As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

1303133353660

Posts

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hopefully Reid somehow manages to lose

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm calling it now: nothing much will change. we'll gain Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire, no other seats will change hands. And yes, I'm keeping Reid, Bennet, Dodd, Lincoln, and Burris in mind.

    Burris is resigning, it's an open seat. I'd put more money on the Dem than the GOP for it, given the way Kirk is running for the primary, but either way Burris is leaving the chamber.

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.

    I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
    Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.

    Polls are kind of irrelevant at this point, given how early it is. If the economy stops bleeding jobs by next July and unemployment starts actually coming down then that'd be a plus, but most of the fundamentals that really determine outcomes are way too loose to judge.

    moniker on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.

    I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
    Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.

    The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.

    And like you said, that's the pessimist's approach. Wouldn't be surprised at all if we woke up in nov. 2010 with moderate democratic gains.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm calling it now: nothing much will change. we'll gain Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire, no other seats will change hands. And yes, I'm keeping Reid, Bennet, Dodd, Lincoln, and Burris in mind.

    Burris is resigning, it's an open seat. I'd put more money on the Dem than the GOP for it, given the way Kirk is running for the primary, but either way Burris is leaving the chamber.

    Burris says he's retiring. You think he couldn't make a mess of that race claiming to be a Democrat even after someone else won the primary? Besides, people always associate a race with its current holder even if he isn't running for reelection (*cough* 1968, 2008 *cough*), and Burris is not terribly popular.

    Captain Carrot on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.

    I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
    Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.

    Polls are kind of irrelevant at this point, given how early it is. If the economy stops bleeding jobs by next July and unemployment starts actually coming down then that'd be a plus, but most of the fundamentals that really determine outcomes are way too loose to judge.
    Well obviously. How things go from here on out will effect the elections. I was just pointing out that the cable news conflict jockeys spending 45 minutes of every hour pontificating about how screwed the Dems are really isn't accurate.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.

    I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
    Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.

    The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
    Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.

    Captain Carrot on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.

    I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
    Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.

    The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
    Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
    Brownback was retiring anyway, wasn't he? Sebelius is pretty popular, but I'm not sure she would take the senate seat away from the crazies. Kansas has an incredibly strong machine built from the "give us our corn money, save teh bebees" crowd, and those people by and large HATE Sebelius. She'd have a tough run of it, to be sure.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think the 2010 midterms will be that bad for the democratic party, not because they'll necessarily do well, but because there just aren't that many opportunities for republican pickups.

    I mean it's really hard to see the republicans picking up more than one or maybe two seats in the senate, which is academic given that the dems apparently can't whip their fucking caucus for shit in that chamber anyway, and if they lose five or ten moderate seats in the house it doesn't matter that much.
    Polling was still showing Dems netting seats in the house as of a month or so ago. I haven't really seen anything since. I think there was also a +1 or so in the Senate. The lull is coming, but it's starting at a very high point to begin with. As of the latest real round of results that I know about the Dems weren't set to make the pickups they did this last round, but they were still making pickups.

    The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
    Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
    Brownback was retiring anyway, wasn't he? Sebelius is pretty popular, but I'm not sure she would take the senate seat away from the crazies. Kansas has an incredibly strong machine built from the "give us our corn money, save teh bebees" crowd, and those people by and large HATE Sebelius. She'd have a tough run of it, to be sure.

    You don't want to be a governor right now. All you're doing is cutting services, furloughing workers, and raising taxes. They got out when the getting was good. Now they'll be remembered as the one that did ___ instead of the mean old so and so who took my ___ away. If you're running to become governor, now's the best time to be doing it, because when revenues return after the recovery you get to be the guy who brought everything back and 'saved the state' by...well just kind of being there, really.

    moniker on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The biggest knock on the dems this cycle is that Obama strangled a few great opportunities in the cradle by nominating contenders to administration posts (vilsack, napoli-name-I-always-forget in arizona, etc.) But republicans have a lot of seats to defend this cycle, and retirements and bad recruitment have left them vulnerable in some areas I'm sure they didn't expect to be. So even if they luck out and knock off a couple of democratic incumbents, they'll probably give back a seat or two elsewhere.
    Vilsack wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I still have hopes that Napolitano and Sebelius will resign in time to take McCain's and Brownback's seats.
    Brownback was retiring anyway, wasn't he? Sebelius is pretty popular, but I'm not sure she would take the senate seat away from the crazies. Kansas has an incredibly strong machine built from the "give us our corn money, save teh bebees" crowd, and those people by and large HATE Sebelius. She'd have a tough run of it, to be sure.
    Brownback's leaving the Senate and entering the governorship, and I doubt Parkinson will be able to stop him.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Hopefully Reid somehow manages to lose

    Who's next in line, should Reid lose?

    Bionic Monkey on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Hopefully Reid somehow manages to lose

    Who's next in line, should Reid lose?

    Durbin or Schumer. If I had to guess I'd say Schumer thanks to DSCC, and Durbin being from Illinois.

    moniker on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Durbin's next in the leadership, though Schumer has more fire in him.

    Captain Carrot on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Durbin's next in the leadership, though Schumer has more fire in him.
    Either of them being way fucking better than Harry Reid.

    Thanatos on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Unless Schumer defers to Durbin its Schumer. He'd win a vote against pretty much anyone in the caucus.

    Kanamit on
  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    There was a debate in NY's 23rd tonight. Hoffman sounds like a sanctimonious prick.
    National Or Local Race?

    "Mr. Hoffman indicates the the most important thing, that this is a national race, and the parochial issues of the district are not important," said Scozzafava. "I disagree with that. The most important issues in this race are the issues that are most important to the 23rd Congressional district."

    Hoffman defended his independence: "As the only conservative Ronald Reagan Republican in this race, the only people that are supporting me are the people that believe in the values and the ideals that represent conservatism."
    This is probably the most telling part of the whole thing.

    I think the debate did a good job of pointing out that, aside from the social issues, Scozzafava really isn't that different from Hoffman. The press has been playing her up as being some kind of liberal Rep (because of the social issues), which I think has skewed peoples' view of her. By taking those social issues out of the debate, she really sounds no different than I'd expect a Republican to sound. Good piece for anyone looking for a little clarification and perspective.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/three-candidates-debate-in-ny-23-a-moderate-democrat-versus-two-republicans.php

    Bullio on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Scooter wrote: »
    Has this been posted yet?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD

    I haven't read the whole thing (30 pages) but I take it it's not good for Orly.

    F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
    The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).

    Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

    Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
    While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence thisCourt.

    Ho ho ho...

    KalTorak on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    Has this been posted yet?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD

    I haven't read the whole thing (30 pages) but I take it it's not good for Orly.

    F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
    The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).

    Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

    Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
    While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence thisCourt.

    Ho ho ho...

    Wow. She is fucked. The California Bar cannot ignore sworn statements claiming that she suborned perjury.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CorbiusCorbius Shepard Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hahah, that sounds like "These people are crazy idiots" said in dense legal speech.

    Corbius on
    wrexsig1.jpg
    PSN: Corbius
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    Hahah, that sounds like "These people are crazy idiots" said in dense legal speech.

    No, it's "this person tried to get people to break the law, which as a sworn officer of the court she knows better than to do." Which is substantially worse.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    You don't want to be a governor right now. All you're doing is cutting services, furloughing workers, and raising taxes. They got out when the getting was good. Now they'll be remembered as the one that did ___ instead of the mean old so and so who took my ___ away. If you're running to become governor, now's the best time to be doing it, because when revenues return after the recovery you get to be the guy who brought everything back and 'saved the state' by...well just kind of being there, really.

    This is 1/3 of Chris Christies plan for winning both this election and riding it to his potential re-election. The other 1/3 are taxes and combating corruption.

    If he wins, he'll win re-election in four years barring a major scandal.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Scooter wrote: »
    Has this been posted yet?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD

    I haven't read the whole thing (30 pages) but I take it it's not good for Orly.

    F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
    The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J.Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009).

    Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id.Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

    Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
    While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence thisCourt.

    Ho ho ho...

    Wow. She is fucked. The California Bar cannot ignore sworn statements claiming that she suborned perjury.


    Well thank God she has her real estate / dentistry professions to pay back the student loans from the law school she didn't attend.

    edit: holy fuck, she did kind of technically go to law school in an unaccredited correspondence course sort of way. Edited for correction

    http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/1_tuition.htm

    Deebaser on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Said in all seriousness at xwalk:
    ORIGINAL: JMiller
    ORIGINAL: shakezula

    sounds like an urban legend to me.


    I too would have been skepticle if the article came from anywhere but World Net Daily

    Loren Michael on
  • SurikoSuriko AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2009102912
    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. economy grew at a 3.5% annual rate in the third quarter, ending a string of declines over four quarters that resulted in the most severe slide since the Great Depression.

    ...

    A rebound in auto sales, which were helped by the government's Cash for Clunkers program, also provided a boost to GDP. The economic stimulus package, with public works projects and aid to state and federal governments, boosted growth as well.

    Congratulations guys. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come.

    Suriko on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Said in all seriousness at xwalk:
    ORIGINAL: JMiller
    ORIGINAL: shakezula

    sounds like an urban legend to me.


    I too would have been skepticle if the article came from anywhere but World Net Daily

    you'd betta not be dissin shakezula

    the mic rula

    the old schoola

    cuz if you wanna trip, he'll bring it to ya

    Rust on
  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Howard Dean calls out Karl Rove during debate, Rove gets butthurt.
    Rove had said that Medicare rejects claims twice as often as the overall health insurance industry, and he promised to put the proof in his Wall Street Journal column next week. “And I would appreciate it if you didn’t question my integrity. ..Mr. Dean, you just called me a liar and I don’t appreciate it,” replied Rove, former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor. Later, Rove called Dean “adolescent” after the former Democratic National Committee chairman interrupted one of his answers.
    I can't think of anything pithy to say about this. The jokes just present themselves with that one.

    http://rawstory.com/2009/10/dean-debates-rove-political-identity/

    Bullio on
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2009
    Bullio wrote: »
    There was a debate in NY's 23rd tonight. Hoffman sounds like a sanctimonious prick.
    National Or Local Race?

    "Mr. Hoffman indicates the the most important thing, that this is a national race, and the parochial issues of the district are not important," said Scozzafava. "I disagree with that. The most important issues in this race are the issues that are most important to the 23rd Congressional district."

    Hoffman defended his independence: "As the only conservative Ronald Reagan Republican in this race, the only people that are supporting me are the people that believe in the values and the ideals that represent conservatism."

    Yeah! Hump that fucking corpse some more!

    Bionic Monkey on
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.

    TIME TO MOVE ON

    Speaker on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Rove is being an asshat over being called a liar when he lied, economy is up 3.5%, and Taitz is about to get legally kicked in the ass. This is a good day y'all.

    Henroid on
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Corbius wrote: »
    Hahah, that sounds like "These people are crazy idiots" said in dense legal speech.

    No, it's "this person tried to get people to break the law, which as a sworn officer of the court she knows better than to do." Which is substantially worse.

    Courts take perjury rather seriously. Especially when it's a lawyer doing it.

    psychotix on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.

    KalTorak on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.

    No dude it's totally in the Constitution! What, where? I don't have time to point it out, just do it!

    Henroid on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.

    I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.

    Deebaser on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.

    No dude it's totally in the Constitution! What, where? I don't have time to point it out, just do it!


    Maybe it's in the 10th Amendment and that's why the 10thers are getting all worked up.

    Deebaser on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.

    I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.

    "Great Scott, Barack! If you don't get your mother to give birth to you in Hawaii instead of Kenya, you'll be... erased from existence!"
    "Whoa, this is heavy."

    KalTorak on
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I like the section in that order that discusses how the Plaintiffs want the court to remove Obama from office, even though the judicial branch is Constitutionally unable to do so.

    I think the 'theory' goes that if Obama is deemed ineligible by the courts on the grounds that he isn't a natural born 'murkin. He'll just blink out of existence or something seeing as how there's no mechanism for removing a president because he was deemed 'ineligible'.

    It's not that dumb, well, not completely that dumb.

    The tactic is that if they can have a court say that is proof, is not valid enough proof for the office they can spend the rest of his term sandbagging him and he won't be able to run in 2012. It will also give the another "look at the dumbocrats" line they can yell till kingdom come.

    psychotix on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.

    TIME TO MOVE ON

    They're going to continue to ride his coffin long after anyone who could have voted for him is dead.

    moniker on
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.

    TIME TO MOVE ON

    They're going to continue to ride his coffin long after anyone who could have voted for him is dead.

    He's honestly the sequel to Lincoln for them, the next Republican to be held up until Conservative Messiah comes again.

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    RedTide wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.

    TIME TO MOVE ON

    They're going to continue to ride his coffin long after anyone who could have voted for him is dead.

    He's honestly the sequel to Lincoln for them, the next Republican to be held up until Conservative Messiah comes again.

    Reagan is the Conservative Messiah. Everyone else is just trying to be the Conservative Pope that prays to him.

    wwtMask on
    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
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    People who were 30 during the Carter/Reagan election are now 59.

    TIME TO MOVE ON

    They're going to continue to ride his coffin long after anyone who could have voted for him is dead.
    It'll get even better after he passes from living memory. That's the point at which he stops being the face of the glory years of the Republican party and becomes their patron saint.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This discussion has been closed.