someone smack her over the nose with a rolled up newspaper and tell her to think about what she's done/is advocating?

    Why hasn't it been done?

    Figuratively speaking, of course.

    ITT: Forar is definitely NOT advocating violence against anyone.

    Even if they hold absolutely retarded views in regards to (a lack of) sex education.

    dbrock270 wrote: »
    You know, if Obama wins, I will never make another political prediction on these boards for the rest of my life.
    Steam: Forar Origin: Forar80 B.Net: Forar#1391
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    PantsB wrote: »
    The person who is arrested is not "getting back" anything by being arrested except punishment and theoretically rehabilitation. The benefit is gained by members of society. Those who would be the biggest targets of crime, especially property crime, in a lawless society are those with the most material wealth and thus are gaining a disproportionate benefit. Similarly in order to maintain the enjoyment of that wealth stability is necessary so the wealthiest disproportionately gain.

    This is where the... less stable of us begin advocating a swift draconian response to crime.

    Charge the family for the bullet, etc.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Oh lookie, the Democrats are going to give the Republicans everything they want and STILL lose in November.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42042.html

    Fantastic.

    Idiots.

    TARA.gif Click for Steam Profile. WiiU ID: Taramoor
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Oh lookie, the Democrats are going to give the Republicans everything they want and STILL lose in November.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42042.html

    Fantastic.

    Idiots.

    At this point, she should just say "fuck 'em".

    They aren't going to be in those seats in a few months anyway.

    And her fundraising would spike.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    There are millions of people Modern Man did not have to compete with for the limited resources in academe and elsewhere, because they were born in the wrong place by the wrong mother. If he had to compete fairly, he would not be feeling so republican at all!

    So it's fair that he pays for stuff he doesn't use - if he didn't HE would be the FUCKING MOOCHER. Not all of your successes and achievements come about solely because you worked for them - it's because so many were systematically kept back until they could no longer be the kind of person who could work hard. It's a developmental thing, while the college-uneducated libertarians only see the latest point in time, geniuses that they are. We are all more fortunate and unfortunate than we realize, but in this particular department the economics and ethics are fairly simple.

    MM and the Reasonoids are the REAL self-entitled nannied welfare-takers here - they don't want to pay their FAIR share (or just fuck out of the country so we don't have to listen to their hysterics, rugged individualists that they are!).

    Is this where we are in the 21st century? I want to change species.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Oh lookie, the Democrats are going to give the Republicans everything they want and STILL lose in November.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42042.html

    Fantastic.

    Idiots.

    At this point, she should just say "fuck 'em".

    They aren't going to be in those seats in a few months anyway.

    And her fundraising would spike.

    Exactly. The White House has her back too, so there's zero reason to listen to these soon to be unemployed Blue Dogs. When it comes down to it, if they have to choose between targeted tax cuts or no tax cuts at all, they'll take the targeted tax cuts.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Why we're fucked:
    “Jon has chronicled the death of shame in politics and journalism,” says Brian Williams, the NBC Nightly News anchor who is a frequent Daily Show guest. “Many of us on this side of the journalism tracks often wish we were on Jon’s side. I envy his platform to shout from the mountaintop. He’s a necessary branch of government.”

    Jon is Jon Stewart, somewhat obviously.

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    Why we're fucked:
    “Jon has chronicled the death of shame in politics and journalism,” says Brian Williams, the NBC Nightly News anchor who is a frequent Daily Show guest. “Many of us on this side of the journalism tracks often wish we were on Jon’s side. I envy his platform to shout from the mountaintop. He’s a necessary branch of government.”

    Jon is Jon Stewart, somewhat obviously.

    Whats fucking stopping them?

    sig.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    "Journalistic ethics"

    My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    wwtMask wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Oh lookie, the Democrats are going to give the Republicans everything they want and STILL lose in November.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42042.html

    Fantastic.

    Idiots.

    At this point, she should just say "fuck 'em".

    They aren't going to be in those seats in a few months anyway.

    And her fundraising would spike.

    Exactly. The White House has her back too, so there's zero reason to listen to these soon to be unemployed Blue Dogs. When it comes down to it, if they have to choose between targeted tax cuts or no tax cuts at all, they'll take the targeted tax cuts.

    of course none of this will happen and the democrats will fold and the country will go just a little bit more rotten and all of us just a little bit more broke

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Barcardi wrote: »
    So in Delaware they have cloned Palin
    Spoiler:

    Holy shit that's frightening. Is she as fucking retarded as Palin?
    Isn't that the "EXTREME ABSTINENCE" lady?

    Those two words don't make sense together. o_O

    Someone needs to spiker her morning OJ with some female Viagra and watch her squirm.

    7521745260_e8e0fc52b8_o.jpg
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    "Journalistic ethics"

    Translating as "fear of conservative wharblegharble".

    sig.jpg
This discussion has been closed.