I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
I'll answer.
No one and I don't think they do.
The Villagers do, because the backers of Americans Elect have oodles of money and are pushing forward the bullshit "both sides do it" gooseshit that is Villager catnip.
On another board someone said this gem about the whole thing:
If you don't tolerate gays you are a bigot. If you don't tolerate people that hate gays or their views you are also just as much a bigot.
But being a bigot really is a mark on your character and worth, unlike being born gay or black. Bigotry is irrational, being hostile to bigots is not.
I think I was sixteen when I figured that out. There are Christians in Europe and the US that spend their lives thinking leftists are mean for attacking religious bigotry towards gays and the transgendered.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
ah yes, good old "intolerance of intolerance is intolerant!"
On another board someone said this gem about the whole thing:
If you don't tolerate gays you are a bigot. If you don't tolerate people that hate gays or their views you are also just as much a bigot.
But being a bigot really is a mark on your character and worth, unlike being born gay or black. Bigotry is irrational, being hostile to bigots is not.
I think I was sixteen when I figured that out. There are Christians in Europe and the US that spend their lives thinking leftists are mean for attacking religious bigotry towards gays and the transgendered.
Judging people for what they are (black, gay, female, short, Russian, etc.) is prejudice; judging people for what they believe is just plain judging.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
On another board someone said this gem about the whole thing:
If you don't tolerate gays you are a bigot. If you don't tolerate people that hate gays or their views you are also just as much a bigot.
But being a bigot really is a mark on your character and worth, unlike being born gay or black. Bigotry is irrational, being hostile to bigots is not.
I think I was sixteen when I figured that out. There are Christians in Europe and the US that spend their lives thinking leftists are mean for attacking religious bigotry towards gays and the transgendered.
Judging people for what they are (black, gay, female, short, Russian, etc.) is prejudice; judging people for what they believe is just plain judging.
You might even call it "the content of their character."
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Online convention, huh? Looks like Ron Paul will make the ballot after all!
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Online convention, huh? Looks like Ron Paul will make the ballot after all!
I think the Americans Elect laws say it can't be someone running for either two big parties.
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Online convention, huh? Looks like Ron Paul will make the ballot after all!
I think the Americans Elect laws say it can't be someone running for either two big parties.
I would hardly call what Ron Paul is doing "running".
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Online convention, huh? Looks like Ron Paul will make the ballot after all!
I think the Americans Elect laws say it can't be someone running for either two big parties.
No, they say that the ticket has to be "bipartisan", so the people on it have to be from different parties.
But never fear, there is no way that RONPAUL will be on the ballot for them, because they won't let him.
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Online convention, huh? Looks like Ron Paul will make the ballot after all!
I think the Americans Elect laws say it can't be someone running for either two big parties.
No, they say that the ticket has to be "bipartisan", so the people on it have to be from different parties.
But never fear, there is no way that RONPAUL will be on the ballot for them, because they won't let him.
Because then they would be playing spoiler for the republicans instead of the democrats, like they so desperately desire?
I wonder if they'll wind up nominating somebody and/or registering as an official party just so they can keep their ballot access stuff together. I guess it probably depends on how committed their backers are.
I'll ask the same question I had last time that was brought up. Who the hell are they and why does the media care?
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Online convention, huh? Looks like Ron Paul will make the ballot after all!
I think the Americans Elect laws say it can't be someone running for either two big parties.
No, they say that the ticket has to be "bipartisan", so the people on it have to be from different parties.
But never fear, there is no way that RONPAUL will be on the ballot for them, because they won't let him.
Because then they would be playing spoiler for the republicans instead of the democrats, like they so desperately desire?
That, and this is Wall Street looking for a pet candidate. Do you really think The King of Goldbugs fits that description?
Holy shit. I just watched that Shep Smith clip. That may be one of the funnier 30sec news clips I've ever seen.
When I was looking for this clip yesterday, I found a video where Shep interrupted a guest for about 2 minutes to point out repeatedly that Mitt Romney was wearing mom jeans.
Can anyone cut the last part about "Politics is weird...and creepy...and lacks even the loosest connection to anything we call reality". Because that needs to become a meme response for insane political news.
According the wikipedia, shep smith "remains the top-rated newscast in cable news and is ranked third in the top programs in U.S. cable news.[5] Shepard Smith tied for second (along with Dan Rather and Peter Jennings) as the most trusted news anchor on both network and cable news in a 2003 TV Guide poll."
Also? He settled out of court for misdemeanor battery after hitting a women with his car over an argument for a parking space.
This sounds suspiciously like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"Grrr, we'll show the only party that even seems to give a shit about us! Grrr, we're so angry! Gee, I hope there won't be any repercussions for slowing/stopping contributions to said party; you know, the only one that even sometimes pretends to like us and our money."
Perhaps I shouldn't give the DNC any money for the convention because they picked a state with a Republican controlled general assembly... :?:
This sounds suspiciously like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"Grrr, we'll show the only party that even seems to give a shit about us! Grrr, we're so angry! Gee, I hope there won't be any repercussions for slowing/stopping contributions to said party; you know, the only one that even sometimes pretends to like us and our money."
Perhaps I shouldn't give the DNC any money for the convention because they picked a state with a Republican controlled general assembly... :?:
why would labor expect the party to do something different if they just keep giving them the same money/support?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This sounds suspiciously like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"Grrr, we'll show the only party that even seems to give a shit about us! Grrr, we're so angry! Gee, I hope there won't be any repercussions for slowing/stopping contributions to said party; you know, the only one that even sometimes pretends to like us and our money."
Perhaps I shouldn't give the DNC any money for the convention because they picked a state with a Republican controlled general assembly... :?:
I have difficulty blaming them for this one.
I wish at-will states would start embargoing right-to-work states.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Wah wah, grow up.
Democrats exist in North Carolina, too.
It'd be nice if liberals didn't commit suicide like this all the fucking time.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
On the one hand, good on them for sticking to their principles. 'Right to work' is a glorified way of saying "we don't have to tell you why you're fired".
On the other hand, when one party has been spending the last 30 years making "union" a dirty word to America, potentially alienating the party who is your last political ally might not be the wisest decision.
Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/us/politics/richard-grenell-resigns-from-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-team.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&ref=politics&pagewanted=all
Also, is there something new in that Grenell article? It looks like the same one that was posted yesterday
On another board someone said this gem about the whole thing:
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
I'll answer.
No one and I don't think they do.
their idea was to solicit and nominate candidates via online process, while the backbone work of fundraising and ballot access was handled by the organization in advance. It always seemed pretty hokey, but it was interesting because they at least seemed serious about it, to the point of apparently getting on the ballot in 20+ states.
Apparently now what's happened is that no candidate has emerged who can meet their required standards of support (which I guess are actually pretty high.) So I guess now they'll have to just allow their online convention (not sure how this is gonna go down either) to nominate whoever it wants, or just scrap the whole thing.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The Villagers do, because the backers of Americans Elect have oodles of money and are pushing forward the bullshit "both sides do it" gooseshit that is Villager catnip.
Can't...tell...if...troll.
I know that sentiment isn't uncommon though. A lot of people spend a lot of time defending people from the social cost of being hateful extremists.
But being a bigot really is a mark on your character and worth, unlike being born gay or black. Bigotry is irrational, being hostile to bigots is not.
I think I was sixteen when I figured that out. There are Christians in Europe and the US that spend their lives thinking leftists are mean for attacking religious bigotry towards gays and the transgendered.
You might even call it "the content of their character."
I wouldn't throw a rock at someone for being a hate monger and would still go out of my way to prevent harm from befalling them.
Doesn't mean I won't feel a certain way about them.
Most people engaged in this don't understand that hating the sin doesn't mean hating the sinner though.
I think the Americans Elect laws say it can't be someone running for either two big parties.
I would hardly call what Ron Paul is doing "running".
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
No, they say that the ticket has to be "bipartisan", so the people on it have to be from different parties.
But never fear, there is no way that RONPAUL will be on the ballot for them, because they won't let him.
Because then they would be playing spoiler for the republicans instead of the democrats, like they so desperately desire?
That, and this is Wall Street looking for a pet candidate. Do you really think The King of Goldbugs fits that description?
Can we call an ad being debunked being 'Cuttered'?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
When I was looking for this clip yesterday, I found a video where Shep interrupted a guest for about 2 minutes to point out repeatedly that Mitt Romney was wearing mom jeans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/mitt-romney-conservative-media-off-the-record_n_1472855.html
this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder how he still has a job at fox news
Hahahahah
Ironically, doesn't that make him their worst pundit?
Fox News has reached the point where they don't need to pretend to have credibility.
Also? He settled out of court for misdemeanor battery after hitting a women with his car over an argument for a parking space.
but he wouldn't go against his corporate overlords now
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303877604577380381437953766.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Good for them.
This sounds suspiciously like cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"Grrr, we'll show the only party that even seems to give a shit about us! Grrr, we're so angry! Gee, I hope there won't be any repercussions for slowing/stopping contributions to said party; you know, the only one that even sometimes pretends to like us and our money."
Perhaps I shouldn't give the DNC any money for the convention because they picked a state with a Republican controlled general assembly... :?:
why would labor expect the party to do something different if they just keep giving them the same money/support?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I wish at-will states would start embargoing right-to-work states.
Democrats exist in North Carolina, too.
It'd be nice if liberals didn't commit suicide like this all the fucking time.
On the one hand, good on them for sticking to their principles. 'Right to work' is a glorified way of saying "we don't have to tell you why you're fired".
On the other hand, when one party has been spending the last 30 years making "union" a dirty word to America, potentially alienating the party who is your last political ally might not be the wisest decision.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky