What I really want to know is whether or not the Republican Party can get Tea Partiers to vote for someone they don't like or whether Tea Partiers will act like butthurt HRC supporters who threatened to not vote for Obama for myriad butthurt reasons.
NY 23 already showed when they aren't derped too enough they'll vote for another. We'll see if that actually applies in the general as well.
I could see Bachman losing the nom but going on to the general anyway.
Oh, a Teaper third party candidate would be a dream come true.
I think Bachmann might be a bit too attached to her House seat to mount it, though.
I do too, especially since she's not going to run for Congress again. The only way the Pubs combat this is by putting her or another Tea-Party candidate on the ticket.
And she's kind of delusional enough. Tea party does not like Romney, and they are already rumbling they don't like the "establishment" if the debt ceiling gets raised I can definately see blood in the water at the next debate.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I fucking didn't intuit from your total fucking lack of cite or real info on WTF you were fucking referring to, that you were talking about 2 fucking white people. It is fucking well known to fucking be the fucking WS favored method, so most mother fucking people would fucking assume that's what the fuck you meant.
It is still sick. You silly fucking goose.
You know what they say about making assumptions, apollogy accepted though. We're cool now.
What I really want to know is whether or not the Republican Party can get Tea Partiers to vote for someone they don't like or whether Tea Partiers will act like butthurt HRC supporters who threatened to not vote for Obama for myriad butthurt reasons.
NY 23 already showed when they aren't derped too enough they'll vote for another. We'll see if that actually applies in the general as well.
I could see Bachman losing the nom but going on to the general anyway.
Oh, a Teaper third party candidate would be a dream come true.
I think Bachmann might be a bit too attached to her House seat to mount it, though.
Didn't her seat get censused away?
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
Edit: I'm also pretty sure the impact of a third party Teaper running in NY-23 put the fear of black socialist Jesus into the national GOP.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
It's funny because as someone who is not thrilled with Obama on various things, Romney is like the least bad candidate the Republicans have and he's pretty bad on some of the issues that matter to me. I don't get insane from him.
What I really want to know is whether or not the Republican Party can get Tea Partiers to vote for someone they don't like or whether Tea Partiers will act like butthurt HRC supporters who threatened to not vote for Obama for myriad butthurt reasons.
You do remember how Palin happened, right?
Vaguely. I remember it being a pandering play but the whole "Icon of the Tea Party" thing wasn't until she already had joined the ticket, right?
It goes deeper. What a lot of people forget about the 2008 primary is that Huckabee didn't just roll over when McCain had the nomination all sewn up. He kept running, and was puling a full quarter of the primary electorate in those final races. Not enough to sink McCain, but enough to show that the social cons were Not Happy. As a result, a social conservative running mate was selected.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
It's funny because as someone who is not thrilled with Obama on various things, Romney is like the least bad candidate the Republicans have and he's pretty bad on some of the issues that matter to me. I don't get insane from him.
The issue becomes though much like we saw in 2010 even when a republican doesn't run on the crazy once they get into office they go full on big business tax cuts, anti abortion, and redefinition of rape.
Any sanity that Romney may show in the primary/general, can not override his own parties stated horrific agenda.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
It's funny because as someone who is not thrilled with Obama on various things, Romney is like the least bad candidate the Republicans have and he's pretty bad on some of the issues that matter to me. I don't get insane from him.
I agree with this.
If the Republicans can't rally behind Huntsman, I think Romney's the sanest choice. And I'm pretty sure they will just because to most of them Obama's the devil.
Granted, I have a couple super-Christian friends who call Romney "The Mormonchurian Candidate", but I think that if he makes it to the general they'll still vote for him over Obama.
What I really want to know is whether or not the Republican Party can get Tea Partiers to vote for someone they don't like or whether Tea Partiers will act like butthurt HRC supporters who threatened to not vote for Obama for myriad butthurt reasons.
You do remember how Palin happened, right?
Vaguely. I remember it being a pandering play but the whole "Icon of the Tea Party" thing wasn't until she already had joined the ticket, right?
It goes deeper. What a lot of people forget about the 2008 primary is that Huckabee didn't just roll over when McCain had the nomination all sewn up. He kept running, and was puling a full quarter of the primary electorate in those final races. Not enough to sink McCain, but enough to show that the social cons were Not Happy. As a result, a social conservative running mate was selected.
Which is why I think that the Pubs will put a Tea Partier on the ticket for 2012. If they don't, there will be one to run third party.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
It's funny because as someone who is not thrilled with Obama on various things, Romney is like the least bad candidate the Republicans have and he's pretty bad on some of the issues that matter to me. I don't get insane from him.
The issue becomes though much like we saw in 2010 even when a republican doesn't run on the crazy once they get into office they go full on big business tax cuts, anti abortion, and redefinition of rape.
Any sanity that Romney may show in the primary/general, can not override his own parties stated horrific agenda.
What's the bit about redefining rape? That is a new one to me.
The best part about the Tea Party is their anti establishment anti elitist mindset has made sure none of their actual candidates could politic their way onto the express lane at walmart
What I really want to know is whether or not the Republican Party can get Tea Partiers to vote for someone they don't like or whether Tea Partiers will act like butthurt HRC supporters who threatened to not vote for Obama for myriad butthurt reasons.
You do remember how Palin happened, right?
Vaguely. I remember it being a pandering play but the whole "Icon of the Tea Party" thing wasn't until she already had joined the ticket, right?
It goes deeper. What a lot of people forget about the 2008 primary is that Huckabee didn't just roll over when McCain had the nomination all sewn up. He kept running, and was puling a full quarter of the primary electorate in those final races. Not enough to sink McCain, but enough to show that the social cons were Not Happy. As a result, a social conservative running mate was selected.
I always assumed Palin getting the nod was less about pandering to social conservatives and more a feeble effort to pander to the Vagina-Americans who were upset about Barack Obama's sexist non-white penis stealing the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton. I remember Palin made the mistake of making a few positive Hillary name drops during her early speeches and getting roundly booed before shifting to being the "hurl chunks of still-bleeding red meat to the base" part of the ticket.
I do think Bachmann is angling for a VP slot, since the powers that be in the GOP seem okay with the "electable on top, crazy on the bottom" ticket idea.
The best part about the Tea Party is their anti establishment anti elitist mindset has made sure none of their actual candidates could politic their way onto the express lane at walmart
They couldn't even shop there, because they don't use debt and have ensured that no one can earn money, because they convinced all the corporations except Wal-Mart to move somewhere else, because it's better for business.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
It's funny because as someone who is not thrilled with Obama on various things, Romney is like the least bad candidate the Republicans have and he's pretty bad on some of the issues that matter to me. I don't get insane from him.
The issue becomes though much like we saw in 2010 even when a republican doesn't run on the crazy once they get into office they go full on big business tax cuts, anti abortion, and redefinition of rape.
Any sanity that Romney may show in the primary/general, can not override his own parties stated horrific agenda.
What's the bit about redefining rape? That is a new one to me.
Republican legilsators in the house tried to remove medicaid eligibility from women who were raped unless it could be classified as "forcible rape". Statutory rape, incest, chemical coercion, and a few other things currently classified as rape would no longer qualify as rape.
Similar to the Republican attempt to change the court terminology for a rape victim so that they can't be referred to as "Victim" but must instead be referred to as "Accuser".
You know... that "feel-good legislation" they're always complaining about.
The GOP is trying to shut out some rape victims: "There's no way this change is accidental," says Sady Doyle in Salon. "And there's no way it's minor." This legislation would exclude adult victims of incest, women who were raped while drugged or unconscious, and survivors of statutory rape. In fact, "about 70 percent of rapes wouldn't fall under the 'forcible' designation," so there is no way to interpret this other than as a cruel attempt to deny victims care by denying that many of them were raped at all.
I get it now, complete_kaizen. Took a bit, but I catch on eventually. You're probably on our side, politically, but you belong to the Internet Troll party first and foremost. You're playing the caricature of the worst liberals believe about the right wingers: that they're cynical, abusive nihilists who only care about money. You're having some fun at our expense, seeing how self-righteous we can get in the face of the mounting abuses that the right wing has been perpitrating over the course of the last few decades. You're right. It's pretty self-righteous. Slow clap, and such.
Thing is, we live in an age of Poe's Law, and, even though you're deliberately trolling us with the most ridiculous arguments you can possibly come up with, everything you've said has been used by real Republicans, many of whom have held real offices, so our anger is, on some level, justified.
So yeah, you can keep going with your act until you get banned, or you can actually join the conversation with whatever real views you might have, and contribute like an actual member of Debate & Discourse.
Take care, and good luck with the next place you troll.
So again when you're a liberal upset that Obama isn't exactly the greatest progressive ever, think of the other side who does stuff like that, and their president will be behind similar policy decisions. On top of straight marriage amendment, medicare vouchers, and the dismanatling of social security.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I hate to say this about any American election, but the 2012 General is looking about as boring as Bush/Kerry. I dislike the current hubris of the White House, but Obama is almost sure to coast to a cozy win - there's no serious primary opponent from his own party to worry about (only Bernie Sanders might've come close; a shame he did not seek the leadership). The Republican field is a joke - the only persons with flavor & notoriety either have the sort of flavor & notoriety that would be venemous to their campaigns (Bachmann, Santorum) or are dark horse individuals with no voter base (Ron Paul). Romney is almost certain to win the primary simply by virtue of the fact that he's the most boring candidate (well, other than Pawlenty, who's candidacy is worthy of a few chortles).
Romney vs Obama in the general will pretty one-sided (not one-sided like Obama vs McCain, but still decidedly in Obama's favor), because Romney looks like the slimeball that he is. Appearances are a huge, huge deal in uninteresting American general elections (Bush vs Gore is an excellent example, as is Bush vs Kerry).
The Democrats' only worry will be all of the apathetic voters they created during Obama's piss-poor term, but I doubt that will cause an upset with the field looking like it does.
I hate to say this about any American election, but the 2012 General is looking about as boring as Bush/Kerry. I dislike the current hubris of the White House, but Obama is almost sure to coast to a cozy win - there's no serious primary opponent from his own party to worry about (only Bernie Sanders might've come close; a shame he did not seek the leadership). The Republican field is a joke - the only persons with flavor & notoriety either have the sort of flavor & notoriety that would be venemous to their campaigns (Bachmann, Santorum) or are dark horse individuals with no voter base (Ron Paul). Romney is almost certain to win the primary simply by virtue of the fact that he's the most boring candidate (well, other than Pawlenty, who's candidacy is worthy of a few chortles).
Romney vs Obama in the general will pretty one-sided (not one-sided like Obama vs McCain, but still decidedly in Obama's favor), because Romney looks like the slimeball that he is. Appearances are a huge, huge deal in uninteresting American general elections (Bush vs Gore is an excellent example, as is Bush vs Kerry).
The Democrats' only worry will be all of the apathetic voters they created during Obama's piss-poor term, but I doubt that will cause an upset with the field looking like it does.
eh, Paul certainly has his base, but it's Nader-esque.
Speaking of, has Nader announced yet? It'll be strange for me to have a presidential election without him in it if he doesn't.
Long term the Republican party will have to come to terms with their bigotry.
It was the play to make during the civil rights era to gain the south but now it is going to make them irrelevant if they can't come to terms with the idealogically friendly Hispanic American population.
If Perry runs he could be a huge threat. He's smart enough to hide his crazy during a general election
I hate to say this about any American election, but the 2012 General is looking about as boring as Bush/Kerry. I dislike the current hubris of the White House, but Obama is almost sure to coast to a cozy win - there's no serious primary opponent from his own party to worry about (only Bernie Sanders might've come close; a shame he did not seek the leadership).
I'll just poing out that Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Great guy, great politician. Not a Democrat. Can't primary Obama.
The Democrats' only worry will be all of the apathetic voters they created during Obama's piss-poor term, but I doubt that will cause an upset with the field looking like it does.
Obama's term has actually had a really solid set of achievements.
I know it gets spun as "piss-poor", but, aside from letting the financial sector mostly go back to its old tricks, I haven't really seen where he went wrong. Left wingers like me aren't entirely happy with him, sure, but not catering to the far corners of your party does not equal "piss-poor".
He's a fuckton better than Bush II. At least Obama's government sounds rational, most of the time.
Also, he seems to take a lot less vacation which is good, since I didn't hire my president to jackoff all fucking day, clearing brush and wiping minds.
Long term the Republican party will have to come to terms with their bigotry.
It was the play to make during the civil rights era to gain the south but now it is going to make them irrelevant if they can't come to terms with the idealogically friendly Hispanic American population.
If Perry runs he could be a huge threat. He's smart enough to hide his crazy during a general election
I... really don't think he is.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I hate to say this about any American election, but the 2012 General is looking about as boring as Bush/Kerry. I dislike the current hubris of the White House, but Obama is almost sure to coast to a cozy win - there's no serious primary opponent from his own party to worry about (only Bernie Sanders might've come close; a shame he did not seek the leadership).
I'll just poing out that Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Great guy, great politician. Not a Democrat. Can't primary Obama.
The Democrats' only worry will be all of the apathetic voters they created during Obama's piss-poor term, but I doubt that will cause an upset with the field looking like it does.
Obama's term has actually had a really solid set of achievements.
I know it gets spun as "piss-poor", but, aside from letting the financial sector mostly go back to its old tricks, I haven't really seen where he went wrong. Left wingers like me aren't entirely happy with him, sure, but not catering to the far corners of your party does not equal "piss-poor".
Honestly I'm quite happy with Obama's performance, he tried to be bi-partisan and still tries to be instead of just giving up. And we got healthcare reform, financial reform, dadt got repealed, Osama bin laden is dead and with him hopefully a gradual end game now in afganistan, my 401k has seen a marked improvement from 2008.
I'll happily mark him for president in 2012.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I hate to say this about any American election, but the 2012 General is looking about as boring as Bush/Kerry. I dislike the current hubris of the White House, but Obama is almost sure to coast to a cozy win - there's no serious primary opponent from his own party to worry about (only Bernie Sanders might've come close; a shame he did not seek the leadership).
I'll just poing out that Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Great guy, great politician. Not a Democrat. Can't primary Obama.
The Democrats' only worry will be all of the apathetic voters they created during Obama's piss-poor term, but I doubt that will cause an upset with the field looking like it does.
Obama's term has actually had a really solid set of achievements.
I know it gets spun as "piss-poor", but, aside from letting the financial sector mostly go back to its old tricks, I haven't really seen where he went wrong. Left wingers like me aren't entirely happy with him, sure, but not catering to the far corners of your party does not equal "piss-poor".
Honestly I'm quite happy with Obama's performance, he tried to be bi-partisan and still tries to be instead of just giving up. And we got healthcare reform, financial reform, dadt got repealed, Osama bin laden is dead and with him hopefully a gradual end game now in afganistan, my 401k has seen a marked improvement from 2008.
I can't fathom what's to gain from such a change. Saving money? Keeping the working woman down? What the hell do they want?
Acknowledgement that women aren't people, probably.
Cut costs, at all costs!!
or just -
Keep 'em barefoot and pregant.
Also, since it is their GODDOG appointed duty to serve the people with balls, they should have a man to rely on and pay bills. So really the republicans just assume no one will actually be effected, because they are completely out of touch with reality.
Discussing Mitt Romney's run for the Presidency, the Washington Post has decided that Mormons, well... they're just BETTER at being in charge.
The most recent issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek examines an interesting question: Why do so many Mormons go on to be successful leaders? There’s two in the presidential race, for starters—GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney, of course, as well as former China ambassador Jon Huntsman, who plans to officially announce his candidacy June 21. JetBlue founder David Neeleman is a member of the Mormon Church. Credit Suisse CEO Eric Varvel is too, as are self-help guru Steven Covey and Gary Crittenden, who has been CFO at Citigroup, American Express and Sears.
Liberals shouldn’t whine about Republicans sucking ass on rape when their own party is just as bad, it’s not OK just because you are a liberal.
So I'll take complaints about the GOPs stance on rape seriously when the Democrats don't turn around and do the same thing.
Whatever.
Since they are trying to fuck poor women in the ass who are not willing, obviously the repubs were just looking for a nice story to give them enough power to kill the Peace Corps.
Compassionate like my taint.
Also if you read the whole article you see this bit at the end:
Update: Rep. Mike Honda (D-Ca.), one of the few former Peace Corps volunteers in Congress, met with the First Response Action coalition this week and assures Mother Jones that he'll personally work with Poe to protect the victims of rape and sexual assault:
As a returned Peace Corps volunteer, I am deeply committed to doing everything in my congressional powers to ensure the safety, health, and support of every Peace Corps Volunteer. I take the issue of rape and sexual assault very seriously and want to make sure the appropriate tools are in place to address it...I am also cognizant of the need for this legislation to include additional resources for the changes that are required, and I look forward to working with Rep Poe to ensure that happens.
And further, the Peace Corps is not administrated by dems alone, but rather by career public servants from both sides.
Discussing Mitt Romney's run for the Presidency, the Washington Post has decided that Mormons, well... they're just BETTER at being in charge.
The most recent issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek examines an interesting question: Why do so many Mormons go on to be successful leaders? There’s two in the presidential race, for starters—GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney, of course, as well as former China ambassador Jon Huntsman, who plans to officially announce his candidacy June 21. JetBlue founder David Neeleman is a member of the Mormon Church. Credit Suisse CEO Eric Varvel is too, as are self-help guru Steven Covey and Gary Crittenden, who has been CFO at Citigroup, American Express and Sears.
Posts
Didn't her seat get censused away?
And she's kind of delusional enough. Tea party does not like Romney, and they are already rumbling they don't like the "establishment" if the debt ceiling gets raised I can definately see blood in the water at the next debate.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You know what they say about making assumptions, apollogy accepted though. We're cool now.
I don't think that any of the census-mandated redistricting has gone through yet. I heard that she, along with Kucinich, are two of the high-profile folks in the House facing losing their districts.
Although apparently Bachmann isn't going to run for re-election, although if she drops out early enough she's legally allowed to file for her House seat.
I still don't see her as a third party candidate, especially since she's jumped on board the GOP Unity Kumbaya Boat.
Edit: I'm also pretty sure the impact of a third party Teaper running in NY-23 put the fear of black socialist Jesus into the national GOP.
monies to be made and whatnot
For now, you can't keep this group under a leash, especially if the "lame stream" media keeps crowning romney the winner by default.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's funny because as someone who is not thrilled with Obama on various things, Romney is like the least bad candidate the Republicans have and he's pretty bad on some of the issues that matter to me. I don't get insane from him.
It goes deeper. What a lot of people forget about the 2008 primary is that Huckabee didn't just roll over when McCain had the nomination all sewn up. He kept running, and was puling a full quarter of the primary electorate in those final races. Not enough to sink McCain, but enough to show that the social cons were Not Happy. As a result, a social conservative running mate was selected.
The issue becomes though much like we saw in 2010 even when a republican doesn't run on the crazy once they get into office they go full on big business tax cuts, anti abortion, and redefinition of rape.
Any sanity that Romney may show in the primary/general, can not override his own parties stated horrific agenda.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I agree with this.
If the Republicans can't rally behind Huntsman, I think Romney's the sanest choice. And I'm pretty sure they will just because to most of them Obama's the devil.
Granted, I have a couple super-Christian friends who call Romney "The Mormonchurian Candidate", but I think that if he makes it to the general they'll still vote for him over Obama.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
What's the bit about redefining rape? That is a new one to me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://theweek.com/article/index/211685/is-the-gop-redefining-rape
Part of some of that lovely "jobs" push they had.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I always assumed Palin getting the nod was less about pandering to social conservatives and more a feeble effort to pander to the Vagina-Americans who were upset about Barack Obama's sexist non-white penis stealing the Democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton. I remember Palin made the mistake of making a few positive Hillary name drops during her early speeches and getting roundly booed before shifting to being the "hurl chunks of still-bleeding red meat to the base" part of the ticket.
I do think Bachmann is angling for a VP slot, since the powers that be in the GOP seem okay with the "electable on top, crazy on the bottom" ticket idea.
Didn't work for the Dems in '10. Didn't work for the GOP in '08. Or the Dems in '04
Won't work for the GOP in '12. Its why they're scared shitless of getting held down on an actual policy position.
They couldn't even shop there, because they don't use debt and have ensured that no one can earn money, because they convinced all the corporations except Wal-Mart to move somewhere else, because it's better for business.
Riiiiight .... ?? because in their mind there is a difference between forcible rape and willing rape.
Republican legilsators in the house tried to remove medicaid eligibility from women who were raped unless it could be classified as "forcible rape". Statutory rape, incest, chemical coercion, and a few other things currently classified as rape would no longer qualify as rape.
Similar to the Republican attempt to change the court terminology for a rape victim so that they can't be referred to as "Victim" but must instead be referred to as "Accuser".
You know... that "feel-good legislation" they're always complaining about.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I just want to quote a bit of that here:
Thing is, we live in an age of Poe's Law, and, even though you're deliberately trolling us with the most ridiculous arguments you can possibly come up with, everything you've said has been used by real Republicans, many of whom have held real offices, so our anger is, on some level, justified.
So yeah, you can keep going with your act until you get banned, or you can actually join the conversation with whatever real views you might have, and contribute like an actual member of Debate & Discourse.
Take care, and good luck with the next place you troll.
Whoops not the thread I thought it was.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Romney vs Obama in the general will pretty one-sided (not one-sided like Obama vs McCain, but still decidedly in Obama's favor), because Romney looks like the slimeball that he is. Appearances are a huge, huge deal in uninteresting American general elections (Bush vs Gore is an excellent example, as is Bush vs Kerry).
The Democrats' only worry will be all of the apathetic voters they created during Obama's piss-poor term, but I doubt that will cause an upset with the field looking like it does.
eh, Paul certainly has his base, but it's Nader-esque.
Speaking of, has Nader announced yet? It'll be strange for me to have a presidential election without him in it if he doesn't.
It was the play to make during the civil rights era to gain the south but now it is going to make them irrelevant if they can't come to terms with the idealogically friendly Hispanic American population.
If Perry runs he could be a huge threat. He's smart enough to hide his crazy during a general election
I'll just poing out that Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Great guy, great politician. Not a Democrat. Can't primary Obama.
Obama's term has actually had a really solid set of achievements.
I know it gets spun as "piss-poor", but, aside from letting the financial sector mostly go back to its old tricks, I haven't really seen where he went wrong. Left wingers like me aren't entirely happy with him, sure, but not catering to the far corners of your party does not equal "piss-poor".
Also, he seems to take a lot less vacation which is good, since I didn't hire my president to jackoff all fucking day, clearing brush and wiping minds.
I... really don't think he is.
Honestly I'm quite happy with Obama's performance, he tried to be bi-partisan and still tries to be instead of just giving up. And we got healthcare reform, financial reform, dadt got repealed, Osama bin laden is dead and with him hopefully a gradual end game now in afganistan, my 401k has seen a marked improvement from 2008.
I'll happily mark him for president in 2012.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Acknowledgement that women aren't people, probably.
hi5 !!
Cut costs, at all costs!!
or just -
Keep 'em barefoot and pregant.
Also, since it is their GODDOG appointed duty to serve the people with balls, they should have a man to rely on and pay bills. So really the republicans just assume no one will actually be effected, because they are completely out of touch with reality.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/why-arent-dems-supporting-peace-corps-rape-victims
Liberals shouldn’t whine about Republicans sucking ass on rape when their own party is just as bad, it’s not OK just because you are a liberal.
So I'll take complaints about the GOPs stance on rape seriously when the Democrats don't turn around and do the same thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/mitt-romney-to-jon-huntsman--are-mormons-really-better-leaders/2011/04/01/AG9QbPXH_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Discussing Mitt Romney's run for the Presidency, the Washington Post has decided that Mormons, well... they're just BETTER at being in charge.
Here's the BloomBerg Article as well, for the curious:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233058977933.htm
"God's MBAs: Why Mormon Missions Produce Leaders"
Though I really do like the term "Mormonchurian Candidate" now that I think about it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Whatever.
Since they are trying to fuck poor women in the ass who are not willing, obviously the repubs were just looking for a nice story to give them enough power to kill the Peace Corps.
Compassionate like my taint.
Also if you read the whole article you see this bit at the end:
And further, the Peace Corps is not administrated by dems alone, but rather by career public servants from both sides.
That article is asking why more (how many more it doesn't say either) Democrats aren't supporting the change for how the Peace Corps handles rape.
The Republicans put forth a bill saying if someone was drugged and raped, it wouldn't count as rape.
So since the Dems didn't turn around and do the same thing you can go ahead and take all these complaints.