Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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!

2 for 1 Chickenhawk Special! 2 [Republican Debates] in 24 hours!

1101112131416»

Posts

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    It's hurt them and this would be even more public.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    They'd also have to admit strait out that they have been intentionally refusing to work with Obama because he's a democrat and not because of any problem with his ideas. Which would lead strait into the support Federal Health care had among Republicans in the 90's.

    Quire.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Zephiran wrote:
    Romney could get a way out in a straight up debate with Obama about the economy however if he realizes to point out that if Obama can't control a GOP congress then Romney himself could do it if he got inside the White House. I wonder if Obama could counter an argument like that satisfactorily?

    But the thing is he wouldn't be "controlling Congress" so much as "letting them do what the fuck they want".

    The anger at Congress is because they're cocks. Adding Romney to that equation won't change things and I'm slightly hopeful that people will realize that.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ZephiranZephiran Registered User regular
    Zephiran wrote:
    Romney could get a way out in a straight up debate with Obama about the economy however if he realizes to point out that if Obama can't control a GOP congress then Romney himself could do it if he got inside the White House. I wonder if Obama could counter an argument like that satisfactorily?

    But the thing is he wouldn't be "controlling Congress" so much as "letting them do what the fuck they want".

    The anger at Congress is because they're cocks. Adding Romney to that equation won't change things and I'm slightly hopeful that people will realize that.

    See, this is where I'm counting on Cognitive Dissonance to kick in and Romney will start to look like the "Get-things-done" guy where Obama would basically be forced to take the "Do-nothing-congress" defense and risk looking either weak or ineffective.

    Romney could potentially hold Congress hostage and come out looking good, in a "Worst Case" scenario I seriously don't expect the election-making undecideds to look through his facade in enough numbers to make a difference.

    "Well Obama can't get anything done anyway and anything he does harms the economy!"

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Zephiran wrote:
    Zephiran wrote:
    Romney could get a way out in a straight up debate with Obama about the economy however if he realizes to point out that if Obama can't control a GOP congress then Romney himself could do it if he got inside the White House. I wonder if Obama could counter an argument like that satisfactorily?

    But the thing is he wouldn't be "controlling Congress" so much as "letting them do what the fuck they want".

    The anger at Congress is because they're cocks. Adding Romney to that equation won't change things and I'm slightly hopeful that people will realize that.

    See, this is where I'm counting on Cognitive Dissonance to kick in and Romney will start to look like the "Get-things-done" guy where Obama would basically be forced to take the "Do-nothing-congress" defense and risk looking either weak or ineffective.

    Romney could potentially hold Congress hostage and come out looking good, in a "Worst Case" scenario I seriously don't expect the election-making undecideds to look through his facade in enough numbers to make a difference.

    "Well Obama can't get anything done anyway and anything he does harms the economy!"

    Congress's approval is at about the lowest it has been since the inception of your nation. If Obama stands up and says "They'd rather inflict irrevocable damage to the nation then see the opposition sucede; serving the nation has become a non issue to them and only the power of their position matters", a not inconsiderable number of americans will agree.

    Frankly, the histrionics and hyper partisan antics of the republicans may ultimatley cost them thier control over congress.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote:
    Zephiran wrote:
    Zephiran wrote:
    Romney could get a way out in a straight up debate with Obama about the economy however if he realizes to point out that if Obama can't control a GOP congress then Romney himself could do it if he got inside the White House. I wonder if Obama could counter an argument like that satisfactorily?

    But the thing is he wouldn't be "controlling Congress" so much as "letting them do what the fuck they want".

    The anger at Congress is because they're cocks. Adding Romney to that equation won't change things and I'm slightly hopeful that people will realize that.

    See, this is where I'm counting on Cognitive Dissonance to kick in and Romney will start to look like the "Get-things-done" guy where Obama would basically be forced to take the "Do-nothing-congress" defense and risk looking either weak or ineffective.

    Romney could potentially hold Congress hostage and come out looking good, in a "Worst Case" scenario I seriously don't expect the election-making undecideds to look through his facade in enough numbers to make a difference.

    "Well Obama can't get anything done anyway and anything he does harms the economy!"

    Congress's approval is at about the lowest it has been since the inception of your nation. If Obama stands up and says "They'd rather inflict irrevocable damage to the nation then see the opposition sucede; serving the nation has become a non issue to them and only the power of their position matters", a not inconsiderable number of americans will agree.

    Frankly, the histrionics and hyper partisan antics of the republicans may ultimatley cost them thier control over congress.

    God I hope so.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/congress-approval-rating-porn-polygamy_n_1098497.html
    A greater percentage of Americans approve of polygamy than the United States Congress, according a set of polls.

    Last month, a New York Times poll found that Congress' approval rating fell to an all-time low of 9 percent. Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll found that 11 percent of people found polygamy "morally acceptable." Additionally, 30 percent of Americans expressed approval of pornography.

    The Fix posted a telling chart created by Senator Michael Bennet that compared Congress' approval rating to a slew of unpopular people, things and ideas. "U.S. going communist" received an 11 percent approval rating, banks netted 23 percent and the BP oil spill received a shocking 16 percent.

    A recent CNN poll showed that 52 percent of Americans surveyed approved of the individual mandate element of last year's health care reform, an issue that half of Congress railed against.

    It's also worth noting that, during the Watergate scandal, Nixon's approval rating was at 23 percent.

    Watch Senator Bennet discuss Congress' abysmal approval rating below.

    I know this article is 2 months old, but I can't see congress' approval having risen that much. And as much as I love porn the fact that it is more then 3 time as acceptable as congress should be absolutely horrifying.

    mittens trying to hold congress up as a hostage would be about as suicidal as him getting knotted by a rottweiler on stage in front of children.

    Spoiler:
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Haha, only 30% support porn. Yeah, sure, we believe you.

  • kaz67kaz67 Registered User
    My thoughts exactly. Since I heard about Santorum expressing some anti-porn sentiments, I was kind of hoping they would ask about it during the debates. Would have been great hearing Paul defend our rights to porn.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    kaz67 wrote:
    My thoughts exactly. Since I heard about Santorum expressing some anti-porn sentiments, I was kind of hoping they would ask about it during the debates. Would have been great hearing Paul defend our rights to porn.

    They won't discuss sexual policies like porn during debates.

    Harry Dresden on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    kaz67 wrote:
    My thoughts exactly. Since I heard about Santorum expressing some anti-porn sentiments, I was kind of hoping they would ask about it during the debates. Would have been great hearing Paul defend our rights to porn.

    They won't discuss sexual policies like porn during debates.

    but they will discuss contraception, sodomy laws, the right to privacy, and how procreation is necessary for the human race and so gays shouldn't get the marries.


    but we can't talk about porn.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    kaz67 wrote:
    My thoughts exactly. Since I heard about Santorum expressing some anti-porn sentiments, I was kind of hoping they would ask about it during the debates. Would have been great hearing Paul defend our rights to porn.

    They won't discuss sexual policies like porn during debates.

    but they will discuss contraception, sodomy laws, the right to privacy, and how procreation is necessary for the human race and so gays shouldn't get the marries.


    but we can't talk about porn.

    My theory is that they think talking about porn is crude or unproper. The usual upper class BS where they want to keep their image "respectable".

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    kaz67 wrote:
    My thoughts exactly. Since I heard about Santorum expressing some anti-porn sentiments, I was kind of hoping they would ask about it during the debates. Would have been great hearing Paul defend our rights to porn.

    They won't discuss sexual policies like porn during debates.

    but they will discuss contraception, sodomy laws, the right to privacy, and how procreation is necessary for the human race and so gays shouldn't get the marries.


    but we can't talk about porn.

    My theory is that they think talking about porn is crude or unproper. The usual upper class BS where they want to keep their image "respectable".

    well yeah.

    but i think them talking about bombing iran and them being the bestest of friends with israel is improper. Doesn't stop them from doing it. (I'm not actually arguing/disagreeing/attacking you with this, i'm feeling cranky)

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    well yeah.

    but i think them talking about bombing iran and them being the bestest of friends with israel is improper. Doesn't stop them from doing it. (I'm not actually arguing/disagreeing/attacking you with this, i'm feeling cranky)

    For wealthy Republicans that's normal behavior. It's all about image. Acting tough on terrorists or hostile nations is a national pastime, yet porn is not because it's "dirty".

    Harry Dresden on
Sign In or Register to comment.