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!

GOP: Internet Forum Is Liberal Echo Chamber

Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
edited July 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/19/steele-resign/

Will he actually do it? Will anyone care if he does, since he's already a figurehead? Will he go semi-crazy and run against Barb Mikulski next year? Will he ever pull his head out of his ass?

Captain Carrot on
Spoiler:
«13456762

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I, for one, do not want to see Steele resign.

    It just increases the chance we get a competent chairm...Err, a less hilariously bumbling chairman chosen merely for the color of his skin.

    He just finished his speech with the phrase "saddle up."

    I'm not sure whether to cringe or cheer.

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

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • necroSYSnecroSYS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    I, for one, do not want to see Steele resign.

    It just increases the chance we get a competent chairm...Err, a less hilariously bumbling chairman chosen merely for the color of his skin.

    Uh, what? If he resigns, they'll probably appoint someone who's even more likely to kowtow to the far-right. Steele's one of their last, best hopes for relevancy in the next decade and we've all seen how well that's gone.

    There's no point in you getting both of yourselves all worked up and ready to chart the undiscovered country, then having her flush crimson red, run to the bathroom, and spend twenty minutes straining and grunting and stressing out because you're all ready to deliver your package but there's a three inch thick Sunday paper clogging up the mail slot.
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    necroSYS wrote: »
    I, for one, do not want to see Steele resign.

    It just increases the chance we get a competent chairm...Err, a less hilariously bumbling chairman chosen merely for the color of his skin.

    Uh, what? If he resigns, they'll probably appoint someone who's even more likely to kowtow to the far-right. Steele's one of their last, best hopes for relevancy in the next decade and we've all seen how well that's gone.

    He's really not moderate, he's center-INSANE.

  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Rush as Chairman of the GOP brings to mind Kerghit Raiders (mongols) in mount and blade, rushing toward my 2 rows of archers and crossbowmen, who are armed with these

    edit: too cute

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    necroSYS wrote: »
    I, for one, do not want to see Steele resign.

    It just increases the chance we get a competent chairm...Err, a less hilariously bumbling chairman chosen merely for the color of his skin.

    Uh, what? If he resigns, they'll probably appoint someone who's even more likely to kowtow to the far-right. Steele's one of their last, best hopes for relevancy in the next decade and we've all seen how well that's gone.

    He's really not moderate, he's center-INSANE.
    That makes him a moderate by comparison to the rest of the Republican party.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Man... the only person capable of replacing the characticture that is Steel is Yosemite Sam... and I heard he became an independent.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2009
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    I'd prefer something completely new. Let the Repubs become a fringe party and give rise to something else. After all, nothing spells success like coalition governments.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    I want to see them head right until they fall off the edge of the earth. That should leave enough room for a party of sane moderate conservatives to fill the vacuum.

    But mostly I just want them to burn.

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

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I gotta say,

    0130steele.jpg

    Always reminded me of:

    012706_8.jpg

    Both in style and substance.

    BNsig.jpg
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Anyone wants to bet on whether Steele really resigns? He is already a figurehead, he was elected for no reason but to be a figurehead, and now he's threatening to resign if he becomes a figurehead... that's like someone fighting hard to get a job at McDonnalds then threatening to resign if he's ever asked to make a hamburger while making 10 burgers a minute. It's nothing but attention-grabbing cheap talk that he'll never follow through on.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • YamiNoSenshiYamiNoSenshi Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    I too would like to see an actual GOP instead of the power hungry little kids wharrgrrbbllling all over the place. Some republican ideas are actually good for the country. But right now there doesn't seem to be anybody coming up the ranks that's actually sane and competent. And the outspoken leaders of the republican party seem to see it as a good idea to keep it that way.

    Damn it, it's fucking noon. I demand to know if Yami shit on a desk yet.
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Bro!Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    I'd like to see it. I just think it's going to be a while. We have to wait for the madness in the party to run it's course and eventually they will snap out of it. But we've moved far enough right of center that I think a couple of terms of Dems controlling things will get us back to a more center course.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    necroSYS wrote: »
    I, for one, do not want to see Steele resign.

    It just increases the chance we get a competent chairm...Err, a less hilariously bumbling chairman chosen merely for the color of his skin.

    Uh, what? If he resigns, they'll probably appoint someone who's even more likely to kowtow to the far-right. Steele's one of their last, best hopes for relevancy in the next decade and we've all seen how well that's gone.
    Problem is, Steele has no real support from within his own party to implement his idea's, nor the Balls to uphold his convictions.

    If he had actually had the fortitude of will to not apologize to rush and said "No, Rush is an idiot Who is utterly detatched from any of the problems facing the majority of americans and only represents the folks who will always vote republican. Seriously, FUCK HIM" Then the reublicans might have pulled there heads out of there asses and noticed that hey, Neoconism is currently political toxic waste, and looking to the middle is what is needed to salvage the party.

    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    Hi5!

    Spoiler:
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    How do you see the Republican party coming back to sanity? The way I see it, the more the crazy far-right wing of the party gains power, the more moderate voters are turned to independents or Democrats and the more moderate elected Republicans are voted out because of their party's bad image. And the more moderate voters and elected Republicans are out of the party, the more power the crazy far-right wing gets. It's a vicious cycle, and at each iteration it leaves the party smaller and more crazy. I don't see any way for them to break out of it.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    At this juncture, It might be best for the moderate republicans to split off and form there own Conservative party; the stink of the bush regime and current insanity may be too much for the party to recover from in any sort of a timely fashion.

    And frankly, the democrats do need strong opposition, since having such will make them fight harder and be better to reigns of power. Otherwise, I forsee a day when the democrats become as insane and corrupt as the Gop was during the bush era.

    Spoiler:
  • necroSYSnecroSYS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Problem is, Steele has no real support from within his own party to implement his idea's, nor the Balls to uphold his convictions.

    If he had actually had the fortitude of will to not apologize to rush and said "No, Rush is an idiot Who is utterly detatched from any of the problems facing the majority of americans and only represents the folks who will always vote republican. Seriously, FUCK HIM" Then the reublicans might have pulled there heads out of there asses and noticed that hey, Neoconism is currently political toxic waste, and looking to the middle is what is needed to salvage the party.

    hence the
    necroSYS wrote: »
    and we've all seen how well that's gone.

    There's no point in you getting both of yourselves all worked up and ready to chart the undiscovered country, then having her flush crimson red, run to the bathroom, and spend twenty minutes straining and grunting and stressing out because you're all ready to deliver your package but there's a three inch thick Sunday paper clogging up the mail slot.
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited May 2009
    but acting like that's going to happen now is just delusional. Theyre gonna need to spend some quality time in the wilderness first.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    I'd prefer sanity, I just don't see it as a likely result of the current course of events. It would be preferred, but I see DADT being repealed and a pentagon sponsored jazz-tap your way to peace in the middle east department forming before the GOP figures out that they're not going to wrap the value on marginalized and come out a supermajority. Intelligent Design implies input sanitation.

  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    I don't have anything to say about his resignation, but I love my new sig.

    Wow. Accidental brilliance at its finest.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Richy wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    How do you see the Republican party coming back to sanity? The way I see it, the more the crazy far-right wing of the party gains power, the more moderate voters are turned to independents or Democrats and the more moderate elected Republicans are voted out because of their party's bad image. And the more moderate voters and elected Republicans are out of the party, the more power the crazy far-right wing gets. It's a vicious cycle, and at each iteration it leaves the party smaller and more crazy. I don't see any way for them to break out of it.
    The only way I could see the republicans regaining power under such circumstances would be some sort of massive failure that could be tied directly and unequivicably to the democrats; We're talking like a major terrorist attack, collosal recession, Nuclear launch from korea or iran, ect.

    Spoiler:
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I heard there was a new GOPOLOL thread

    I came as quick as I could

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I heard there was a new GOPOLOL thread

    I came as quick as I could

    Steele is definitely bringin' the unintentional lulz.

    Spoiler:
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    How do you see the Republican party coming back to sanity? The way I see it, the more the crazy far-right wing of the party gains power, the more moderate voters are turned to independents or Democrats and the more moderate elected Republicans are voted out because of their party's bad image. And the more moderate voters and elected Republicans are out of the party, the more power the crazy far-right wing gets. It's a vicious cycle, and at each iteration it leaves the party smaller and more crazy. I don't see any way for them to break out of it.
    The only way I could see the republicans regaining power under such circumstances would be some sort of massive failure that could be tied directly and unequivicably to the democrats; We're talking like a major terrorist attack, collosal recession, Nuclear launch from korea or iran, ect.

    Pelosi sex tape.

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    True, but as we're seeing, the GOP in its current form isn't going to become sane. At all. They made the argument that McCain wasn't far-right enough, so in 2012, the far-right will handpick their nominee- Palin, Rush, Gingrich, whatever- and pretty much force it on the moderates whether they like it or not. And when- not if, when- Obama skullcracks that nominee at the polls, the far-right has no excuses. Or at least, none they will be able to use and have people take them seriously. Until that, this is going to continue.

    From there, one of two things will happen:

    1. The far-right is forced into at least some form of capitulation, having been soundly defeated three, possibly four times at the polls in the span of eight years (pending 2010 results). No amount of glossing-over is going to mitigate the damage to their policy positions. By this time the older members of the far-right will have retired or died, and younger moderates begin to take the party back.
    2. The Dems will have so thoroughly crushed the GOP- three, possibly four times in the span of eight years (pending 2010)- that the far-right simply ceases to be a viable political entity. Anyone remotely moderate will have fled to the Dems, and the Dems, by this time probably at a two-thirds majority in the Senate, will simply wait for the GOP, out of ideas and unwilling to produce new ones, to go the way of the Whigs. Then we wait for the Blue Dogs break off over some issue or other, and the two-party system reasserts itself.

    It's that two-thirds margin that's the one to watch. All manner of power flows to a side that can get two-thirds- 67 Senate seats. You can veto bills, convict an impeached President, expel someone from the Senate, etc. Once that mark is hit, then the death of the minority party becomes a real possibility, and at the rate we're going, it may only be a few cycles away.

    I have a blog. In the near future, I will also have a Kickstarter to get my club-soccer book up and running. I will let you know when I will start demanding all your money.
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    It is if it's your party.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.
    How do you see the Republican party coming back to sanity? The way I see it, the more the crazy far-right wing of the party gains power, the more moderate voters are turned to independents or Democrats and the more moderate elected Republicans are voted out because of their party's bad image. And the more moderate voters and elected Republicans are out of the party, the more power the crazy far-right wing gets. It's a vicious cycle, and at each iteration it leaves the party smaller and more crazy. I don't see any way for them to break out of it.
    The only way I could see the republicans regaining power under such circumstances would be some sort of massive failure that could be tied directly and unequivicably to the democrats; We're talking like a major terrorist attack, collosal recession, Nuclear launch from korea or iran, ect.

    Pelosi sex tape.
    That will never get out. Because no one in their right minds would see something marked "Pelosi Sex Tape" and choose to open it.

    *shivers*

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    It is if it's your party.

    Especially if you happen to vote for the Puppies and Blowjobs Party.

    I usually write them in on my ballot. I know the odds are slim at best, but hey, you never know!

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Gaddez wrote: »
    We're talking like a major terrorist attack

    Yeah. 9/11 just killed the GOP.

    I fail to understand how people constantly keep saying that in light of recent history.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    It is if it's your party.
    For a while, anyway.

    Eventually it's usually good to have some sane opposition to stem the inevitable tide of corruption. I am no longer among those who believes that the GOP will be the source of anything remotely sane ever again.

    Bring on the Bull Moose party.

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

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • necroSYSnecroSYS Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2009
    Because the Democratic Party is still seen as "softer" on defense?

    Maybe once Obama shows an effective withdrawl in Iraq, a winning strategy in Afghanistan, and a strong presence in foreign affairs, that will change, but for now they're still the party of the Iran hostage debacle and the Battle of Mogadishu.

    There's no point in you getting both of yourselves all worked up and ready to chart the undiscovered country, then having her flush crimson red, run to the bathroom, and spend twenty minutes straining and grunting and stressing out because you're all ready to deliver your package but there's a three inch thick Sunday paper clogging up the mail slot.
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    necroSYS wrote: »
    Because the Democratic Party is still seen as "softer" on defense?

    Maybe once Obama shows an effective withdrawl in Iraq, a winning strategy in Afghanistan, and a strong presence in foreign affairs, that will change, but for now they're still the party of the Iran hostage debacle and the Battle of Mogadishu.

    Eh. But I could easily see them setting the GOP on fire over national security if they were so inclined, which the party is not and why they took shit situations and made them intrinsic to the party's image (which basically is because the party was/is stupid).

  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    So, out of curiosity, am I the only one who would prefer the GOP become sane rather than increasingly unhinged? De facto one-party rule isn't all puppies and blowjobs.

    Hi5!

    I thought about joining, because I'm no fan of single party government.

    But dude - would they have me? I rather think not.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • RonaldoTheGypsyRonaldoTheGypsy I'm da BEST! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As vindictive as I am over the past 8 years, I would like to see two healthy parties, anyway.

    toadsig.jpg
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    We can certainly have two healthy parties, and I support that. Those two parties would be the Democrats and the Blue Dogs.

    Spoiler:
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Gaddez wrote: »
    We're talking like a major terrorist attack

    Yeah. 9/11 just killed the GOP.

    I fail to understand how people constantly keep saying that in light of recent history.
    That's why I said that It needed to be somthing that could be directly and clearly tied to the party's decision making.

    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    If Steele were to resign, the chairmanship would probably end up going to that dude who was second choice in the elections. You know, the guy who joined the Republican party because he hated desegregation.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If Steele were to resign, the chairmanship would probably end up going to that dude who was second choice in the elections. You know, the guy who joined the Republican party because he hated desegregation.
    Is it wrong that I can't really see that having any signifigant positive or negative impact on the Republican party?

    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    If Steele were to resign, the chairmanship would probably end up going to that dude who was second choice in the elections. You know, the guy who joined the Republican party because he hated desegregation.
    Is it wrong that I can't really see that having any signifigant positive or negative impact on the Republican party?
    No. As far as image goes, he's probably a much better choice than Rush Limbaugh.

«13456762
This discussion has been closed.