who's gonna win iowa?
― iatee, Monday, 2 January 2012 15:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, I guess there had to be a scatty title to compensate for the absence of Dexfool.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 2 January 2012 15:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
intrade odds for iowa atm: romney 43.7%santorum 28.0%paul 26.5%
― iatee, Monday, 2 January 2012 15:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have passed through the seven stages of grief and faced grim reality: from Romney's perspective, it probably doesn't matter what order those three finish in, provided he's somewhere in the top three.
― clemenza, Monday, 2 January 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
(Rejected thread titles): Is that a Santorum surge in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
― clemenza, Monday, 2 January 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
my krazy theory is the paul dudes are gonna coordinate their game so heavily that they win Iowa. then they're gonna be really super-pissed when it doesn't work in New Hampshire etc.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^ imo, Paul's got a good shot at a top two finish in Iowa, because of how caucuses fit well with his campaign. If Santorum makes the top three it will make me giddy. Plz, god, give us Santorum, RuPaul and Newt, in that order.
― Aimless, Monday, 2 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I voted paul, I wouldn't put money on it or anything but paul or santorum seems slightly more likely than romney
― iatee, Monday, 2 January 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Paul, but with Santorum a close second or gnawing Paul's head like Ugolino in the Inferno.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 2 January 2012 18:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think this a good explanation of why the easy explanation for what appears to be inevitable at his point is not necessarily the right explanation.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98942/kilgore-iowa
― clemenza, Monday, 2 January 2012 19:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I love this!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/01/the_iowa_horse_race_an_animation_of_the_republican_caucuses_as_a_horse_race_.html
(I just wish they'd stuck four or five women at the bottom of the screen, and had Herman's horse suddenly veer off the track in their direction.)
― clemenza, Monday, 2 January 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha
― k3vin k., Monday, 2 January 2012 19:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just think they all should be locked in a cage and let them fight it out thunderdome style. I personally might bet on Bachmann if they went that way.
― earlnash, Monday, 2 January 2012 19:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
U.S.A., your long national nightmare is about to be over--let the healing begin! I'm putting out an APB for Daniel, Esq. I don't think I can suffer the slings and arrows of other ILX'ers alone as I...giddily take an interest in this.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/01/santorum-wears-vests-to-look-a-little-older-109416.html
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just really really need Paul to win tonight, pray the universe doent take this from me
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
has anyone compared him to tim tebow yet?
― iatee, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
its a quality concept
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know, but my limited knowledge of football notwithstanding, Rick Perry's right out of North Dallas Forty.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 14:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
nice people http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350990-503544/santorum-targets-blacks-in-entitlement-reform
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
on the one hand, quelle surpise
on the other hand, this dude really does not want to actually be President, huh
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
all signs point to him being an extremely clueless guy
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't care for his sweater look AT ALL.
dude looks like Prince Charles
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
hah he does
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
kinda lol, mostly sad <--- Santorum 2012 campaign slogan
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mmmmmmmmm....feral.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/newt-romneys-a-liar-but-hes-still-better-than-obama.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's weird, like he was clearly the last kid picked on the team for this game, but that just happened to be well timed w/ the iowa caucus
― iatee, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Really need Mittens to wrap this up quickly so that 10 months of two near-identical corporatists "debating" completely delegitimizes the Republicrat oligarchy.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I thought we tried that approach in 2000 and 2004.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
newts abt to let bad newt out, you know its been killing him
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
HAY HAY NOW MORBS dont try to take this from us
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
also lol @ yr whole theory
only have to get another 5% to notice to fuck some shit up
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
lagoon better not be dexneb
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
fuck shit up, noble goal, v inspiring, brimming w/insight
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think today should be about positivity. Mitt, and Rick, and most of all the people of Iowa would want it that way. (Newt gets a pass.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
please for my sanity, stop using variants of the "dex" appellation to refer to gabbneb
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
"nobility, inspiration, insight" is what the War Criminal in Chief is for.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
David Atkins on detestable Ron Paul; refutes Glenn Greenwald, Matt Stoller.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
what dones dex refer to?
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
the sandbox name used by the DNC apologist
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's been kinda funny to see all these people who have liked the tip of paul's minarchism finally take a look at the rest of the black-helicopter iceberg
xp uh also a name used by DJP in the mists of time
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^ this
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
ppl need to separate issues from individuals, esp when the individuals under discussion will never be elected
ie, Politicians Are Lower Than Whaleshit, All of Them
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
God Santorum is like the absolute nadir of that unique ignorance that poses as wisdom:
"I was at a debate with Howard Dean and we were asked what was the most imp quality of America and he said diversity. Diversity? Have you ever heard of e pluribus unum?....The greatness of America is people who are diverse coming together to be one," Santorum said. "If we celebrate diversity, we lay the groundwork for that conflict. We need to celebrate common values and have a president that lays out those common values."
dude Rick. the "e pluribus" part: that's a celebration of diversity. It's not "e pluribus, and fuck the pluribus now that we're unum, unum." the whole fucking point of the motto is that diversity means strength. you dumb cocksucker, you.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think you meant "you dumb anal froth, you"
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol
"Newt to Iowa: 'You Stupid Motherfuckers, I'm Clearly Your Best Choice'"
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
god that Atkins post is mostly idiotic
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
the initial matt stoller post is worth reading but it does have some problems
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
But this obscures the real question, of why Paul disdains the Fed (and implicitly, why liberals do not), and the relationship between the Federal Reserve and American empire. If you go back and look at some of libertarian allies, like Fox News’s Judge Napolitano, they will answer that question for you. Napolitano hates, absolutely hates, Abraham Lincoln. He sometimes slyly refers to Lincoln as America’s first dictator. Libertarians also detest Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
What connects all three of these Presidents is one thing – big ass wars, and specifically, war financing. If you think today’s deficits are bad, well, Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War pretty much entirely by money printing and debt creation, taking America off the gold standard.
yeah, boo fuckin hoo
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Politicians Are Lower Than Whaleshit, All of Them
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, January 3, 2012 11:27 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lol you are exactly the average american voter
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I disagree – he's mostly correct about liberalism.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
so who is lagoon? seems 'worthy' of being pundneb
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
you seem worthy of googling ron paul
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
u r a bigger asshole than the average american voter
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol ultimate morbs zing alert, compare him to an american
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum on African-Americans:
"What President Obama wants to do, his economic plan is to make more people dependent upon government. To grow the government, To make sure we have more food stamps, and more SSI and more Medicaid. Four in 10 children are now on government-provided health care. It just keeps expanding," Santorum said.
He talked about how Iowa is going to get fined if more people don’t sign up for Medicaid and then said, "They're pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is. So I don't want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/santorum-singles-out-black-people-as-dependent-on-government-20120102
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah we talked about that a little an hour and a half ago (where "talked" should be interpreted as "shook our heads and had a rueful, slightly incredulous chuckle")
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
uh i don't think i even understand how the caucuses work on the gop side
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/how-to-caucus/
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
go to a room, eat cookies, yell abt stuff
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
black people should under no circumstances be given anybody's money, is what i'm taking away here
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess it is more like a straight vote. no weird group cutoff jawboning stuff, like the democrats do. haha.
xp
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
"they are giving you healthcare in order to buy your votes! get off the plantation!!!"
"you know rick that's actually a pretty good deal"
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
this graphic is somehow hilarious
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
when will these fucking government types stop saying dumb shit like "grow the government" like it's a hydrangea
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
why do the republicans not have a flag in their room do they hate america
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
re: that Atkins piece, his characterization of liberalism is pretty accurate, which is why i said it was only 'mostly' idiotic, but he evades greenwald and stoller's main points
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
sounds slightly better than the GOP deal where they take your vote and give you nothing
― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
srsly if people actually got stuff for their votes the country would be a better place
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol otm
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Youtube comments on that Santorum clip are mindboggling:
He didn't say the word "black," he stumbled over the wordd "people's lives." Listen very closely with your ears, not your imagination. If anything, it sounds like "balite" or "palite." Very definitely not "black."
So glad he wants to make polite peoples' lives better.
― Dan Peterson, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
If anything, it sounds like "balite" or "palite."
haha wut
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
polite guys finish last again
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
re: that atkin's piece -- characterizing liberalism as being about "intervention" is so broad as to be useless.
When Abraham Lincoln and the North decided not to allow the nation of the Confederacy--and make no mistake, it was a separate nation with separate laws and an entirely separate culture--to secede from the Union, in large part because the North had an interest in ending slavery in the South and in striking down a competing agrarian economic system, that too was intervention by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. To this day, many Southerners feel that their land is being occupied by an illegitimate and invading power, and theirs a Lost Cause that will rise again.
i mean there are about a dozen things wrong with this.
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
his whole deal is setting up a dumb duality: some bad state of affairs exists and liberalism in favor of "intervening" to stop it. and then ron paul doesn't like 'intervening' in anything which is why he is bad. this just isn't the right way to think about anything.
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol did the homie really just argue that the north "intervened" in the south
― max, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
To this day, many Southerners feel that their land is being occupied by an illegitimate and invading power, and theirs a Lost Cause that will rise again.The End.Joel Perkins, Age 10.
The End.
Joel Perkins, Age 10.
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
can we go back to how Rick Santorum now magically never said "black people" in that video where is clearly saying "black people"
I love the comments saying he said "a lot" or "BLIGHT" because you know, there's a big problem in America's blight community
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
to this day many people believe many things
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
theirs a Lost Cause that will rise again
... how exactly does this work
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
it just come on
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
in large part because the North had an interest in ending slavery in the South and in striking down a competing agrarian economic system
yes this is er not quite acurate
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
"this ideology is hopeless, one day it will reign supreme"
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Listen very closely with your ears, not your imagination
I think I heard the narrator for a Disney attraction use this line.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
did we talk about Santorum's followup:
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
I see only one black guy in the original clip: the sound man. There appear to be a few polite people, and a couple who are blighted. So I'm pretty sure he says "polite" or "blight," zeroing in on the people who are in the room listening.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
'ive seen that quote and i havent seen the context in which it was made' lol man you realize youre talking abt something you said
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
This man is a traet.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean you were THERE
it's weird, he does stumble over the word, as if he knows it's a stupid thing to say even as he's saying it
― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's the normalness trying to contain the hosebeast within
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum and his campaign manager confer privately moments later:
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
His kids are all growed up now or something:
From this, which includes this:
“Our prayers are paying off,” said 13-year-old Sarah Maria Santorum, whose father soon emerged from the throng, stood on a chair and addressed the crowd. …“Our prayers are paying off.”Understand that I wasn’t “interviewing” Sarah Santorum. We were just talking, and I made some remark about how huge the crowd was, and then she just said that sentence clear out of the blue. It made such an impression that I immediately jotted it down on a scrap of paper.Advanced Reporting Seminar, for you newbies: You get the best quotes when you just talk to people, instead of interrogating them in a confrontational manner. Be informal and friendly, put people at ease and listen to what they say. You’ll learn a lot more that way, whether you get a quote or not, and people will say real honest stuff rather than reciting talking points.But my memory is shaky and I’m bad with names, so when I sat down to write my column – in the deli department of the Hy-Vee grocery story, which has free WiFi – I wanted to make sure I had Sarah’s name and age right. And when I Googled her name, one of the results was that picture at the top of this post.Yeah, it’s her: The Santorum kid who gave me that quote was the same girl who cried so helplessly on national TV that night in 2006 during her dad’s concession speech. I’d forgotten all about that, until I saw the picture. Then I remembered how the video clip had been played over and over on the news, and also on late-night comedy shows while people mocked the way Sarah and her family cried. And I remembered my wife saying how bad she felt while watching that little girl, hugging her doll, and crying for the whole world to see.Amazing that I’d talked to her without recognizing her – a poised and cheerful young lady — as that same little girl. But even more amazing, I think she’s exactly right when she says, “our prayers are paying off.”As I write this, the folks on “Fox and Friends” are marveling at how Santorum went from single digits in the polls to being a serious contender in the space of just a few days. Say what you will, I call it a miracle.
“Our prayers are paying off.”
Understand that I wasn’t “interviewing” Sarah Santorum. We were just talking, and I made some remark about how huge the crowd was, and then she just said that sentence clear out of the blue. It made such an impression that I immediately jotted it down on a scrap of paper.
Advanced Reporting Seminar, for you newbies: You get the best quotes when you just talk to people, instead of interrogating them in a confrontational manner. Be informal and friendly, put people at ease and listen to what they say. You’ll learn a lot more that way, whether you get a quote or not, and people will say real honest stuff rather than reciting talking points.
But my memory is shaky and I’m bad with names, so when I sat down to write my column – in the deli department of the Hy-Vee grocery story, which has free WiFi – I wanted to make sure I had Sarah’s name and age right. And when I Googled her name, one of the results was that picture at the top of this post.
Yeah, it’s her: The Santorum kid who gave me that quote was the same girl who cried so helplessly on national TV that night in 2006 during her dad’s concession speech. I’d forgotten all about that, until I saw the picture. Then I remembered how the video clip had been played over and over on the news, and also on late-night comedy shows while people mocked the way Sarah and her family cried. And I remembered my wife saying how bad she felt while watching that little girl, hugging her doll, and crying for the whole world to see.
Amazing that I’d talked to her without recognizing her – a poised and cheerful young lady — as that same little girl. But even more amazing, I think she’s exactly right when she says, “our prayers are paying off.”
As I write this, the folks on “Fox and Friends” are marveling at how Santorum went from single digits in the polls to being a serious contender in the space of just a few days. Say what you will, I call it a miracle.
Aw, bless. The hangover'll be amusing.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
why is she not holding a doll w/matching red eagle santorum shirt, i am confuse
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
why is this child, the product of an immaculate conception, wearing mini shorts?
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Chance of Ron (or Rick), generally Mitt.
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/iowa-weather-forecast-for-iowa-caucus-voting/
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
prays for sleet
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Morbs, I'm sorry to say that, although the consequences of two near-identical corporatists "debating" for 10 months might be to completely delegitimize the Republicrat oligarchy, the more likely outcome is to just make most people so discouraged and unhappy that they give up and tune out politics entirely.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes! and so it begins!
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
do you think it is likely that this will be a low-turnout election?
― goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
ELECT YOURSELF
(icey, I'm sorry I let you have it w/ both barrels, but enough w/ the username masquerades)
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
depends on the economy I think xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol no worries morbs
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Let Herman Cain move you. Nationally.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
In Perry, Santorum gave his opinion that President Obama was more of a divisive figure than Richard Nixon, keeper of the enemies list: “I suspect President Nixon, although I don’t know, would talk and work with people and wouldn’t go out and demonize them as this president has done.”
― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Cain still claims he will endorse a candidate eventually — and in an “unconventional” manner in keeping with his “unconventional candidate” theme, to boot.
The mind reels at what this might entail.
And yes--Nixon had a strict rule about demonizing his opponents.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Which sect is bigger, motivated haters of "the Kenyan socialist" or stayin-home 2008 Hopers whose fantasies were crushed?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
in voting, positive motivations outweigh negative motivations every time, so 2008 Hopers for the win
― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
uh, in this election they're BOTH negative, boss.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I would think that positively hating someone is a strong motivator...any chance you could take it over here for the next few hours, Morbius?
Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
no, I'm done. Enjoy your flea circus.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hope, as they say, springs eternal. It's just another thing to drive you crzy.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
no. the people who want to vote for Obama will be more likely to vote than the people who want to vote against Obama. it's that simple.
― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
ie you are vastly overestimating the number of 2008 Hopers whose fantasies have been crushed
― The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I generally don't try to police threads. I just feel like tonight is about Rick Santorum's heroic struggle to keep black people off welfare.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
interesting if true
xxp
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, keep slack purple off welfare.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
yo, is the reason i can't just subscribe to jonathan chait's rss posts on ny mag but have to read that entire stupid blogs content bc they realize that if i could just subscribe to chait i wouldn't read the rest of the crap?
― Mordy, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 22:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/
Especially the bits about how abortion is a subject using the same tactics and thinking that popped up during the satanic panic e.g. wild impossible unverifiable horrifying stories passed around by folks using them to backstop their own fucked belief systems, and no one is ever called on it.
― Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 22:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Why I miss Herman Cain: he's on CNN tonight openly campaigning--not hinting, but listing his qualifications--for Secretary of Defense. Wild guess that Romney would pass.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.
― System, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hmmm...better check your calendar, iatee.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha yeah I know
nobody cheat and vote after tonight
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm thinking the poll will be swarmed by Ron Paul supporters after midnight.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
wish i could remember who i voted for
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
You closet WGPHF, you.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk what that means, but i assume that's an acronym of what i called you on sandbox?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yes--wild gossipy political horserace fiend. I must wear those words like a Scarlett Letter for the rest of my life.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh plz. you're proud :)
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
It was "wild" that hurt my feelings. If you'd called me a judiciously gossipy political horserace fiend--a JGPHF--I'd have printed up business cards.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
mordy i made a yahoo pipe rss thingy for chait
it is neither perfect nor particularly timely, but possibly better than nothing
(the one i tried to make for nabisco works less well)
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
ur objection is that your political gossip taste is more discriminating than the average gossipy political horserace fiend? fine, conceded. JGPHF it is.
xp thank u mookieproof!
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
I need to master the intricacies of emoticons.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
_/\_\o/_/\_
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Two witches and a bowling ball?
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
drowning in a shark-infested lake?
― questino (seandalai), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
dingdingding ^^
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can you make it one of those little dancing gifs, with the Jaws theme overtop? That'd be cool.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Honestly, this is riveting. There's a lady in a green sweater counting out little green pieces of paper--"68, 69, 70, 71, 72"--and the CNN reporter explains what's happening: "She's finished counting, Wolf: 72."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's almost cute:
Tagg Romney 08:58 PM ETJust spoke in urbandale for my dad. Lots of support, felt great. Very different feel vs 2008!Griffin Perry 08:58 PM ETJust finished my caucus in Ankeny, IA. Lots of support and spoke between Paul and Thune. Hope I made @GovernorPerry proud!! Love you dad!
Griffin Perry 08:58 PM ETJust finished my caucus in Ankeny, IA. Lots of support and spoke between Paul and Thune. Hope I made @GovernorPerry proud!! Love you dad!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Your names are Tagg and Griffin, and the latter of you is not Griffin Dunne. Get fucked. (With each other, then see what happens.)
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
everyone get ready to google ron paul ive got a good feeling!
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
No human is named Tagg. There is no such person.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Good lord, look at this:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I linked to this is another thread; he's real, and he's spectacular.
http://www.solameregroup.com/bio/item/1/
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not that Griffin is much better:
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
jamesoliphant Name of bar at Santorum hotel: "Loose Moose Saloon."jamesoliphant Plenty of parking still available at Santorum event.
jamesoliphant Plenty of parking still available at Santorum event.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mitt Romney -- younger, on 'roids, and a sodomite!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
ivethirtyeight Nate Silver Paul Hits 50 Percent on Intrade nyti.ms/y7HKL31 minute ago
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Griffin looks like kind of a Michael Cera / Jonah Hill mashup.
― nickn, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
isnt one of the palins named tagg too
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Haha holy shit:
Ron Paul @RonPaul@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
damnnnn
You're thinking of Tonka Palin.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ron Paul winning 52% of voters under 30, according to entrance polls.
lmao
― buzza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
trapp palin
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Trapper Palin, MD.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
sonned by a 76-year-old racist
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
sry it had to happen this way john huntsman
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Corner is a hoot.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
k-lo must be afroth over the santorum surge
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
apt metaphor
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ha:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287086/people-have-forfeited-confidence-government-mark-krikorian
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
plz god i know we dont talk much but if the final results for tonight could finish in this order id be oh so appreciative
joshtpm Josh Marshall 9:20 PM Paul 24%, Santorum 23.2%, Romney 22.6%. 18% reporting. core.talkingpointsmemo.com/election/resul…1 minute ago
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
man, this santorum surge really bubbled up out of nowhere, didn't it?
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
No human is named Tagg.
― Cheap desert locations (Eazy), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
and by santorum surge i mean the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex
The Santorum surge came suddenly after bottoming out early.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
is there any evidence that totally insane republican primaries will depress support from independents?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
I really wish Andrew Sullivan had given some more thought to the video he's got up top.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Adding to all this sex:
TinaKorbe Wow. The top three are SO tight.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
i already lynxd this on ilx today but in light of the recent events: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jan/12/republicans-revolution/
― sulks (Lamp), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
With 24% in, wow: Santorum, 23.2/Romney, 23.2/Paul, 23.0.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
And Cain beating Roemer, 10 votes to 8.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, i read that effing lilla review of the corey robin book. i guess lilla's probably right and is a lot smarter than me, but i hate him.
― horseshoe, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
id like to take a moment to speak to the great state of new hampshire if i can: listen i know everyone is saying youve settled on romney, and if that is truly yr choice i respect it, but i really think you should take a second to google ron paul, hes a perfect fit for all you grumpy ass nutjobs, he IS a grumpy ass nutjob, you were made for each other, thank you
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
that is so otm; new hampshire is insane
― horseshoe, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
why are vt and nh so dissimilar
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
nh is upside down
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
nh raised by wolves
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.
Ice cold.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
I dig this page. Very nice.
― polyphonic, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Tina Korbe seems only to speak in metaphor:
TinaKorbe I'm not gonna lie ... This is very anti-climactic. I've been so eager to get this started and now it's a little ... eh.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
NICE
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
has she met K-Lo?
I don't want to know.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ew. The mental images, they burn.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
uh
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopezaaron schock is talking about ann romney's baked goods on the romney bus on @mikeallen livestream right now #iacaucus
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Oh she makes a mean pie."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
LarrySabato Larry SabatoThree-way ties are always over-interpreted. Get ready!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopezif you were in iowa tonight, what would you be doing?
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopezal gore perplexed by santorum surge #notverysenatorial #liveoncurrenttv
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopezthere is something about promiscuous electability talk that reminds me of jurors who watch too much csi #anditshows
Read that as "#andshitshows," which, well, yes.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rick Perry found corn in his santorum
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopezfearless prediction: keep an eye out for sweater vests tonight. @FearRicksVest
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jesus god, Alfred, spare us.
This woman is pure id.
This k-lopez tweet fetish can't be good for anyone
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean LopezLOVE when before commercial break, host lets you know you will be talking about a piece of yours so you can look and remember what you wrote
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
man the day unfunny people find out about comedy hash tags is always a terrible day for the rest of us XP
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
FearRicksVest
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
alfred do you even have a twitter?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
but I follow twits!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
@BradThor how many sweatervests in the warroom
Oh Kathryn.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
host lets you know you will be talking about a piece of yours
It's not even self-aware enough to be trolling.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I should poll these.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 02:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Sounds Coming Out of Chris Matthews’s MouthBy Jonah Goldberg
I love the caucus so much. The republicans who either live in the middle of nowhere or are in suburbs/smaller cities who feel "repressed" by their democrat neighbors crawl out of the woodwork and choose the craziest motherfucker.
I wish Bachmann was still pulling this
― mh, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
JIM BOB
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
QED
Guys, earlier I heard some noise outside and for a minute I thought the local caucus had spilled out into the street and they were yelling, but unfortunately it was just some noisy traffic
― mh, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
have you been to a caucus mh? are they fun?
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
BRING THE MUTHAFUCKIN CAUCUS
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
ps why aren't you out voting for ron paul
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
I did some caucuses in Minnesota growing up. They are fun, with the candidates' names on a whiteboard or easel paper, and voting by hand, and shifting alliances in a room of 40 or 50. Then one year I was a Harkin delegate to the next regional caucus, and all I remember is a guy dressed like Uncle Sam playing "Imagine" on a piano, and at that point I'd had enough of my peers.
― Cheap desert locations (Eazy), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can you blame people, though? I still don't know how in the name of sanity you get Mitt out of Willard. xp
― Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Lol gromit
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
on a much more trivial note, who's the brunette on cnn?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've only been to the democrat ones. I think they're probably a little more fun than the alternative.
Santorum is my pick. He represents the common values we can all agree on as Americans of faith. Like Jesus Christ, taking your dead baby home from the hospital to show your kids, and a frothy mixture of fecal matter and lube.
― mh, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dana Loesch? Most untrivial.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
September 4:
"I think, in the normal course of things, Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee. He is the three-term governor of Texas, a conservative state. He’s been a successful governor. Texas has job growth, the rest of the country’s lost jobs. He’s a populist, which is very much in the spirit of the Republican party today. Mitt Romney is the one-term governor of Massachusetts, whose health care plan isn’t popular with Republicans. So if you just have a normal race, so to speak, if neither candidate does badly in the debates, if voters just get to know them, and it looks the way I just described, Perry is the more normal victor."
Tonight:
“I just think his dignity I think will suggest to him that he get out.”
Ah, Bill Kristol. Hurts being you, doesn't it.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
If you give me the out of "if neither candidate does badly in the debates," I actually think his Sept. 4th call was pretty accurate. (Conceding that he probably changed his mind 15 times between then and now.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
me = him (Too much Newt-watching.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah that actually might have been the one prescient thing he said all year. Perry's vaporware candidacy is amazing to behold.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopezal gore is interjecting something koch bros now. #givemesomethingnewmrveep!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know who Al Gore is...and I know who the Koch brothers are...but what does that mean?!
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney and Santorum are separated by 13 votes at the moment.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 03:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's a tight squeeze right now, but I'm hoping Santorum rises up.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was born to be Andy Richter.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
eww, not a pleasant thought in any sense of the word "Santorum"
also, lol Gingrich
back to lurking
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
@anamariecox "He has to get his manhood back, go after Santorum" - Chris Matthews on Romney. I have no idea how to improve on that. #iowa
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know what to make of Gingrich's 13% tonight. Obviously terrible compared to where he was four weeks ago, but not the under-10% wipeout I was expecting a few days ago. I'd say he probably tread water enough to hang around past Florida, and the good news is that he's really angry and ready to go postal.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Excellent start: Gingrich just spent a minute congratulating Santorum on his excellent night and positive campaign, then said, "I wish I could say the same of every candidate--but I can't."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Newt going postal would liven things up in a most agreeable manner.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
newt's entire life is an exercise in going postal innit?!?
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
that said, he's gonna hang on like a vampire isn't he?!?
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's large, so I'll just link to it, but here's the ad Gingrich is running in NH tomorrow:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/newt-mitt.png
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
all of these guys are dicks!!
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
just saying
Dicks was the last Republican administration--these are Newts and Mitts and Ricks.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Alfred's hero, David Gergen, says that Gingrich is "on a crusade to bring Mitt Romney down."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
robonewt!
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
if you were forced to share an apartment with one of these assholes for a month, who would you choose?
rick perry (best) - he's really dumb but is seems like he'd give you some space. he apparently believes that he's been chosen by god to, uh, run a terrible campaign and then exit early, but i get the feeling that he only evangelizes when other evangelists are looking. he'd probably leave me alone and pay the rent.huntsman - almost put him at #1 but it seemed too obvious. he's a fool but at least he doesn't think scientists are evil. mitt romney - he would be really boring and would probably think less of you for not wearing a sport coat all of the time, and he's a cold and calculating robot, but at least he seems somewhat intelligent.michele bachman - what a sad state of affairs where this monster somehow doesn't rank last. she would yell at you about the dishes, she'd yell at you for not going to church, she'd just fucking yell at you all of the time.newt gingrich - he only pays half the rent and tries to make you pay 150% of your own rent, justifying it by laying out a laundry list of things you have done wrong.santorum (worst) - anything you do is wrong. you are going to hell, and he will always have his annoying, crying family over. also all of the anal froth everywhere, all over the carpet, in the cappucino
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
they are all rich
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Fundamentally, not Newt. I'm guessing that when the cameras are off, Perry's just like one of the drunks who used to bang up power carts when I worked at a golf course 35 years ago. I think he'd probably be fun.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
santorum would be the best because imagine how fun it would be to make him listen to your sex noises.
― polyphonic, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bachmann not dropping out. The debate this weekend shall be...of interest.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
can this pleaaaaase end in a tie
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, no tie ... just getting rid of ONE of these assholes for good would be nice (apparently TOO nice).
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know this is the expectations-game that drives non-junkies crazy, but I think Romney and Santorum are in the clear either way--it seems to me that it's Paul who got dented a bit tonight.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney got all of 25% of the Iowa vote, and according to a source (boston.com) linked on google: "only 56 percent of Romney's backers voiced strong support for him". Good show, big fella.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
That 56% does surprise (and encourage) me.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha neither is gonna drop out after losing by 50 votes - a virtual tie - especially romney
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
feel like there might be a big difference in the narrative if romney wins iowa and nh!! vs. comes 2nd in iowa (by 100 votes) and wins nh
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
until tonight, i thought that i knew the only true-blue Santorum supporter (a coworker, an otherwise wonderful chap) ... he isn't even from Pennsylvania (or, maybe that's why he likes Man-on-Dog so much).
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wouldn't a solid win for Romney in NH make Iowa more or less moot? I mean, I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does?
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
perry sounds like he's about to drop out
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wow--Perry seems to be dropping out.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
he just said he would return to texas and "assess" the situation, or whatever.
not unexpected, i guess, but i thought he'd drag it out a bit longer
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
suspending his campaign
oh, shit, reassessing, not suspending. fuck you rachel maddow, i was right!
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
already saw the media prepping the 'romneys been hanging around Iowa for years why doesnt no one like him' narrative earlier tonight fwiw
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
nice knowin ya rick j/k you're ridiculous
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
This reassessment of Perry's will result in him bowing out of the next debate and essentially ending the campaign.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's about the first smart thing he's done all campaign. Bachmann reportedly lives under the delusion she's in the running for VP--she needs to vacate too.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
mid-debate xp
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can't but think the rest of his term as governor is going to be everyone in the Texas GOP finally getting out the knives on him.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
25k caucused for Obama tonight, apparently a much larger number than anyone expected
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
37 votes now lol
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum benefitted most here from being a sanctimonious, colorless drudge. The sanctimony attracted the religious right voters and, as the colorless drudge who was stuck in the low single digits for six months, he didn't draw any fire from his opponents, so he was still standing when the rest of the flavors-of-the-month faltered.
Mr. Paul may pick up some strength among the live-free-or-die kooks, now.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also, McCain to endorse Romney. Oh joy!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
― clemenza, Tuesday, January 3, 2012 10:26 PM (Yesterday)
NO btw i think i meant the msnbc chick
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
CNN panel is debating where Perry stands in relation to Fred Thompson and John Connally as the worst candidate ever. (I'd also throw in Phil Gramm's war chest-heavy run.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't see ron paul getting any momentum from this at all, this was his chance to shine and 3rd isn't enough
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
TIE TIE TIE TIE
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney's up to 80% on intrade
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
@BuddyRoemerI almost have enough votes in Iowa to start a bowling league. #Roementum
― anorange (abanana), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Plz, god, give us Santorum, RuPaul and Newt, in that order.
^^ quoting myself. Yes, I am giddy, as promised. This result was close enough for me.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm thinking the santorum voters just know they're gonna get a second chane to vote for romney in November and wanted to spice up their lives a bit. I man imagine having to vote for Romney twice, sheesh.
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was hoping for Beck, Bogert, and Appice, but this is good enough.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
has anyone made the joke about santorum coming from behind yet?
because he is
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nobody really wants to drop out because of the good chance they could have a lead in the polls tomorrow or the next day. This race has been nuts.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nicole had a great Santorum line upthread.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol that was such an awkward hug
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Re: sharing an apartment
-Huntsman would be blasting prog at all hours, can't have that.-Bachmann would probably be the worst, imagine trying to have your significant other over.-Santorum I actually think might be ok, he'd probably be busy a lot and the bills would get paid on time. He'd probably get bitchy about little things though.-Romney would also pay the bills but I don't want to live with that asshole, he'd probably act super ingratiating and try to befriend me.-Perry would be a nightmare, I'd like spend no time at the place, he'd always be watching shitty TV and inviting his douchebag friends over-Gingrich would be annoying as hell but also the most entertaining, like I could start a 77 thread called "my asshole staying at my place is being a fuckin dick again" and it would be a gold mine every day
― JoeStork, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
"my asshole staying at my place" uh i mean "this asshole etc..."
97.5% on intrade
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Huntsman would be blasting Beefheart. Would love to discuss that with him, as well as talking about how all such experimentation is inherently left-wing.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
-Romney would also pay the bills but I don't want to live with that asshole, he'd probably act super ingratiating and try to befriend me.
no way. you make a pizza for the second time in a week and he just gives you this LOOK. he doesn't say anything, but it's clear that you're supposed to grow up and start cooking real meals.
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
since i assume that none of them would flush the toilet, which would have the worst best excuse for not doing so?!?
― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney is a robot. he enters the restroom on occasion in an attempt to reduce the suspicions of others, but all he does is look at himself in the mirror.
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
As usual, the Iowa caucuses decide nothing. I swear it is all a conspiracy put together by Days Inn and pancake restaurants who make out like bandits from the whole thing.
― earlnash, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Q: who pronounces Missouri "mizzurah"? A: politicians and old people. that's it.
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
99% in, and, honest to god, they're separated by five votes.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
omg
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha down to 83% on intrade. someone's nervous.
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
(Does Iowa cover three or four time zones? I'm always confused as to why some results come in three hours before others.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
amazing
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
i swear santorum sounds exactly like someone doing a nic cage impression
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
some parts of the state have crappy school systems and are very slow at counting
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Don't get it: refresh, and CNN goes backwards to 98% in.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
god this speech is just nonstop resentment f this dude
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
fivethirtyeight Nate Silver What if there's LITERALLY a tie?5 minutes ago Favorite Retweet
experts weigh in
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Newt's opening shot: hacking into CNN's website and putting up phony numbers for Santorum.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
can we hope for a new #1???
― Mordy, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Tie goes to the runner. That's when they bring in Chris Christie.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
santorum's kid (?) is rocking the sweatervest
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
five minutes of 4-on-4 followed by a shootout
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
we're all rooting for santorum for the lols right?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, definitely.
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
even outside of the lols santorum's better for 'us'
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
It really is amazing--go back two weeks ago, and Santorum was fighting Bachmann for last place.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopez newt congratulates @ricksantorum right now. #itisawinforrickwhatevertheorderatthispoint1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney is like having a conversation with someone in the audience or something wt hell is he doing
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez Kathryn Jean Lopez .@ricksantorum just about never reads from notes. he's overwhelmed that hard work has indeed paid off. #littleenginethatcouldhesaidformonths23 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
I do love when they start blaming Obama for divorces and depression.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Those k-lo hashtags make me #dieinsideeverytime
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
"A bunch of fellow rightwingers have been depressed since he got elected and now their spouses are divorcing them because they've become emotionally isolated and utterly monomaniacal. This must stop!"
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
This has been Romney's schtick all week--quoting from "America the Beautiful." Wait until Newt unleashes "You Should Never Have Opened That Door" starting tomorrow.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney down to 40 on in trade! I know I'm the only one who cares about intrade but 97.5 to 40 in like 10 mins is pretty lol
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
A Romneybot would hearken unto such lines as "Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears", now wouldn't it?
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:57 AM (58 seconds ago)
percent chance of winning?
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
those intrade bounces/plummets are fascinating.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
I remember looking around there last year, and there was a totally inexplicable one day bump for romney where all of a sudden he was in the 90s.
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
toddstarnes toddstarnes Santorum spent about $1.65 per vote; Romney spent around $113 per vote. bit.ly/yYdPBq2 minutes ago
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Perry and his PACs spent $6,000,000 for 12,500 votes -- %480 per vote.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
$480...
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
lead down to 18
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
NEWT: We can't wait. I don't care what David Gergen says about inevitability, Romney's weak, that's it. That's the key for us. Gotta get Romney.
CALLISTA: Lemme ask you something, Professor. I mean--what about Paul and Santorum, huh? What do we do with these...nuisances?
NEWT: They wanna have a debate with me, right? It will be me, Santorum, Paul, and Romney. Let's set the debate. Get our Twitter people to find out where it's gonna be held. Now, we insist it's a public place--an auditorium, a town hall, some place where there's people so I feel safe.They're gonna shake hands with me when I first meet them, right, so I can't be frothing at the mouth then. But if Bill Kristol can figure a way to have opposition research planted there for me--then I'll kill 'em all.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
debates are for sissies. newt will only settle for lincoln-douglas debates
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
ONE VOTE
― k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rick Santorum seen that shit and said: "Fuck it, imma run too, fuck it"
i see these dudes going, "You can win Rick, coz you're bigger than motherfucking Mitt Romney. Fuck Mitt Romney. Fuck him man, run for president." And Rick going: "Yeah, fuck that shit."
You know he got a chance he can win. White dudes like to do shit like that...vote for the wrong dude as a goof. They get drunk and shit and go like, "Let's vote for Rick Santorum!" *pulls lever* "haha I just voted for Rick Santorum!" And next day would be like this: "He fuckin' won?"
― omar little, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
ricky 'the body' santorum
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
― carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 06:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
shame that this isn't a contest that matters
― anorange (abanana), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 07:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney wins by 8.
― Clay, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 07:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
damn
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 08:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
was it good for all of you/
would looooove for 8 votes to decide the Obamney election in Nov.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 12:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
For this I got up? The only good thing that may come out of this is that the salt has been rubbed into the wound a little deeper.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/politics/gop-iowa-gingrich/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
"Lying in wait"--sounds good to me.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 12:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
you really need baseball to start soon. you know, something significant.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 12:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Go Newt! I mean, go Jays!
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 12:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
On the one hand this is pretty easy to spin for Romney, he can just point out that it's a marathon not a sprint. For him. For Santorum, it's a sprint.
On the other hand, nearly exactly 30,000 out of 120,000* does look like there are actual occult forces pinning him to 25%.
*Yeah, I know, 120,000 is not the exact figure, just the one being thrown around.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 13:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think this says everything you need to know about how much attention to pay to intrade
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 13:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
he won by 5 votes!
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 14:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
intrade is a pretty useful marker of public expectations, but yeah, bad at predicting elections w/ an 8 vote margin
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 14:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
guuys
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 14:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
the one on the far right (heh) is cute
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
waht abt the one in the middle HUBBA HUBBA
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
iatee i'd say it's worse than that - with romney at 97.5 intrade wasn't even remotely accurate as to how tight the outcome would be
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
both those numbers were reactions to nearly finished vote counting totals no
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
if you want to evaluate its predictive powers its prob better to look before the voting started
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
before the caucuses intrade had them romney->santorum->paul
when the votes were being counted it was just people trying to be the first ones to play on public information. it's not really a prediction market in the same sense during moments like those.
xp right
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sincere question: between now and New Hampshire, will there be people from this whispered-about Republican Establishment contacting Gingrich--either directly or through intermediaries--and asking him to back off for the sake of getting Romney elected, and also to secure whatever future he has as a party eminence?
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
man i'm so glad this whole thing is over!
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
no xp
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
assume thats been going on the whole time, the gop establishment has been in a frothy panic for the last month that gingrich might win, the other anti romneys they dont really take serious
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/republican-nomination
in this and other stories like it i'm always a little struck that the people they talk to (esp those who are explaining why they are voting for romney) seem a lot less crazy than the aggregate shitshow. maybe it's an iowa thing...
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol i can only pray http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/newt-gingrich-romney-gop-destroyer
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
what do they have to offer him? what does he have to lose? if he doesn't want to play the GOP spoiler it'll be because he doesn't want to play the GOP spoiler.
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's definitely been going on in full public view--in editorials, on Sunday morning shows, etc.--I'm just curious as to how much (or whether) it goes on in earnest out of public view.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/01/04/rickrolled_three_lessons_from_iowa.html
dave weigel thinks that the numbers say enthusiasm is way down but idk if his interp is right
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
thats prob m/l true, but it doesnt mean they arent trying, and of course theyve done everything else they can to marginalize him xp iatee
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
im sure its been going on behind closed doors too, i mean its polotics, we only see the tip of the iceberg, and there are no doubt things they can offer him, all sorts lucrative think tank jobs tv appearances publishing deals etc, its just whether its worth it to him to give up his last few moments in the spotlight
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
They don't have cabinet appointments to offer him, I'm sure, but they'd be hitting him up on whatever traces of party loyalty are left, and, more important, reminding him that it's better to be inside the fold than out if you want to continue giving lucrative speeches.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol newt you h8 everyone so bad just say fuck it go newtclear you know you want to come on you invented that shit
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
DESTROY ROMNEY DESTROY ROMNEY BLIP BLOOP BEEP
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
they dont respect you theyve never respected you after all youve done for them after all these years show them show them what you can do
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was just about to post how much I loved the photo in that Mother Jones link!
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha it really captures something
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
U Got the Look, Newt.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
god damn newt's got a big head
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Erick Erickson vents, his commenters are somewhat vexed.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wait just one cotton-pickin' minute!vangoghssister Wednesday, January 4th at 10:12AM EST I’ll be darned if I’m going to let 123,000 people, in Iowa of all places (or anywhere else for that matter) tell me who I am allowed to vote for in this Presidential election. I am a Perry supporter and pray for him to stay in the race. I watched the first debate. I heard the in-state tuition argument from whoever brought it up (don’t remember now). No one and I mean NO ONE, not moderators, not talking heads on television or radio ever mentioned what he actually said, standing right there on the stage, outlining briefly the process for being allowed to pay in-state tuition. From there, the falsehoods took hold about that and the stupid Gardisil thing, etc. And YOU, Mr. Erick Erickson (God bless you for all the good work you do), have only made me angry one time in all the months I’ve been lurking around here. When you interviewed Gov. Perry in California and brought the tuition issue up, you called it SCHOLARSHIPS. You see, the words we use do matter when trying to convey the truth, even if it is an accidental GAFFE. If that interview had been broadcast on the MSM or even on Fox, once the masses heard that word ‘scholarships’, they would have tuned out and turned off right then, never listening to Gov. Perry patiently explain how it really works. His team should have done more to get the truth out there and I can’t fathom why they did not. There must be a way to get the stellar accomplishments of this fine Governor out where the most people will see them, especially those who do not take the time to research a candidates platform and past performance in office.Rats! Now I have to go to work. Keep the faith Perry Posse.
vangoghssister Wednesday, January 4th at 10:12AM EST
I’ll be darned if I’m going to let 123,000 people, in Iowa of all places (or anywhere else for that matter) tell me who I am allowed to vote for in this Presidential election. I am a Perry supporter and pray for him to stay in the race. I watched the first debate. I heard the in-state tuition argument from whoever brought it up (don’t remember now). No one and I mean NO ONE, not moderators, not talking heads on television or radio ever mentioned what he actually said, standing right there on the stage, outlining briefly the process for being allowed to pay in-state tuition. From there, the falsehoods took hold about that and the stupid Gardisil thing, etc. And YOU, Mr. Erick Erickson (God bless you for all the good work you do), have only made me angry one time in all the months I’ve been lurking around here. When you interviewed Gov. Perry in California and brought the tuition issue up, you called it SCHOLARSHIPS. You see, the words we use do matter when trying to convey the truth, even if it is an accidental GAFFE. If that interview had been broadcast on the MSM or even on Fox, once the masses heard that word ‘scholarships’, they would have tuned out and turned off right then, never listening to Gov. Perry patiently explain how it really works. His team should have done more to get the truth out there and I can’t fathom why they did not. There must be a way to get the stellar accomplishments of this fine Governor out where the most people will see them, especially those who do not take the time to research a candidates platform and past performance in office.
Rats! Now I have to go to work. Keep the faith Perry Posse.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Keep the faith Perry Posse.
I want to sign all of my emails with this
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
"in Iowa of all places"
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like how indignant he is over the tuition issue, yet somehow he never actually says anything about what Perry actually said
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kelsey Grammer Newt Gingrich looks like a motherfucker with some dark secrets.
― Dan Peterson, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney got less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008
"it was the same number of votes, but each individual vote was smaller"
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
the gop establishment has been in a frothy panic
thakig u
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
For starters, the media would have you believe that the 123,000 people who turned out for the Hawkeye Caucii was a record. This is simply not true except superficially. If you take out the non-Republicans who came into the caucuses last night for Ron Paul, the Republican turn out was less than 2008 — even considering the ratio of independents to Republicans who turned out in 2008.
oh jesus
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is simply not true except superficially
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bachmann's qui--"suspending." Supposedly she'll endorse craziness.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ames Straw Poll selling for $0.39 on e-Bay.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's kind of true, though. If Ron Paul isn't the candidate, a handful of his followers will vote Republican, but a bunch will either not vote or will vote for a third party or still write him in.
And more than a few will vote for Obama
― mh, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
pareene tweet:
RT @michaelbarthel: "Ron Paul Takes Unexpected Fourth Place on Pazz & Jop Albums List"
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Absolutely...of course."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
o man newty sounds like hes in a dark place
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
man this thing is over
if we're talking about how newt gingrich is in his dangerous wounded underdog phase, that means it's just done. i mean, look at that sentence.
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just need it to drag on for a. little. more.
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
plz dont take this away from me
I already know you're not Daniel, lag∞n, but sometimes I swear you are.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
From Rick Perryland:
And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State...Here we come South Carolina!!! yfrog.com/odz8ujrj
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
you guys can really make Democratic hypocrisy fun if you try
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
And if you really wanted that photo...
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Cee-Lo's other alternate lyrics to "Imagine"
and no Joe Biden too
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
― clemenza, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 11:28 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
sb
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:57 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
it's really blown my mind following the back-and-forth on twitter from rightists who say paul ISN'T A REAL REPUBLICAN
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meant as a compliment--I'm a fan!
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
w/e man
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 11:33 AM (58 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
eh he has a number of heterodox opinions
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey, the GOP is the Big Tent party
it's just that when you let in too many people, things get crowded and someone inevitably jostles you and you spill yr vodka martini; the tent is more about elbow room than inclusiveness
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
the big spacious tent party
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
MA gov romney is prob further from the 'gop median' than 2011 ron paul. no?
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jon King supposedly has a source that Perry's staying in (if I heard the TV in the background correctly).
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh those smoke filled rooms:
A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican Presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning.The meeting is being hosted by such prominent conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon, one-time chairman of the American Family Association; and Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate.
“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican Presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning.
The meeting is being hosted by such prominent conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon, one-time chairman of the American Family Association; and Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
ehh, I'm pretty sure the average Republican voter is more likely to vote for Romney than Paul.
― nah (crüt), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
wasnt it Frothymix who complained that Paul was "to the left of Obama on national security"? as if there was any room there, huh.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
its nice to know that in 2012 big deal republicans still implicitly word their invites to read 'no jews'
― sulks (Lamp), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.
Good luck USA!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 11:39 AM (30 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
naw pauls stances on foreign policy / criminal justice / economics are p much the oposite of the gop establishment - romney is just somewhat moderate - i mean its wroth repeating that he pushed for 'romneycare' because it was a major republican concept at the time - he did it because he thought it would help him get elected president! lol
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
what if a candidate looks like a smoke-filled room in human form
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Interesting that those Texans are inviting the usual Dobson, Wildmon et al. A Republican caller this morning on CSPAN said, pretty accurately I thought, that the "family values" issues that Santorum is likely to press if his success were to continue would alienate enough moderate R's to guarantee Obama another four years.
― Dan Peterson, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
GOP treats the fundies like Dems treat progressives: "Where ya gonna go?"
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
tbf the gop gives way more lip service to its fundies, they just rarely enact actual legislation
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
the GOP treats the fundies better than the Dems treat progressives!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's because they make up a substantial % of gop voters and (these days) gop politicians
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
yerp
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
because fundies have a lot of money.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^this. how is this even debatable.
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
crazy pro-life shit, crazy pro-Israeli shit - they throw plenty of meat to the fundies (it's just that, of course, they always want MORE)
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
crazy pro-life shit, crazy pro-Israeli shit
which party are you talking about lololollzolzozlzolzzzz
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I want MOOOOOOOORRRRRE!"
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bachmann’s OutBy Katrina TrinkoJanuary 4, 2012 11:58 A.M. Comments0West Des Moines, Iowa – Announcing the end of her presidential campaign, flanked by her family and close associates, Michele Bachmann made it clear that she had enjoyed the ride.
“I have no regrets. None whatsoever,” she said.
Explaining her decision, Bachmann said that Iowans had sent a message “with a very clear voice” last night.
She also made a plea for Republicans to unite around the eventual nominee. “I believe if we are going to repeal Obamacare, turn our country around, and take back our country, we must do so united,” she said. “And I believe that we must rally around the person that our country and our party and our people select to be that standard bearer.”
sorry, I think the 'fundie' pols are mostly poseurs, esp the gay ones.
I think we are thoroughly a bipartisan crazy-pro-Israeli circus.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
this isn't a 1-1 comparison, fundies outnumber progressives and if that weren't enough our electoral structures benefit them too
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
who knew Ariel was in Sisters of Mercy
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
u mans far right
aww man michele's gone. RIP lady whose pronunciation of the word "Obama" took nasal to previously undreamt-of sonic heights
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
ah, the backlash
who was president sterling?
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Newt Gingrich is hitting back after Ron Paul called him a “chicken-hawk.”“What (Paul) just said has about the same amount of accuracy as the newsletters he denies he wrote.”
“What (Paul) just said has about the same amount of accuracy as the newsletters he denies he wrote.”
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I do tend to laugh at how effective Gingrich's mean zings are.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:12 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
compared to what theyre continually promised the fundies get almost nothing, pro life stuff is incremental at best and Israel isnt a major or a primarily fundy concern, gop establishments been playing them for years
while the gop is for sure more solicitous, for demographic reasons mostly, of their less moderate members than the dems, if you look at how those respective cohorts feel abt how theyre being treated its p much a mirror image, both think their party is hopelessly defeatist and cowardly always giving into the well oiled tactically ingenious malevolent other party, and that they would surely win if they only stood up and fought for their true righteous views
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
if you look at how those respective cohorts feel abt how theyre being treated its p much a mirror image
yeah this is definitely true
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/01/kevin-drums-peak-crazy-republican-presidential-poll-share-graph.html
i really like brad delong but man he's interpreting this absolutely backwards
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dem and Repug pols are sep'd mostly by rhetoric. They steer the ship together onto the beach.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
hmm ive never heard that point from you before morbs
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
pro life stuff is incremental at best
please don't minimize the actual effect that these "incremental" setbacks are having on real people's lives every day in states where abortion access is now hindered, limited, or, as in Kansas and elsewhere, effectively illegal
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
im not, just speaking as far as what they want
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
just like every progressive calls obamacare watered down
which btw is an area where you can't actually argue much party difference - these "incremental" setbacks are signed-off on by Democrats, who then talk about the rights the didn't sign away, which they then classify as gains - "we gave up x, but they wanted to take y!" which is just the saddest
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
they are actually getting what they want via incremental setback. that's the ground plan, it's the whole plan, there isn't any plan to REVERSE ROE V. WADE no matter how they talk, the plan is to gradually restrict access to abortion via local & state measures. the big game they talk translates into a series of plays down the field. these are the plays Democrats ought to be pushing back against, not some fantasy "they're going to appeal this case to the Supreme Court" scenario.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^
― Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
i understand that thats the hardcore pro life movers and shakers plan now, but its not what like yr average fundie voter wants, theyre still just all outlaw the murder of innocent babies and prob consider to the extent that theyre aware of it, this sort of compromise to be hopelessly corrupted by washington values etc
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are for sure all sorts of areas where the parties agree, recently both parties have figured out that most people dont want abortion illegal but dont really mind if its incrementally restricted, so they can stop fighting abt that - its p instructive as to the vile mechanisms of inter party cooperation
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
and they all like killing Muslems overseas.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
well i mean who doesnt
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
killing them over here not as fun
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
u might get blood on u
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Muslims don't have blood iirc
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think you underestimate the average anti-choicer's sophistication about this issue. They have been coordinating their game for a long time. I know they often sound dumb in comments threads or if news cameras catch them, and the temptation to succumb to caricature is heavy when we disagree so strongly with their beliefs, but they are about their fucking business & are not dumb. Carole Joffe's book Dispatches from the Abortion Wars is worth a read on this subject.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
yah i know their activist base is v on their grind, its just my contention that theres a larger group of fundies for whom this isnt necessarily their main issue who are not as dialed in or on board
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:44 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
*checks bible* oh damn u right
nah i think if anything cynical mnstrm republicans would love to have abortion as an issue to campaign on forever, the on the ground crazies really are the ones who are getting shit done in small incremental steps in places like north dakota. and i think abortion is still - despite all the stuff abt socialist big government death camps - the reason that there are so many political evangelicals
― sulks (Lamp), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
republicans can still campaign on abortion if they want! no ones stopping them
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think cynical mnstrm republicans exist to the same extent post-bush. if the GOP could make abortion 100% illegal across the country w/ no political consequences, would they? sure. but that's never going to be a possibility absent a huge shift in peoples' views on the subject. that being the case it's not that they're just toying w/ the voters, there genuinely isn't that much more they can do on the national level w/o a backlash.
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
even if abortion just disappeared as a subject there would still be a culture war to fight. there will always be a culture war sujet du jour.
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk according to many recent think pieces the culture war is no longer a trending topic
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
if anything cynical mnstrm republicans would love to have abortion as an issue to campaign on forever
have always thought this about the Democrats
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
not much thought in those pieces
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Speaking of culture wars, Sullivan's dug up a pleasant missive from Santorum's past:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
Take it easy, media--it's Boston.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
lmao santorum even u can do better than that
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
next thing hell try to blame the fact that he brought a stillborn fetus home and cuddled it w/his family for a few hours on the gays
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While that is no excuse for the Red Sox implosion in 2011, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
fer the young'uns among'uns, see: free speech movement in 1964, president sterling of UC @ Berkeley.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
just got an email from the DNC with the subject line "what iowa means" and thunderbird popped up a little notification: THIS MESSAGE MAY BE A SCAM.
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nobel Prize for Software
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism
yeah, right. Nothing says liberalism like the locked-down Harvard campus, the Koch bros. compound, or Scott fukkin Brown.
― gnome rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol srsly, i mean political maybe, academic no, and cultural you must be fucking joking me
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
So it startles Santorum that I can "sanction private moral matters" and still be appalled by pedophilia. Yeah, that's really well reasoned...
― Dan Peterson, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
perry stays in :)
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Swimming in Santorum's wake.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahahaagghhhhh
― Steamtable Willie (WmC), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
“I took the day off work for this,” said insurance salesman Justin Yourison, a Paul precinct captain. “If he doesn’t get the nomination, I’m not voting for anyone else. . . . If the GOP doesn’t let us in, they can do without us.”
wonder how Paul feels about this sentiment
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yes, he's back.
(Morphing Santorum into Obama--just talking visually, Morbius--is quite an achievement.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it's time people stopped maligning the Montana Sheep Institute.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
apparently lots of hard core Paul fanatics (which is surely like 95% of his support?) are committed to a write-in campaign if he doesn't get the GOP nod. i'm pretty ignorant about the viability of this wrt certain states/ local jurisdictions but hey
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol @ Santorum is a porker's best friend
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have a feeling this may come back to haunt Rick (no embedding):
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
when Rick is listening to other people talk he looks like he smoked a full gram of hash about half an hour ago and is struggling to just keep it together until he can figure out how to put one foot in front of the other & leave the room
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
he looks like he ate a full plate of corned beef hash.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
what kind of yes men does rick perry have, jeez
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
kevin drum getting pessimistic:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/how-do-you-solve-problem-mitt-romney
I'll be surprised if the GOP primary race goes much beyond the end of February, and I'll be shocked if Super Tuesday on March 6 doesn't end it completely. This means that the Republican base will have six months to resign themselves to their fate and come to the conclusion that Romney is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being ever to run for president. And they will. When Job 1 is beating the anti-Christ, learning to love Mitt Romney will be a piece of cake.
So what does this mean for Team Obama? My guess: the flip-flopper charge probably won't get much traction. It's mostly a problem for conservatives, who don't fully trust that Romney is one of them, but by the time summer rolls around they're going to be his most fire-breathing supporters. They'll have long since decided to forgive and forget, and independents won't care that much in the first place as long as Romney seems halfway reasonable in his current incarnation. It's possible that Obama can do both — Romney is a flip flopper and a right-wing nutcase! — but if he has to choose, my guess is that he should forget about the flip flopping and simply do everything he can to force Romney into the wingnut conservative camp. That'll be his big weakness when Labor Day rolls around.
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
k drum veering a lil too into the abstract, romneys biggest weakness is that hes a droid
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
but by the time summer rolls around they're going to be his most fire-breathing supporters.
so not gonna happen
Obama's gonna paint him as an out-of-touch plutocrat, gonna go hard on the populist angle
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Haven't seen any mention of it in recent days but I'm now idly wondering how much of the non-Romney sentiment really IS driven by "Mormons, ew."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
is there a documented case of Romney creating jobs in a failing company as opposed to downsizing until the company is profitable? because I have only ever heard/read the latter
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
my understanding is all he's ever done is the latter
― horseshoe, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
so can we raise enough money to produce commercials accusing Romney of wanting to deport unemployed Americans, since that is where his expertise lies
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't know if it's quantifiable. frankly i think a lot of liberals are overstating it out of hope.
frankly i think these interdenominational divisions are just not that important anymore as long as everyone is "conservative". there have been mormon senators and governors in good right-wing standing forever now. a generation ago catholics and baptists and jews and all the rest had huge alignment problems but now those lions and lambs are laying down just fine. thanks, pro-life movement, and 'clash of civilizations' etc.
sure mormonism is a little wilder with its heresies but as long as your policy positions are where they need to be all the angels-on-other-planets shit is just irrelevant
xp to ned
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
feeling very frank today i guess
No, that makes plenty of sense through and through. I was mostly shrugging the idea off as well and was only struck by it a bit today given that Texas meeting from all the Perry backers that was announced.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
These hand-wringing conservatives will start to chill out when they realize President Romney will nominate the, er, right kind of judges to the bench and SCOTUS.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk, I think the religion thing is gonna be important for some, maybe not a lot, but my aunt (in her 70s, Oklahoman, staunch Baptist) is going to have a REAL tough time voting for a Mormon.
― Dan Peterson, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
if he wins he'll win w/ a congress that's even more right-wing than he is, so yeah, they'll be fine
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
RedState is starting to cave on the point.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
despite being very political and very conservative for as long as i can remember, my aunt did not vote in 2008 because she was so disillusioned by McCain's nom. even though she hates Romney/Santorum/Paul even more than she did The Mav, she is going to vote GOP no matter what b/c of devil Obama
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
this time
Rick Perry would make a "better general election candidate" in which country?
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
is texas a country yet
― iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
so many errors in that Red State post
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
i have a friend from college who is still pining for perry, so to speak
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
One of the commenters talked about pulling for Perry and well there you go.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 19:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Perry's basic problem atm, aside from his blatant failure to attract voters, is that he took a shitload of money from his wealthy Texas backers in order to run for POTUS. If he quits now, those folks are going to be mad as hell if he walks off with their money with nothing to show for it. My guess is either they're going to make him stay in the race or else they'll force him to endorse their second choice - or they'll make his life a living hell for screwing them out of $$$.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
what? that makes no sense.
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
political donations disappear as soon as they are made. there is no "ROI" unless your guy wins, which perry isn't going to do. his donors are going to demand he keep going to burn more of their money? why?
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I don't get that
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
If nothing else, Perry's 'wealthy Texas backers' will just keep getting paid off in-state.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
This meeting with them is probably to arrange that in-state payback and to abase himself for running such a damn fool campaign he made Phil Gramm look competant by comparison.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
mitt romney's phone game, interesting stuff
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/01/romney_s_iowa_win_it_took_a_lot_more_than_money_.single.html
But what was more important for Romney’s team was not just that his total share of the vote remained steady but that the individual voters who comprised it didn’t move either, making it easy to keep track of who they were and to mobilize them personally.
It was the ability to pinpoint and track supporters that settled Romney’s decision to publicly commit to winning Iowa late this fall. Romney’s campaign made a big show of converting the former video store into a headquarters, while spending millions on local television ads and dispatching the candidate to travel the state more aggressively than he had. But a ruthless yet largely invisible strategy had already been in place for much of the year, tracking both Romney’s supporters and his opponents. Only when Romney’s count appeared to exceed any rival’s did advisers unveil the trappings of a traditional caucus campaign.
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
iirc, unspent campaign contributions accrue to the donee, who then has wide latitude on how they are spent, even if he can't blatantly shove it in his own pocket. If Perry has a big unspent war chest and it was full of hundreds of thousands of my dollars, I would demand to retain an interest in that cash. Perry isn't the sort of pol who'd say fu to that either. He knows he's just a puny man propped up by these rich guys.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
well i doubt perry is flush atm, and as to what perry could do right now to carry out a donor's interest in that money, my point stands. i really don't get where you're going with this. perry wants to quit but his donors are begging he keep going, for the money?
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
And speaking of Perry:
Perry spoke to reporters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Wednesday following his disappointing fifth-place showing in the Iowa caucus...Perry clearly wants to put his Iowa experience behind him. He called Iowa a "quirky place" with "a quirky process."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I kinda wish more candidates that flop would just flat out shit talk the place for the LOLs.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
And from the Mormon who did stay out of Iowa about Romney's endorsements:
“It seems the more establishment piles on, Dole, McCain, all the rest, nobody cares. Nobody cares about this."
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
[quote]Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he is leaving the ''quirky'' state of Iowa to continue his presidential race among ''real'' Republicans in South Carolina.[/quote]
("real" = "not those freakin' Yankees")
― pplains, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
man if he is casting iowa as yankeeland it just shows how bad he is at politics
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Perry's donors may not understand the depths of his inability to win. I mean, they sank a lot of money into him because they believed quite the opposite. If they think that his campaign is salvageable, say, by a radical replacement of his staff and shift of strategy, then they might be very pissed off if he fails to make a last ditch effort to turn it around.
These are Texans -- people who are used to celebrating football players who stay on the field with broken ribs and make the tackle that saves the touchdown and the game. It may not make sense in a practical context, but this is Texas... you win or you come back on your shield.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 21:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
RELATED: Jon Huntsman Says Iowans ‘Pick Corn,’ Not Presidents
too honest to be president
― Aimless, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― goole, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 5:18 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
prez of stanford, in whose office the hippies were "sitting in" to protest vietnam
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Up in New Hampshire:
Wandering around the event, Romney supporters were surprisingly difficult to find in the crowd, even among those sporting campaign stickers and signs. Outside the event, a small group of backers politely argued with a group of unidentified protestors dressed in animal costumes, including a dolphin mocking Romney’s “flip flops.”“We loved him as governor,” Amanda Stradling, who moved to the state from Massachusetts, told TPM, holding a nine-month old baby wearing a Romney sticker.But for every Romney, there seemed to be plenty of undecideds, independents, and even Democrats. One group of three friends, two of whom said they plan on voting for Obama, came up from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut as “political tourists” just to check out the candidates.“It’s just too early to decide,” one twenty-something in a Boston Red Sox hat said.Simona Amiet, a homemaker who immigrated from Switzerland 20 years earlier, said she was leaning Romney because he was “knowledgeable with enterprise,” but had yet to decide. A Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008, she said she knew she wouldn’t be voting Democrat again in the general election, upset with both deficits and how he treated her favorite candidate four years ago.Al Plass, 57, said as an independent he was still not sold on Romney, and that he was beginning to even warm up to Rick Santorum. But he was still holding out hope that his dream candidate would run: Donald Trump.“He has way more business experience than Romney,” he said. “He’s straightforward, he’s a patriot, he loves this country.”
“We loved him as governor,” Amanda Stradling, who moved to the state from Massachusetts, told TPM, holding a nine-month old baby wearing a Romney sticker.
But for every Romney, there seemed to be plenty of undecideds, independents, and even Democrats. One group of three friends, two of whom said they plan on voting for Obama, came up from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut as “political tourists” just to check out the candidates.
“It’s just too early to decide,” one twenty-something in a Boston Red Sox hat said.
Simona Amiet, a homemaker who immigrated from Switzerland 20 years earlier, said she was leaning Romney because he was “knowledgeable with enterprise,” but had yet to decide. A Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008, she said she knew she wouldn’t be voting Democrat again in the general election, upset with both deficits and how he treated her favorite candidate four years ago.
Al Plass, 57, said as an independent he was still not sold on Romney, and that he was beginning to even warm up to Rick Santorum. But he was still holding out hope that his dream candidate would run: Donald Trump.
“He has way more business experience than Romney,” he said. “He’s straightforward, he’s a patriot, he loves this country.”
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Outside the event, a small group of backers politely argued with a group of unidentified protestors dressed in animal costumes, including a dolphin mocking Romney’s “flip flops.”
I can't even
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
in what way is Trump a patriot
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
did he kill a muslim I don't know about
asd vjudfoivsj8ivu aeugjSEUfioihaw4egyvhfaduighaertghaohdu;fvuos dfhaegv98yfhaguer tgyhauoshdfjlw4 hfasduo yfalf;jaw;efser fkwer84aiiv893as fas gatjjyghk jhgcn gdsfbrg bkjghn
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
sounds like newt's her candidate then
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
“knowledgeable with enterprise"
― buzza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
An Iowa caucus is basically like a livestock auction crossed with a general assembly, right?
― Oh shit, that's my bone! (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
and a New Hampshire primary is basically a Rotary Club crossed with a toadstool.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
link courtesy nro/the corner but i put here so more people would see
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/my-night-at-michele-bachmanns-headquarters
― no longer the deli llama (m coleman), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
― no longer the deli llama (m coleman), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
pathos
― no longer the deli llama (m coleman), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
I overheard someone say: "We have a lot of courts trying to institute Sharia Law. They stoned a woman in Toronto and didn't do anything about it."
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
show me this Corner post!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was watching last night when all this nonsense transpired, and, yes, I found it very funny ("We know--a lot of people Tweet in America!")
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/the-iowa-spectacle.html
Number one rule in Toronto: everybody must get stoned.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
x post
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287016/visit-bachmann-hq-robert-costa#comments
what's also funny is the other thread he links to - the santorum scrapbook - takes the piss out of rick
― no longer the deli llama (m coleman), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
― no longer the deli llama (m coleman), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
where does he want to put the end of nuclear war?
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
iLegal same sex marriage
― nah (crüt), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Legalize the Death Penalty
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
the corner:
Katharine Hepburn said that Ginger Rogers gave Fred Astaire sex appeal. Iowa has restored the glow to Rick Santorum.
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Put more money in the "investment of education" of our children so they learn to spell illegal.
― Dan Peterson, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
1 person named April Buysman in Iowa | WhitePagesnames.whitepages.com › Name Popularity › April BuysmanFind April Buysman on WhitePages. There is 1 person named April Buysman in Orange City, IA.
― buzza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
orange city!! haha no shit
― goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
new Corner thread:
NRO's The Corner 2: Ghost Protocol
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
From the Bachmann article:
She spoke for about a minute and then they played "Hey Soul Sister" 3 times in a row.
This is literally my idea of what hell would be like.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.
― System, Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Correct top three. Wrong order, but the 25 Romney voters came damn close.
― Aimless, Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I voted for Santorum. Force of habit from all the NRO polls where I vote for what I want to happen (within reason, else I would have voted for Gingrich).
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Me too.
― Nicole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
i voted paul because he is a living god
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I voted for RuPaul, because I expected this was his best shot at muddying the waters and giving the Republican establishment a hissy fit. I never dared to think Santorum would actually win it; he's such a loser.
― Aimless, Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I didn't honestly think he would win, I just liked the idea of him winning.
― Nicole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
120,000 - 30,000...I think there about 90,000 people in Iowa who, big-picture, would probably say the same thing.
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 01:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kind of sad I didn't go to the democrat caucus last night, but my district was one of the ones where the room was practically overcrowded anyway.
I kind of love and hate this but I'll park it here since this thread's probably the last of the Iowa-mentioning for some time:
― mh, Thursday, 5 January 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
i totally dont think iowans are all hillbillies, u need hills for that
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 02:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't think iowans are hillbillies. I think they are predominantly small town or rural dwellers, without big cities. They also have a high percentage of college grads. Prob ag colleges, but those are diplomas, too.
― Aimless, Thursday, 5 January 2012 02:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait, the Democrats caucused? did they just bow toward Washington?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 03:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
The smug Iowan Obamaniac in that video might wanna listen to the first 2 minutes of this clip of the late (mostly) liberal talkshow host Lynn Samuels in 2008:
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 03:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey smug Iowan check out this youtube
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 03:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's 2012 & Matt's supporting his party by trolling Dr. Morbius on ilx political threads. come lord Quetzalcoatl incinerate us all in fire
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/datacenter/quickfacts
― j., Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Btw I have no idea where the guy got the 4/5 in cities thing. All seems like smug pandering but I had a guilty lol.
"wait the democrats caucused" is kind of the "I have no idea what went on beyond headlines" statement here.
Wtf is an "ag college?" one of the two state universities has ag programs (both science and business) but they're not the largest parts of the school. According to j.'s stats there, there a about 90k people working on farms versus 1.5mil working elsewhere in the economy. 1 in 16 people working on a farm is kind of high, I guess?
― mh, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, January 5, 2012 4:39 AM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I'm really kind of hurt that you think this is my reason above all the other far superior reasons to aggravate Morbs.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
really feel like we need a moratorium on the term 'trolling' at this point, just a cooling out period
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not gonna watch that YouTube but Iowa State is an ag school for sure. Mrs. Aero worked on glycine max aka the noble soybean in their lab, they do a lot of research on g. max & corn & parasites etc @ Iowa State. "Farms" kinda doesn't really begin to describe just how much of Iowa's economy is agricultural - co-ops, grain elevators, transport, pesticides etc., whatever you classify anhydrous as they gotta buy shitloads of it to keep farming, etc
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean that was a straight up zing by matt there, solid hit
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are three state universities.
the one with ag programs folded the ag college into one with all life sciences (and some other sciences—many of which used to be grouped with the liberal arts), and even still, there are more engineering students than there are ag and life sciences students, and more liberal arts and sciences students than there are engineering students:
http://www.iastate.edu/about/docs/facts/FactsFY12.pdf
― j., Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
that doesn't entirely disprove what aero said but it's interesting how little of the gsp is directly ag
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
where is the hillbilly sector, something is wrong
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
laginfinityn yr right it's just a zing I'm just protective of Morbs because I agree w/him more than w/ppl who zing him generally
xp the thing is that chart is pretty deceptive - "construction" and "real estate," for example, are going to figure largely into the money changing hands in the country's #2 pork producing state. "ag" in w/"forestry" and "fishing" there probably means "crops," which takes up a lot of land but generates less money than pork, and than the manufacturing of products (and the delivery of services) to the pork producers. it was the Iowa State lab that sequenced the entire g. max genome iirc (nb I may not rc)
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
also "finance and insurance" I would imagine are doing huge business with farmers who've been losing their asses for years
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
actually I think the pork itself would be included in that ag % but that manufacturing % is probably fairly related to crops/ag.
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
there was a piece somewhere today questioning just how often you can cry wolf before ppl stop paying attention to you.
it did not take into account whether or not the wolf was actually threatening -- if there's a wolf, we shouldn't ignore it no matter how many times it's been called out.
morbius is annoying as fuck on all political threads, because he will not compromise with reality/what's possible. nevertheless, he is invaluable at (incessantly) reminding us what exactly we've already conceded.
(the nicknames do get old, tho)
― mookieproof, Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Posting this here, because I'm not reading the other thread:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/04/duverger-kushner-bonhoeffer/
Duverger, Kushner, BonhoefferBy Fred Clark, January 4, 2012 5:15 pmA brief reminder: Duverger’s law.That’s how it works. Candidate A vs. Candidate B. Party A vs. Party B.Moral purity and moral perfection will not be on the ballot.Those seeking moral purity and moral perfection pleasure themselves by imagining that theirs is a superior ethical responsibility. But this is delusional — an embrace of irresponsibility. It’s the claim that one is not responsible for any outcome, consequence or action in this world apart from maintaining, above all, one’s own impotent but unsullied moral purity.You voted for Candidate A? Then you are responsible for every evil act and poor decision made by Candidate A. I refused to vote for Candidate A, or for any candidate because they’re all corrupt and all the same. And therefore I am not responsible for anything at all in this world. You are tainted. I am pure.I do not accept that irresponsibility is a virtue.As Tony Kushner said:Listen, here’s the thing about politics: It’s not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said:Responsible action must decide not simply between right and wrong, good and evil, but between right and right, wrong and wrong.That is all.
A brief reminder: Duverger’s law.
That’s how it works. Candidate A vs. Candidate B. Party A vs. Party B.
Moral purity and moral perfection will not be on the ballot.
Those seeking moral purity and moral perfection pleasure themselves by imagining that theirs is a superior ethical responsibility. But this is delusional — an embrace of irresponsibility. It’s the claim that one is not responsible for any outcome, consequence or action in this world apart from maintaining, above all, one’s own impotent but unsullied moral purity.
You voted for Candidate A? Then you are responsible for every evil act and poor decision made by Candidate A. I refused to vote for Candidate A, or for any candidate because they’re all corrupt and all the same. And therefore I am not responsible for anything at all in this world. You are tainted. I am pure.
I do not accept that irresponsibility is a virtue.
As Tony Kushner said:
Listen, here’s the thing about politics: It’s not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.
Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said:
Responsible action must decide not simply between right and wrong, good and evil, but between right and right, wrong and wrong.
That is all.
― Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Thursday, 5 January 2012 14:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 05:47 (8 hours ago) Permalink
des moines is a huge town for insurance
― goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 14:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
"hey smug Iowan check out this youtube"
This was a solid zing? hey icey, maybe u too authentic for the internets
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
it was funny! i lold nbd
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
it wasnt a crippling blow or anything
I can tell, since I walked to the subway.
So really, why don't libs argue for Obama to use the bully pulpit? (My answer wd be that he's not an advocate for lib positions.)
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
i feel like libs argue all the time for obama to use the bully pulpit, like 90% amateur political analysis regardless the orientation boils down to we should yell more abt this
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
if only!! it is actually "obama should yell more about this"
or "knock heads" or whatever
when PEOPLE actually yell about things, i.e. Occupy, it opens the window for people like Obama to act
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah otm, i meant obama and other politicians
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess YOU should yell more abt this wouldve been clearer
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't hear "obama/Dem pols should yell more about this" nearly as much as variants of "Republicans exist, so there's nothing Dems can do"
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
well that line of reasoning def has a disproportionate popularity amongst professional pundits, i think amateur pundits have a lot more faith in the bully pulpit
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
the truth is somewhat more complicated *pats self on back*
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not gonna watch that YouTube but Iowa State is an ag school for sure. Mrs. Aero worked on glycine max aka the noble soybean in their lab, they do a lot of research on g. max & corn & parasites etc @ Iowa State.
Oh, very true. I think of those as agriculture-related but not farming per se, if that makes sense. Farmers are the "live in the boondocks, wear overalls, vote for social conservatives" dudes that carry the stereotype, imo -- when you hear the generalizations about Iowa and farms and "they pick corn, not candidates, lol," I doubt many people are thinking of research scientists sequencing genomes, people in an urban/suburban area selling crop insurance, or the corporate offices of large ag companies.
fwiw, I went to Iowa State and the one year I was in the dorms, the dudes who were in ag business were kind of picked on as hicks.
On a semi-related note, I'm annoyed by the lack of understanding of the role and usefulness of unions. From what my card-carrying union friends have been saying, democrats are losing support from that sector more from the shortcomings of union leadership than from a real change in the voter base.
― mh, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also, I laughed pretty hard at the fact I completely forgot a state university. Sorry UNI! To my credit, though, most UNI grads forget about UNI.
i graduated with a kid who got a full ride to UNI and iirc he didn't go
― goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
From what my card-carrying union friends have been saying, democrats are losing support from that sector more from the shortcomings of union leadership than from a real change in the voter base.
Speaking as a (quite happily so) card-carrying union member myself, it can definitely come down to that. There was a LOT of frustration bubbling up in recent years given that our bunch was caught in endless negotiations that went nowhere combined with rather poorly handled PR mailouts and announcements that just ticked a lot of people off. Affiliating with the Teamsters smoothed a lot of that out and we recently approved a handy five-year contract.
Another issue, though, can be boiled down to the question of turf wars. This hopefully has also changed with the Teamsters affiliation but we'll see. Basically, anybody who found themselves in a position to be promoted out of the union to a different status via a new work assignment or a work reclassification often found that the union was essentially working against their interests because that means they would lose a member -- a couple of friends dealt with that for the longest time, to their increasing frustration. So if things like that are more commonplace than expected, I couldn't blame people's annoyance at all.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Affiliating with the Teamsters smoothed a lot of that out
haha I'll bet
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
We have some odd affiliations on campus here. When the grad students union came into being almost fifteen years back it was as an affiliate of the UAW.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh look Bono likes Santorum
lol catholics
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
kinda wanna poll the awkward moments in this story
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum "has a kind of Tourette's disease," Bono told New York Times columnist David Brooks in 2006.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
These three are winners from that Mitt story:
“The line? The DMZ? Is that it? No, I know what it is: It’s the emergency exit! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yeah. Ahh.”“Ha, ha. Uh. I think landslides are terrific....I just didn’t, uh, see that in last night’s figures. I’m not sure about you. Ha, ha, ha, ha.”“What a, uh, big night we had last night, or what a big morning we had, uh, last morning, this morning, in, uh, Iowa,”
“Ha, ha. Uh. I think landslides are terrific....I just didn’t, uh, see that in last night’s figures. I’m not sure about you. Ha, ha, ha, ha.”
“What a, uh, big night we had last night, or what a big morning we had, uh, last morning, this morning, in, uh, Iowa,”
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think that's about as much about Bono dropping names and at least as much about Bono's committment to Catholic 'caritas' as it is about liking Santorum.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Hair Force One"
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
tbf it must kinda suck for mitt to continually be reminded that nobody likes him
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
well he still has a decent shot at becoming president of america, so
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
he doesn't have a prayer imho
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
let's hope fundies agree with that statement
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shakey just loves to crucify the Catholics.
not even clemenza will dispute this? it's the Dobbsey twin election, folx.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/01/mitt_romney_s_the_nominee_the_republican_primary_race_is_over_.html
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum has about $73 in his bank account iirc
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait didn't he raise a million dollars the other day
― iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes but he then spent it all on wet wipes
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
well at least he didn't waste it
Bono gave him money and now he can write it off as a charitable contribution.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol not only is romney an objectively bad presidential candidate, hes a horrible candidate for right now
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean just this http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/reverse-engineering-romneys-low-effective-tax-rate.php
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
yep Obama is gonna kill him on this out-of-touch rich robot shit
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
my friend is under attack for a Santorum tweet yesterday... of course he is now identified only as an "NPR and NY Times contributor."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/01/04/npr-ny-times-contributor-compares-santorum-harvey-milks-assassin
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
weird he wasn't identified as "Dr Morbius' friend"
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
OBAMASPIRACY
oh that is not "obama's piracy" btw
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
OBAMA SPI RACY?
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama does have a racy private investigator, though.
― Bon Ivoj (jaymc), Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bob Wright c/o Sully:
I think viewing an anti-Romney holy war as the capstone of Gingrich's career gives short shrift to Newt's skills as a hatemonger. After all, Mitt Romney is only one person, and Gingrich has reason to be mad at him. The hallmark of truly vintage Gingrichian toxicity is the fomenting of hatred toward whole groups of people whom Gingrich has no personal reason to dislike. It isn't that he wishes these people ill; it's just that he would profit politically if they were hated more deeply by more people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/newt-gingrich-a-hater-not-a-quitter/250879/
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 19:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I don't believe a Massachusetts moderate is in a very good position to debate Barack Obama"--that's it? That's the best you can do? You've got $10 million to burn in the next few weeks. Go find the people who did Hillary's 3:00-in-the-morning ad. I want dark, ominous clouds rolling across the screen...scary morphing...the Castaways' "Liar, Liar" blaring in the background...some truly vintage Gingrichian toxicity. Something. Anything.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/newt-tries-out-his-new-romney-bashing-stump-speech.php?ref=fpb
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry--the opening's there.
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 5, 2012 3:06 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Kev, IIRC, argues for this all the time, among others ITT. It's always when I know the situation is hopeless.
Obama gave a million speeches on issues like healthcare and didn't budge public opinion at all; it still barely passed and most people hate it for the wrong reasons. In fact, most people barely know what's in the bill.
I guess there's an ok track record for Presidents using speeches to scaremonger the country into war. But for major political and social movements and changes it's mostly a fantasy.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
most of the ppl itt who argue for Obama to use the bully pulpit do not describe themselves as liberals iirc
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, January 5, 2012 5:43 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I doubt this is a Catholic thing. Remember when Bono bro'd out with Strom Thurmond? If you're willing to work with Bono on anything he'll praise you for it. I also think he disarms these ultra-rightwingers by being so open to their support. I respect him for it.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:33 PM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I didn't realize there was anyone itt who wouldn't describe themselves as liberal tbh.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
progressive != liberal
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
I describe myself as smitten by Ginger. That's as much as I'll commit to.
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
square!=rhombus
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
well no, actually a square IS a rhombus
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
but is a square is a rhombus!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha crosspost
most progressives vacillate between begrudging affection for liberals & outright hatred of them
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
bono has never been a catholic, raised in the church of ireland(anglican) iirc
― Best-Penis (buzza), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, January 5, 2012 9:39 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
it's a KIND of rhombus
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
someone getting upset about being called a liberal when really they're a progressive... I dunno bros
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
these are not real stable categories
― goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean I say this as a liberaltarian liberal progressive socialist interventionist.
I'd be upset if I was a square tbh
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
but it's hip to be one
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
All squares are rhombuses; not all rhombuses are squares. All Mitts are Romneys (as far as I know); not all Romneys are Mitts.
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Liberals decided they wanted to be called progressives when they thought the L-word had too much Naive Gullible Ineffectual baggage attached to it. Well, guess what...
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
But the senator grimaced when he was introduced, and as Romney delivered his own stump speech, an increasingly impatient McCain pulled up his sleeve and checked his watch. McCain gave his endorsement address without mentioning Romney’s Iowa win until the end. “By the way, we forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night,” he said, laughing. Romney ignored him.
Did McCain "endorse" Romney just to troll him?
― Nicole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
another political compass thread
let's split the progressive/liberal hairs here
also LOL @ Nicole's quote
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw aero, we need some new lyrics (again) to the Ochs song, I nominate you as this year's Jello Biafra.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I saw someone else yesterday wonder if McCain's endorsement was consciously meant to hurt Romney...CNN just played 90% of an attack ad against Romney, tried to get Matlin and Brazile to guess who'd put it out (neither could), then played the rest, and of course it was a McCain ad.
― clemenza, Thursday, 5 January 2012 22:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, January 5, 2012 4:31 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yah i read some poli sci research somewhere that said in a lot of cases a president can actually hurt his cause via over agressive selling due to obvs partisan factors
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
always thought progressive was just the new word for liberal once the gop machine successfully ruined that brand
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
anyway i like the word progressive, i mean progress yeah who doesnt love progress
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
liberal is cool too, its like do what you want and we will still love you be free be yrself alls good
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
u mean like smartphones? xp
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
conservative, yuck no fun daddyo
yes like smartphone who doesnt love a good smart phone u can do whatever you want on there
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
admire this mans balls
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/santorum-gets-into-testy-debate-on-gay-marriage/?hp
The session ended with many of the students booing Mr. Santorum as he left for his next event.
It takes a man willing to take risks or a total idiot to show up to an event and have the shit booed out of him...
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
well he was well known to be the stupidest senator
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
also he brought his stillborn child home and cuddled on it w/his family for a couple hours
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
i can't believe he has a law degree. he gets asked about why he opposes two men getting married, and repeatedly deflects to asking about what the questioner thinks about 3 or more men getting married? what? comparing his approach to the Socratic method, like the NYT does in that article, is just absurd.
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
tbf Socrates would've totally married three men
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
I might too on a Thursday.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Socrates: may we do evil?Crito: of course not, Socrates.Socrates: so you're saying that no men ever do evil?Crito: what? no, I would never say that, you must-Socrates: and so you agree that all men must do as their masters command, even if the command is evil?Crito: i'm not following what you're-Socrates: we're going to have a civilized discussion here, ok?
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
― strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
itt socrates is waaaaaasted
Nah, Shakey. Socrates had a pretty conventional marriage to Xantippe and fathered some kids with her. According to Plato's Symposium (Xenophon wrote one, too) Socrates spurned Alkibiades's sexual advances. So, not much evidence for your assertion there.
― Aimless, Friday, 6 January 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
'twas just a lil joke Aimless
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol socrates u married someone named Xantippe
― Best-Penis (buzza), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
you guys Santorum said on Bill O'Reilly that he didn't say "black people," he said "blah people"
you guys you guys you guys
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
so tired of all these blah people on welfare. they need to put some zazz into it
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
he really said this
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
new internet meme
― Aimless, Friday, 6 January 2012 00:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
it really oughta be
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
you're already spreading it. all it really needs for rocket fuel is a 7 second video clip.
― Aimless, Friday, 6 January 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=NNJ3CQ31QH8CNH7P&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1"; width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
he's actually doing this on multiple shows
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:56 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― lag∞n, Thursday, 5 January 2012 23:57 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
shall we just have a little micro-moment to stand up against this, c'mon pick something from the guy's portfolio of assholery if you want to talk trash
― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I read a big article about that fetus. it's kind of heartbreaking how psychotic he is. rick, not the fetus
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 00:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
The best part is he has absolutely no idea how weird that seems to the majority of the population! I mean, I think his family was completely within their rights to do so, but to me, it seems pretty fucked up. We're supposed to be tolerant of his kooky death cult shit and he's intolerant of pretty much anyone who isn't him.
― mh, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i mean yr tolerance just has like nothing to do with this aspect of his life though, really, as much as how you handle grief at home has nothing to do with anyone you work with. i can't even make a link between it as a hypocrisy on account of his beliefs? that he is an intolerant asshole is separate
was that the times article, i was gonna read that
― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ron Santorum - Kooky Death Cult Party, PA
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I literally have tears in my eyes from laughing at this, hope you're happy aero.
― Nicole, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just think that abortion looks completely reasonable compared to lugging a dead baby around
― mh, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
he said it on CNN too!
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
xps
Like, dude also thinks states should be able to ban birth control if they want to, dictating to me what I can do in my home, and he is at home carrying around a dead baby
― mh, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://prospect.org/article/it-takes-democrat
Santorum's typical presentation of one of these ideas goes something like this: “The Village Elders consider a large percentage of our population to be helpless: they're not going to consider how to empower the poor to build wealth,” or “The village elders like to show they care for the poor among us simply by spending more money,” rather than investing strategically to build communities. Such statements are followed by, “that's why Senator John Corzine and I introduced ... ” or “therefore, I co-sponsored Senator Carol Moseley-Braun's amendment that would ... .” If not Corzine and Moseley-Braun, two of the most unabashedly liberal current and former senators, one has to wonder: Just who are these unreconstructed “village elders” after all?
These innovative solutions may have caused liberals some discomfort decades ago, but a dozen years after the passage of federal empowerment zones and Bill Clinton's legislation to support community banks, “empowerment” is now very much the core strategy of modern liberalism. One might be tempted to say, as Santorum does of Senator Clinton, that behind Santorum's rhetoric is a “left agenda,” but that wouldn't be fair.
That's because Santorum is prepared for this challenge. In his conclusion, he warns that “some will dismiss my ideas as an extended version of 'compassionate conservatism.'” But it is not, he insists, because of his insistence on “moral capital,” at least as defined by him. In other words, even if liberals advocate some of the same policy solutions, they are doomed simply because they are associated with the moral tolerance of liberals. And so, in the end, it is not as easy as I had hoped it would be to separate Santorum's interesting and laudable ideas on poverty and work-family balance from his mean-spirited and intolerant social views; they are wholly interdependent. Rather than compassionate conservatism, Santorum has fashioned something new: a mean-spirited, intolerant liberalism.
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
this "blah people" thing is enough to cut through even my jadedness. what in the hell.
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
holy shit what????
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha santorum has a bright future ahead of him as a racist english premiere league football player
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum will make the country better by spending government money on churches and other moral organizations he agrees with, basically.
He is basically the best argument for strict separation of church and state that anyone could make, personified.
― mh, Friday, 6 January 2012 01:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
so that means Romney is the only GOP candidate who hasn't had some flagrantly racist bullshit attached to his name this go 'round
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh wait huntsman
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
his explanation on o'reilly is actually WORSE than it sounds from just being told about it:
‘I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t.’
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
'me and my mom were having an argument and i started to say a word but then i burned my mouth with some chili and the word sort of changed and it sort of -- "bihhh" came out. and people said i said "bitch". i didn't'
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
LOL
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 01:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Fear of a Blah Planet
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Friday, 6 January 2012 03:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Dude came at me with a fucking knife but I knocked it out of his hand. Then I asked him what the fuck that was all about and he was like 'you said you were going to fuck my wife all night.' After I explained that what I'd actually said was 'I'm going to fuuuuuu your wife all night,' he calmed down and we had a good laugh about it."
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 04:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
im going to blah yr wife all nite
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 04:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rick Santorum: "You fuuuuuu my wife?"Rick Santorum's brother: "How could you ask me a question like that? It's a sick question, you're a sick fuck, and I'm not gonna--wait a minute, what did you say?"Rick Santorum: "You fuuuuuu my wife?"Rick Santorum's brother: "Oh--never mind, I misheard."
― clemenza, Friday, 6 January 2012 04:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
― mookieproof, Friday, 6 January 2012 04:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw really surprised republicans arent holding this blatant display of racism against santorum
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 04:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
just shocked
― k3vin k., Friday, 6 January 2012 05:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, January 5, 2012 7:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
omg omg omg
― horseshoe, Friday, 6 January 2012 05:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
i hope rick santorum is in this thing until the very end somehow
― Best-Penis (buzza), Friday, 6 January 2012 05:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think the full picture is that Santorum is a guy who really wishes he could 1) talk more about race and 2) get told he's really insightful about it
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 05:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
like he's really in his head got all this shit thought out & he's certain he's right & nobody could really disagree with him because the thoughts he has seem so true when he thinks 'em
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 05:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i was having that exact same thought
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 05:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just keep cracking up
― horseshoe, Friday, 6 January 2012 05:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
blah people
i need you guys to make more jokes about this
there's a simliar attempt to cover tracks in a Simpsons script somewhere but I can't quite call it to mind
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 05:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Chalmers: Did that boy say what's a battle?Skinner: No he said What's that rattle, it's about the heating duct.Chalmers: Hmm, it sounded like battle.Skinner: I've had a cold, so--Chalmers: Oh so you hear r's as b's?
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 05:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have told this whole 'black people'/'blah people' thing to my girlfriend and her prize-winning response:
"Damn you Autocorrect!"
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 January 2012 06:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Has anyone been reading Corey Robin? He's been on fire the last couple weeks. I may buy his book, which inspired this scathing Mark Lilla review and this Ta-Nehisi Coates defense.
Anyway, his comments on Paul and liberalism are worth reading.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 14:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
The thing that annoys me the most about Ron Paul supporters, beyond the fact they believe that he would attempt to do what he says he supports is that they never seem to think about the negative consequences of shrinking the government in the way he claims (or as I like to think of it, "throwing all these babies out with the bathwater") or evaluate his record of sneaky legislation.
Paul's record is basically coming out strongly against a bill, attaching a bunch of earmarks and other shady shit he does support but publicly speaks against to it if it stands a good chance of passing, and then voting against it to look like he's ethically consistent.
― mh, Friday, 6 January 2012 14:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
and of course by "government" the supporters mean "federal government." What they want is federalism writ large, which has been a disaster for the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 14:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
When are you blah people going to admit there is no contest?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 6 January 2012 14:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey man dont be raciiii
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 14:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
but he has a blah friend
― prolego, Friday, 6 January 2012 14:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't care if you're blah, whi, purrrrr . . .
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
so i take it, he was going to say black people, got through the bla part when he realized that it would be perceived negatively and tried to elide the rest.
― the acquisition and practice of music is unfavourable to the health of (abanana), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
he really just said black people
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
the blah peoplethe blah people
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
i actually buy his explanation, insofar as the word he was "trying to say" before he "went in a different direction" was in fact "black"
― max, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wow. The commenters ain't takin shit here.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just love that he is "pretty confident" about it. It's his racist idea, coming out of his mouth, and he needs to look at the quote and the video to see what he "thinks" he said.
Appearing on John King USA on Wednesday evening, Rick Santorum denied he said he didn’t want to make “black people’s lives better” during a pre-caucus campaign event Sunday in Sioux City, Iowa. “I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video,” Santorum argued. “In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say black. What I think — I started to say a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.”
― Dan Peterson, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol yes youll recall when first asked abt it he said 'id have to take a look at the context'
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe he has Tourette's and just says "black!" at inopportune times, which he then tries to stifle so it comes out as "blah!"
I mean, he did it again right there in that quote: What I think — I started to say a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
damn it i wish these fuckos would stop blah-... blowing up all over the launching pad. Romney for the next 8 months is going to get really boring really quickly
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-Santorum-that-America-doesnt-know.html
Maybe this was discussed earlier(I haven't read far enough back on this thread, sorry): Santorum the lobbyist
Santorum's wife sues her chiropractor while he pushes tort reform:
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/issues/issues-malpractice.php
― curmudgeon, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum's wife sues her chiropractor while he pushes tort reform
should've been the headline
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney for the next 8 months is going to get really boring really quickly
It's ten months, bub, and don't forget to add Bam's nice-talking authoritarian boredom into the mix.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is Obama really that hard to write?
― Nicole, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
VOTE BAM THANK YOU MA'AM.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
the thing that annoys me abt morbs abt town using 'bam' is its the same nickname the nypost uses, just not good company to keep
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
i was mainly talking about until the GOP convention
xxpost
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^ IRL LOL to Alfred
Anyway, there's a Twitter feed now: http://twitter.com/#!/blah_people
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
tried to find more about this but couldn't because of a media blah-out
― dayo, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
rick santorum doesn't care about blah people
this really is the most amazing thing
I like how *bam* matches the sound of the truncheon against the heads of prisoners he's renditioned abroad.*
*diff from NY Post
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
cool nickname
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
cool blah guy
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
bob loblaw people
― dayo, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
just takin it for a test drive
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
BREAKING: Rick Santorum's official campaign song announced.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
― pplains, Friday, 6 January 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
omg lol on every possible level
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 15:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ra-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-taSex me so good I say blah-blah-blah
― Nicole, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
roffle
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
really do not want to see Santorum take his thong off and his ass go boom
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
lmao nicole
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Lotsa luck, Newtie!
Campaigning in New Hampshire today, Newt promised potential voters at a town hall that he would personally pay a visit to the NAACP and explain to the organization why African Americans need to ditch food stamps.
“I will go to the NAACP convention, and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps,” said Gingrich.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh dear god
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
IT'S YURP FREMMA NEPPA VENETTE
COME ON
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
newt supports reparations, honestly wouldnt have guessed that
― lag∞n, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha is newt endorsing labor keynesianism then?
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait waht?
plz plz plz go to the NAACP Newt
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
omg pp!
― horseshoe, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's almost impossible to describe how much I want Newt to actually do this. I don't want him to even be invited. I want him to crash the convention, stroll to the podium and say that exact thing.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
lolhammer
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
so i wonder where he'll go to explain to white people that they need to "ditch food stamps"
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
[Santorum] is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.
Meh, one out of five ain't bad, I guess.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Waterville Valley?
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
MY PRESIDENT IS BLAH
― we bought a zoo in a hopeless place (some dude), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Ahab is loose in New Hampshire, stalking his great white Mitt"--I like that, even though I get the feeling Newt's supposed apoplexy has cooled.
― clemenza, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol ship
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
blah thought
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
blah like me
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
say it louI'm blah and and I'm prou
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
i will attaand you don't want tha
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Never was the same once Ozzy left.
― pplains, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^ on fah
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
i see a red door and i want it painted... bleuah!!
^ job creator
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 17:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
i left a comment on that shannen coffin post... nothing has appeared yet hmmmmmmmm
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
damn, mooks went viral again on tumblr
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 6 January 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
paint the white house blah
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
this whole story... i can't even. the trolling is getting very arch
[Approved commenter] Hardcastle: 01/06/12 11:31I don't think hSantorum's words are a big deal, but it is simply a lie to keep repeating that he said "black people."
[Approved commenter] RYANT.: 01/06/12 11:47What did he say then Hardcastle?
I mean I know the libs play dirty and I'm happy to be corrected.
But, what could he have said to let his critics allege he said "black people"?
[Approved commenter] Hardcastle: 01/06/12 11:52"Bligh."
[Approved commenter] RYANT.: 01/06/12 12:07
The liberals turned "Bligh" into "Black people"?
Crazy, but I shouldn't be surprised:
They tried to link Romney to the KKK because he said "Let's keep America, America."
Liberals are scum and it is a shame they control the news media.
On another note: i wish Santorum would've clarified that when Sean Hannity asked him about it. He seemed not to recall what he said, and seemed very confused by the question.
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
i cant keep track of whos being serious where
― max, Friday, 6 January 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
i know, right?
"it is a shame they control the news media"
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
bligh people
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Friday, 6 January 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
nro commenters have entered their mannerist phase
― max, Friday, 6 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
PPG: 01/06/12 12:03
I think all you need to look at is the black man standing behind Santorum. He puts his head down, and as soon as Santorum says the word in question, his head pops up. (Best view is 1m55s on this video External Link ). The reaction of the only black man in the room is enough evidence for me. He has a boom mic and professional headphones and can probably hear Santorum better than anyone else. Watch and see. That is if all the racists here don't faint in surprise at the sight of a black man earning his own money for himself and/or his family.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
MJM22: 01/06/12 11:37
Before watching it, I wanted to believe he said it, or stopped himself halfway through the word. I couldn't wait to hear him saying "black." But I don't hear it. I have to admit, he stumbled. On his way to saying "people's lives" he contracted it to "plai--" with a soft p, backed up and started again. If he had started to say "black" there would have been some kind of "oops" registration on his face, which there is not. Not even a flicker. So, either he's the greatest actor on the planet or he stumbled over "people's lives."
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^ this is the only halfway plausible "he didn't say black" argument I've seen
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
has anyone interviewed The Only Black Man in the Room
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
The dogwshitle tradition, though, dictates that getting ppl off welfare or food stamps or whatever is only brought up in the context of race. It's both a deflection from the Small Govmnt/States' Rights tradition that took over the GOP w/Reagan and a disculpatory sleight of hand to the racists backing the GOP that, 'No, it's the patronizing Democrats who are the real racists, not you.'
Why else would he even have brought it up like that?
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
At least Newt does this blatantly but then I guess he kind of revels in pissing ppl off sanctimoniously.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
what he did is what i've done hundreds of time with peoples' names that i suddenly find myself unsure about.
i'm about to go all "hey, BETTY" and suddenly realize that might not be the name i ought to be using - i get the fear - some little cashew of brain matter seizes up, trying to protect me - and i go "hey, BETthe----*** -- WHAT'S UP" like that is just a normal fucking way to talk or something.
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
love this photo
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Uh:
Unlike New Hampshire, where Molly Ball showed how hard it can be for a values candidate to make a connection, South Carolina is a land where mixing in some ol’ time religion into your stump speech is very much appreciated in a lot of places. In addition, the state is home to a lot of veterans and active-duty military. Perry is a vet himself, and can speak their language, too.The combo went down very well for Perry in South Carolina in months past. In August, I spent a couple days following Perry around the state. He was so famous back then a guy literally stopped on his way to pick up his wife who was going into labor to have her talk to Perry on a cell phone.
The combo went down very well for Perry in South Carolina in months past. In August, I spent a couple days following Perry around the state. He was so famous back then a guy literally stopped on his way to pick up his wife who was going into labor to have her talk to Perry on a cell phone.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 January 2012 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meanwhile:
Appearing before a largely youthful crowd in Dublin, NH, Rick Santorum reiterated his staunch opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” When asked by an audience member how he reconciles his small government orthodoxy with anti-gay rights positions, Santorum suggested that the reversal of the policy has opened the door for individuals who will undermine the strength of the United States military: "I would say that serving in the military is not a right; it's a privilege. Not everyone is selected. People are chosen based on who will make us the best fighting force in the world, and I don't think that includes those who are openly homosexual."
"I would say that serving in the military is not a right; it's a privilege. Not everyone is selected. People are chosen based on who will make us the best fighting force in the world, and I don't think that includes those who are openly homosexual."
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 January 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters whether Santorum said "black people" or "blah people" or "pligh people" or whatever. We shouldn't have to study one mangled word under a microscope to try to determine if someone is a racist or not. Even if he clearly said "black people", would that be conclusive proof of racism? After all, couldn't he have misspoke? Weirder brain-farts have happened. I think there's got to be better evidence than one Youtube gotcha moment to indicate a politician's attitudes on race (or anything else for that matter).
― o. nate, Friday, 6 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
what's he doing with his right hand
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
killing a baby
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
If you know what I mean, right?
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, I was gonna say, that Obama/abortion clip, which I hadn't seen before today, seems a bigger deal to me than the whole blah-gate whatever, but Santorum says something reprehensible to me pretty much any time he opens his mouth.
― Dan Peterson, Friday, 6 January 2012 20:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's reprehensible, but it's not quite racist in the way "black people = WELFARE" is
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
An alternate world for the Cure suggests itself.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 January 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I can't believe that you, as a [y] person, don't believe [x]" is the simplest example of a bigoted, prejudicial statement; a white casting it at Obama in terms of race is a bald statement that he is not acting like a black person should and is unambiguously racist.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
fyi I had the phrase "white person" in my head as I was typing but apparently it didn't make it all the way to my fingers
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
my horrible, racist fingers ;_;
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rick Santorum is a bumblr white
― Bon Ivoj (jaymc), Friday, 6 January 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
a white casting it at Obama
But my family all support Obama. Why would we do this?
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 6 January 2012 21:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
a white casting it at Obama in terms of race is a bald statement that he is not acting like a black person should and is unambiguously racist
Would it still be a racist statement if it was made by a black person though? I could imagine someone saying, "We as black people should be especially sensitive to human rights issues", and I don't think anyone would consider that racist. So is the offensive part presuming to speak about another group?
― o. nate, Friday, 6 January 2012 21:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I find it somewhat upsetting that you have to ask that question because, as a minority in the US, it is very obvious to me.
You are also likely missing out the US right subtext of describing modern abortion as a tool used by the racist left to control the population of poor urban black people.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's like what aero pointed out up there, santorum has the problem of deeply believing in all the half-assed justifications the right has come up with for its positions over the years, and then stating them in a way that would make a comment box troll take a second edit.
they've traded around the idea that the anti-abortion fight is just like the civil rights or anti-slavery fight, and that planned parenthood was founded with some queasy racist-eugenicist ideas about poverty that it is still trying to carry out in the present. out of santorum's mouth it comes out HIM BLACK WHY HIM NO CARE OF BLACK FETUS
they've also flipped from nakedly protecting the privileges of whites to arguing sideways that public sector redistribution has made poor people dependent and weak, and again he can barely say anything on this except I BLIEVE IN U WORK HARD LAZY NEGROS
(exactly how these two things are supposed to work in tandem is another thing...)
― goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 21:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry, I wasn't trying to argue the point, just trying to clarify things in my own mind. There's so many bizarre elements in that Santorum statement I was just trying to unpack them a bit. I know there's a context in the US by pro-life groups to try to make a racial issue out of abortion, in a way that rightly raises some hackles.
― o. nate, Friday, 6 January 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahahaha goole is so OTM
no worries dude, obv I am Touchy McToucherson in these conversations at times
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 21:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
No problem, I could have phrased my post a bit better. I second the OTM of Goole's post. When Santorum (and Gingrich and others) say things like that, I wonder who their real audience is. Are they really trying to persuade blacks with those kind of half-baked, condescending platitudes, or are they actually just scoring points with their mostly white, conservative audience by tweaking the rules of liberal media decorum?
― o. nate, Friday, 6 January 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
theres something so gross about santorum invoking slavery & the history of black america with this kind of authority like he has *any clue*
― max, Friday, 6 January 2012 22:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
its like that fucking forbes article "If I Was a Poor Black Kid"
Eh, first time I watched it I even didn't hear it, and I thought it was the wrong clip. Second time, after finding out where it is, I spotted it. I think the first time through I thought he said "making alot of people's lives better".
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not that the dick deserves a defense, but I think I follow his logic. If I was anti-abortion because I believe fetuses are people, and people have rights or civil liberties or whatever, then I would be angry that someone wanted to take away their civil liberties, particularly someone of African descent, who should know a thing or two about having your civil liberties curtailed. Still takes some massive balls and smug boneheadedness to even imply that someone of African descent need be reminded of this.
It's sort of akin to this notion that his freedom of religion is being impinged upon by people thwarting his desire to impose religion-based laws that would limit the rights of others.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 6 January 2012 22:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, January 6, 2012 8:38 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, January 6, 2012 8:41 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I lol'd so fucking hard at this, thank you both
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's in the Bible:
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Rick just followin' the Bible here.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 6 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
santorum is pure evil, but i sort of hope his campaign makes some hay if only to continue the shitshow of the republican party 2012. i doubt even as bad as american is we would elect a borderline insane dork that doesn't even believe in jacking off.
― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is some next level shittiness
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
how does santorum feel about vasectomies/tubal ligations? (srsly)
― mookieproof, Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
how do you even get through life saying the shit he says, it is mindblowing
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is just a full on battle to see who can be the most racist now
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
why the fuck are ron paul people attacking jon huntsman
― iatee, Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
do they want to steal his .5% support
ron paul people think this is a ploy by the huntsman campaign to siphon votes off of ron paul
you got to give it up to these people, they bring the lols
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
You people know what is really sad about Jon attacking Ron??? Many Paul supporters including myself really liked Jon and would have voted for him if he became the strongest candidate! Not now, you just alienated a lot of smart motivated people!!!AliceInWonderlandSyn 2 minutes ago 4
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
the article makes that clear but just in case people are scanning and not really paying attention:
the video was made by some deranged ron paul supporter, not the actual ron paul campaign
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but the actual ron paul campaign was zinging huntsman on twitter iirc
― iatee, Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
that probably set off one of the crazies
Rick Santorum allies himself with Quiverfull types i.e. he is openly against contraception.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost oh, i see. i'd like to get a transcription of what Huntsman is saying in the video. there's a part near the end where it says "What exactly does Huntsman stand for?", followed by a clip of Huntsman speaking in Chinese to a camera, and although almost zero Chinese, i do recognize that he's saying the word "America" or "Americans" several times in the clip. it's like...uh..he appears to be representing america...in his role as the ambassador to china...
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Memo to Santorum: if you're going to misspeak, go nuts.
― clemenza, Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
"the video was made by some deranged ron paul supporter, not the actual ron paul campaign"
this ad is so over the top i pretty much believe this, but there is a long tradition of unofficial "supporters" being used as proxy bulldogs to inflict damage the real campaign pretends to abhor but is happy to take advantage of
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
and in some cases the campaign actually orchestrates cf swiftboaters for truth etc etfc
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
free speech whaddya gonna do ¯\(º o)/¯
― mookieproof, Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
ok when mccain doubles over and makes a funny noise in that clip I lose my fucking shit
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's like he's suddenly tussling for a chew toy with somebody in the front row!
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 01:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
there is a long tradition of unofficial "supporters" being used as proxy bulldogs
hence that George Clooney "Obama has been a triumphant success, I am disappointed in the disappointed" interview couple weeks ago
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 7 January 2012 02:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum speaks to NH college audience, turns into prissy tantrum-throwing foot stomper: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71176.html
Santorum then attacked President Obama for believing in government by “the top down.”“We declared independence from a king who believed in government from the top down,” Santorum said, “a king who ruled by divine right, a right he believed given to him by God.”Some kids looked at each other as if to ask: Is this going to be on the final?“The right to life is a controversy these days,” Santorum said, adding in a mocking tone: “ ‘What are you doing in my bedroom?’ Well, the right to life has nothing to do with the bedroom!”While everyone was grappling with that, Santorum explained that when the Declaration of Independence promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it did not mean happiness as we know it today.“Happiness is not enjoyment or pleasure,” Santorum said. “Happiness means to do the right thing. To do not what we want to do, but what we ought to do.”Santorum also attacked the American education system “Why do we concentrate on what George Washington did wrong?” he asked. “He had slaves. If that’s all you’ve learned, you haven’t learned the great things he’s done.”Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71176.html#ixzz1ijrXWjeZ
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71176.html#ixzz1ijrXWjeZ
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Saturday, 7 January 2012 03:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^ This man (RS) has been devoured by a catholic theologian.
― Aimless, Saturday, 7 January 2012 03:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hoooly crap... keep it classy Dr. Paul!
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Saturday, 7 January 2012 03:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.newt.org/notromney
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 7 January 2012 06:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
I missed this. That's kinda depressing; I'd have guessed based on the pretty-meh Ides that he was at least cognizant of Bam's average-politico nature. But I guess that was giving him too much credit.
― Simon H., Saturday, 7 January 2012 06:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
When are you guys going to start calling Romney "Rom"?
― Nicole, Saturday, 7 January 2012 12:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Saturday, 7 January 2012 13:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
That seems more appropriate than a ny post concocted nickname!
― Nicole, Saturday, 7 January 2012 13:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
“Why do we concentrate on what George Washington did wrong?” he asked. “He had slaves. If that’s all you’ve learned, you haven’t learned the great things he’s done.”
this is pretty far out imo, i mean obviously there is a sound objection to the way he's thinking but it is one of those telling things to be outraged by. particularly if you are embroiled in racism controversies.
― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Saturday, 7 January 2012 13:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
registering my lols @ the anti-huntsman ad
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Saturday, 7 January 2012 13:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Reporting from Manchester, N.H.— For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."
Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."
Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."
The Santorum Surge will soon be over as quickly as it began.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Saturday, 7 January 2012 14:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."
1 of the most awkwardly worded "AMIRITES?" ive ever seen
― oneohtrix and park (m bison), Saturday, 7 January 2012 14:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true
He's just channeling Barry Goldwater.
― clemenza, Saturday, 7 January 2012 14:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm prob over-thinking this but when i first saw the Huntsman attack ad i thought it might be someone just using "NHLiberty4Paul" to troll Paul fanatics
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Saturday, 7 January 2012 15:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
(not that i can't fathom one of his rank & file supporters being super racist)
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Saturday, 7 January 2012 15:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also from that Nh College Santorum transcript, what the hell is this supposed to mean? “America is not a melting pot,” he said. “It’s a salad bowl.” is he speaking of the evils of miscegenation? or just that he wants to toss salads?
― dsb, Saturday, 7 January 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
A step too far? seriously don't know what he is trying to say...
― dsb, Saturday, 7 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
"A salad bowl! With creamy dressing!"
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 7 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meanwhile -- here they come, walking down the lobby...
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 7 January 2012 18:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
From said story:
“Someone needs to run for leader of the brothers,” Matt joked.“Arm-wrestle for it,” Craig suggested. The banter was playful, but it hinted at a larger truth about their place in the campaign. Even in a year when the brothers were supposed to have receded from public view, particularly when compared with their father’s campaign four years ago, they have become an essential part of what sells the Mitt Romney story....But in an age when complicated, messy families increasingly seem like the new normal, there was a sense four years ago that the Romney brothers were too strapping, too wholesome and too perfect somehow.“I wish that were true,” Tagg said. (In a teenage act that counts as rebellion in the Romney family, Tagg once borrowed his father’s car without his permission after a church dance to get ice cream with some friends, and promptly nicked another car in the parking lot. It was an expensive dent that he worked all summer to pay off).
“Arm-wrestle for it,” Craig suggested.
The banter was playful, but it hinted at a larger truth about their place in the campaign. Even in a year when the brothers were supposed to have receded from public view, particularly when compared with their father’s campaign four years ago, they have become an essential part of what sells the Mitt Romney story.
...
But in an age when complicated, messy families increasingly seem like the new normal, there was a sense four years ago that the Romney brothers were too strapping, too wholesome and too perfect somehow.
“I wish that were true,” Tagg said. (In a teenage act that counts as rebellion in the Romney family, Tagg once borrowed his father’s car without his permission after a church dance to get ice cream with some friends, and promptly nicked another car in the parking lot. It was an expensive dent that he worked all summer to pay off).
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 7 January 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
jus' folks!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 7 January 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
are the humanoids on the right deliberately flaunting their profiles?
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 7 January 2012 18:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Their head lock positions are at 0/90/180/270 degrees.
― questino (seandalai), Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hey hey, they're the Romneys. People say they Romney around.
― Let A Man Come In And Do The Cop Porn (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
was a plastic mask surgically inserted under his skin?
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
need more pix of huntsman gals
― buzza, Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201201/jon-huntsman-daughters-mary-anne-liddy-abby-gq-january-2012
― buzza, Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait so mitt romney is ty burrell's dad?
― Is Pierce marijuana, and does marijuana help people move faster? (stevie), Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
is tagg named taggart because of atlas shrugged?
smdh
― mookieproof, Saturday, 7 January 2012 19:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've never understand Mormon's love of the rantings of an atheistic, heavy smoking "rationalist"... but then again they tend to handle cognitive dissonance better than I can.
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Saturday, 7 January 2012 20:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
* Mormons'... I don't think the great prophet and general was aware of Objectivism :D.
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Saturday, 7 January 2012 20:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know about Taggert Romney, but I think I may have unearthed a clue about the namesake of Willard "Mitt" Romney:
― Aimless, Saturday, 7 January 2012 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
How come we never see the Hunstman boys, or the adopted kids? Does he not want people to know he has seven kids?
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 7 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
― buzza, Saturday, 7 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^ obviously a dangerous sociopath in that video
― Aimless, Saturday, 7 January 2012 22:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
question for process experts here - I know from when my stepdad used to run for Congress every four years that in California if you get a certain % of total votes, you qualify (or used to) to receive some kind of funding from the state. is there anything like that at the federal level, some sort of "below x percentage, no funding"? this would sort of explain ridiculous fighting between candidates who're nowhere near getting the nomination
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 7 January 2012 22:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
it hinted at a larger truth
this, in every campaign "analysis" or color piece x1000000 for the next 10 months
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 23:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't know shit about huntsman but you gotta like that video
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 7 January 2012 23:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Last minute prep:
― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 8 January 2012 01:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Remember: not 'Newt' or 'Rick' or 'Ron'--'that one.'"
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Absolutely, totally, fundamentally, not bad so far. Romney must love these guys sniping at each other but just barely at him. My favourite moment so far was the look of complete indignation and confusion on Perry's face when Paul said, "You keep calling me a libertarian, Rick..." Don't forget, Governor--two Ricks up there.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 02:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
yer party needs 5% of the campaign vote to get federal funds the next election but that doesn't affect anybody running for the republican nomination and would only be relevant if one of these dudes was planning a nader-esque multiple year 3rd party run
― iatee, Sunday, 8 January 2012 02:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
er 'campaign vote' should just be uh 'national vote'
santorum just claimed we don't have classes in america
"well, maybe the middle income people"
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
"And if you don't like middle-income people, let's call them middle-Earth people."
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
I guess everyone else just gave up. At 10:27--actually made note of the time--Santorum launched a fairly tepid attack at Romney. Virtually nothing from Gingrich. No one burned the roof. No one came close. Tomorrow morning, we'll do it again.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait was there another debate tonight? I completely burned out on the debates, like 18-years-old-and-there's-a-new-flavor-of-Doritos burned out, they'd have to do it gladiator style to make me actually watch another one
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
might be worth it for gingrich, idk
― iatee, Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh wait it already happened and clemenza watched it and that didn't happen nvm
― iatee, Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
I feel like I know so much about gingrich after reading two profiles on him
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
I feel like one of those people the FBI hires to profile serial killers based on cut up magazine pages left at a crime scene, I think I have a good handle on newt
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
he is probably a fucking lunatic
I'm so stumped by Gingrich's complete abdication tonight. Maybe he lost nerve, maybe he thought better of it, maybe it's just too difficult to go after anyone when there are six people up there. Only time he got really angry was when Paul called him on his lack of military service.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 03:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
well it's gotta be exhausting straight hating on literally all your peers 24 hours a day
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe he realized he could piss of liberals more by not attacking romney and making them watch the debate anyway
― iatee, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
he's like 5 steps ahead of us
― iatee, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mission accomplished...Sullivan just reminded me of one of the funniest lines of the night: Perry said that Iran will be back in Iraq now "literally at the speed of light." I'm really going to miss him.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp lol otm Newt's central goal is to anger the maximum # of people per gesture or non-gesture
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Steamtable Willie (WmC), Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Josh Marshall: "The entire evening read like the other candidates are either resigned to Romney's expanding lead or were simply unaware of it." My guess: four resigned, one unaware.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
The "Romney won the debate because he wasn't knocked out" analysis doesn't sit right. His answers are defensive even when he's not being attacked. And that exchange with Stephanopolous about the contraception issue was extremely awkward. Whether or not people noticed that he didn't answer the question after being asked at least four times, who knows?
Huntsman had a better night. (Santorum, fwiw, did not.)
― timellison, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
When Stephanopoulos got onto contraception, I knew it was theoretically a legitimate question, I knew it tied into Roe vs. Wade, and I knew it was the kind of question that forces Republicans to carry out their beliefs to their logical conclusions. And Romney was definitely ducking. But in all honesty, I shared Romney's exasperation. To me, it wasn't all that different from Republicans deflecting the gay-marriage question with all sorts of nonsensical things that just aren't going to happen.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney did look stupid not knowing the Supreme Court precedent, though.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
the major contraception case was griswold v connecticut
― rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Sunday, 8 January 2012 04:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meanwhile in lala land:
Being willing to push back against the MSM with the right amount of disdain is a delicate balancing act, easily overdone. But it is what Romney did with the astonishing exchange with George Stephanopoulos on contraception, and when George doubled and then tripled down on the inanity, not only did the audience boo the former Clinton front-man, the nation groaned, and Romney deftly hammered him again and again. If it was a fight it would have been stopped, and the exchange seemed to have rattled both Diane Sawyer and Stephanopoulos who struggled to ask good questions or follow-up appropriately throughout.
You can’t plan a “I paid for this microphone” moment, but Romney’s “silly” rebuff to Stephanopoulos was pretty close, and Newt’s following slam on how the reverse sort of question is never asked completed the rout of ABC.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 8 January 2012 05:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Astonishing, no. But whatever Stephanopoulos's point, it got undermined by general "Is he really asking this?" befuddlement.
Thought I heard some name like Griswold in there. It made me think of Plan 9 from Outer Space.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 05:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
the nation groaned
― mookieproof, Sunday, 8 January 2012 06:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
― mookieproof, Sunday, 8 January 2012 07:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
wow love that a lot
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 8 January 2012 13:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
is there an emoticon for santorum's expression there? Something between :) and "go fuck yourself"?
― Clay, Sunday, 8 January 2012 13:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
this vanity fair profile of mitt isn't quite gotcha! material but it confirms that he's a cold-hearted imperious prick underneath his veneer
― chief rocker frankie crocker (m coleman), Sunday, 8 January 2012 14:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202
― chief rocker frankie crocker (m coleman), Sunday, 8 January 2012 14:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Much better this morning. (Yes, another one.) I think Perry's the only guy up there who the others still like. He's like a harmless mascot at this point--his last answer was genuinely funny.
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 14:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Has Romney's numbers against the entire Republican primary slate ever floated much farther up than 24% or whatever?
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 8 January 2012 14:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nationally, I think he's still pretty close to 25%; in New Hampshire and South Carolina, though, he's well above at the moment (40-50%).
― clemenza, Sunday, 8 January 2012 14:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
it confirms that he's a cold-hearted imperious prick underneath his veneer
So another great twinning for the fall campaign. "You're likable enough, Mitt."
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 8 January 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
jeezus, neither have most Democratic pols since Bubba; wake up.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 8 January 2012 15:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
contraception question was relevant because romney tried to ban over-the-counter emergency contraception in MA.
― the acquisition and practice of music is unfavourable to the health of (abanana), Sunday, 8 January 2012 16:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh mean what Obama did for the whole nation? that dangerous Mitt Romney!!
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Sunday, 8 January 2012 16:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
― rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Sunday, 8 January 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Holy shit, was there another debate this morning?
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 8 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Do these knobs actually have anything to debate, or is it all jockeying/posturing for position somewhere in Santorum's ultra conservative orbit?
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 8 January 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
How to play dumb
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/08/mitt_romney_and_the_power_of_playing_dumb/singleton/
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 8 January 2012 18:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney does have an air of unfrozen caveman lawyer to him, doesn't he?
― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 8 January 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
― the acquisition and practice of music is unfavourable to the health of (abanana), Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:29 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:33 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Sunday, January 8, 2012 5:39 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
angry lol @ this
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, 8 January 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama needs to debate a rep from this board
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 8 January 2012 20:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
everyone practice by starting their posts with 'look . . .'
― mookieproof, Sunday, 8 January 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
but, you see, that won't do any good
― Aimless, Sunday, 8 January 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
my friend
― Aimless, Sunday, 8 January 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
wtf are you guys talking about re: emergency contraception? It's still available over the counter at a pharmacy w/no prescription, but Sebelius vetoed extending the eligible group to a younger age range, correct? I still think that it's generally a bullshit veto, but it's a far cry from getting rid of it entirely
― mh, Sunday, 8 January 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Did you not see the political compass thread?
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Sunday, 8 January 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah we know, deep breath xp
― rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Sunday, 8 January 2012 21:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nah I avoided it, figured I'd catch up via clusterfuck thread. x-p
― mh, Sunday, 8 January 2012 22:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
before angrily posting something on a politics thread you should have to first check off a disclaimer that you've taken a look at the political compass thread and know what you're getting into
― Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2012 01:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
OK, so I looked at it and most of us are lower left quadrant
Now what's this crap about EC?
― mh, Monday, 9 January 2012 01:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
holy shits has this been posted
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 04:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
and that's funded by a Pro-Gingrich Super PAC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/us/politics/pro-gingrich-pac-plans-tv-ads-against-romney.html?pagewanted=all
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Monday, 9 January 2012 04:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think it's crazy to expect the above to be the #1 dem narrative of a boring + nasty campaign season
― iatee, Monday, 9 January 2012 04:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
"foreign seed money from Latin America"
― buzza, Monday, 9 January 2012 04:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sir James Goldsmith cameo, too!
― carson dial, Monday, 9 January 2012 04:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
So this rant starts:
A lot of people don’t believe Rick Perry’s a conservative. Well, those people are wrong. They’re dead wrong. I don’t care what you say, or where you come from with some jimmy-rigged information from the bottom of a barrel concerning dead pigeons and a shot gun linking back to Rick Perry with the letter L on it. It doesn’t stand for Liberal; it stands for Liberty.It’s time some one ran through every little nitpick on Rick Perry. I refuse to let this man fail without a fight from myself. God put Rick in this race, and now it’s time for all of us to fight for him.
It’s time some one ran through every little nitpick on Rick Perry. I refuse to let this man fail without a fight from myself. God put Rick in this race, and now it’s time for all of us to fight for him.
And then this person posts:
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 January 2012 06:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I find this bid for the christian puppy vote is v. compelling.
― Aimless, Monday, 9 January 2012 06:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
that man is gayer than andrew sullivan
― Waxahachie Swap (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 9 January 2012 06:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
look at him
― iatee, Sunday, January 8, 2012 11:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
well id take issue w/boring
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 13:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
On a different note, why is "technocratic" also used in a pejorative sense nowadays? I've missed something, I think.
― Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Monday, 9 January 2012 14:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
luddites
― mh, Monday, 9 January 2012 14:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
really, what is more fun than two 1% stooges going at it; the NYT Mag even told us yeaterday how great the circus is.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 15:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
really, what is more fun than two 1% stooges going at it
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
third-party run by Curly is a big assumption
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
so has there been any concerted effort on the part of Dems to muck up Romney's inevitability in the NH primary? or plans for it in other open primary states?
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Monday, 9 January 2012 16:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
He has stood there before inside the pouring rain:
http://www.kingofbain.com/
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 January 2012 17:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
The video's already in the thread, I was just amused by the URL.
And then of course, this morning's joy:
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 January 2012 17:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, January 9, 2012 10:10 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
morbs doth protest
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
"'Ron Paul, we have you surrounded. We are the media,' sounded a voice from a megaphone"
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/203039-media-mob-forces-paul-to-leave-nh-campaign-event-early
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 9 January 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Holding the megaphone was a man dressed roughly as a wizard, with shaggy hair and tousled beard, wearing a massive black boot upside down on his head.
One woman, dressed all in red with a colonial-style blue hat, waited for Paul while carrying a 4-by-3-foot sign showing Paul — an obstetrician — wearing green scrubs and holding a baby wrapped in an American flag."
loooooool
i think that second person might have actually been a real supporter, too
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Monday, 9 January 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
the best part was the whiny lady who was like "he just lost some votes for refusing to meet with voters"
fuck you, you entitled new hampshire fucks.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 9 January 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
lmao ron paul milieu
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Holding the megaphone was a man dressed roughly as a wizard, with shaggy hair and tousled beard, wearing a massive black boot upside down on his head..."
Oh, that must have been Vermin Supreme
― Mayan Calendar Deren (doo dah), Monday, 9 January 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol of course
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
In 2006, Vermin Supreme underwent a kidney transplantation to save his mother. In 2011, he declared that if he became President, he would make kidney transplantation compulsory for everyone.
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
"You have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?" --Newt Gingrich
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
next question
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
occupy newt street
― iatee, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
meanwhile, Michele Bachmann is off on the side shouting "I TOLD YOU THEY WERE ALL SOCIALISTS"
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
omfg @ "I like firing people"
Obama will kick this guy around like a fucking tin can
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mitt Romney. Was he a job creator or a corporate raider?
That's the question this film answers.
And it’s not pretty.
Mitt Romney was not a capitalist during his reign at Bain. He was a predatory corporate raider. His firm didn't seek to create value. Instead, like a scavenger, Romney looked for businesses he could pick apart. Indeed, he represented the worst possible kind of predator, operating within the law but well outside the bounds of what most real capitalists consider ethical.
He is exhibit number one the left wants to use in the coming election to give capitalism a bad name.
He and his friends at Bain were bad guys. Any real capitalists should disavow Romney's ‘creative destruction’ model that made him wealthy at the expense of thousands of American jobs.
Mitt Romney and his cronies pioneered ‘deindustrialization,’ a process by which they searched out vulnerable companies, took them over, loaded them with debt, and collected obscene fees while doing so. He sent jobs overseas or killed them altogether, and then picked apart the remains - including pension funds - before the companies went bankrupt.
Some might call that the free market. Most of us think its just plain wrong.
If you wonder why America has lost so many manufacturing jobs overseas, look no further than Mitt Romney – the King of Bain.
Think you know Mitt?
Think again . . .
― goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Any real capitalists should disavow Romney's ‘creative destruction’ model
― occupy the A train (difficult listening hour), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am not at all surprised that Mitt thinks that, but what a colossally stupid thing to say out loud in an election year.
― Nicole, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also I am waiting for someone to photoshop Mitt with Bane from The Dark Knight Rises.
― Nicole, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol Larison on Huntsman:
Huntsman is much more like McCain than I originally thought in that he tends to be “centrist” on certain issues when it will put him at odds with most of the country, and then stubbornly hard-line on issues when a more accommodating, flexible position would be both popular and wise.
― goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
described that way huntsman sounds like hed make a good ilm poster
― max, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Huntsman has also revealed himself to be a third-rate politician.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I like firing people" is Mitt's bitterly-clinging-to-guns-and-religion moment. As someone who has always received service, but never worked in a service job, this thought is so unchallengeable, he literally couldn't see the rake he was stepping on.
― Aimless, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
Maybe he is trying for the Trump voting block?
― polyphonic, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
only illuminating thing is that romney was trying to connect with a NH constituency by casting household health finance in terms of being some kind of management big shot.
as if dropping one kind of insurance coverage in favor of another is some kind of "clear out your desk, we're done here!" kind of moment.
or, polyphonic otm
― goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's tone deaf, but y'know he's talkin bout Bam dere.
so half the country feel the same way.
(also, whittled-down and out of context, but hey it's not Your Guy)
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”
― goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
not v damning imo
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
"by the way, when I say 'insurance company' I really mean 'Obama'"
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
tone deaf counts, because it means he never learned the words or music you want to dance to.
― Aimless, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
gifs of Morbs dancing plz
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
when I say 'insurance company' I really mean 'Obama'
but he does!
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
― goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
hmmmmmmmmmm
Wha? That's precisely the 'theory' behind HMOs, which, as we all know, has produced a phenomenally healthy nation, doing well by doing good as we like to say, and if by your ill-luck you actually DO need some health care, they cheerfully pay up... and THAT's the rest of the fairy story.
― Aimless, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Interesting. Why just Todd and not Sarah?
― Nicole, Monday, 9 January 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Found this to be a very interesting conversation about Ron Paul between John McWhorter and Glenn Loury:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/eavesdrop-on-the-webs-most-interesting-ron-paul-debate/250725/
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 9 January 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
hi welcome to american business since 1978
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 9 January 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
"real capitalists"
i'd have thought that newt, of all people, would respect the creativity of destruction
― mookieproof, Monday, 9 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
that todd endoreses newt thing is transparent isn't it - todd endorses newt, palinistas get the batsignal to vote newt, newt gives the veep to palin. he's the only candidate cynical enough to want her in the race.
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I didn't think it out that far aero but it makes a lot of sense... at least I think we can expect Newt to at least *float her name* and suggest she's on the shortlist.
― Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think it'll get Newt to the nomination but I think that's the idea
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
― goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
not a comment on the likelihood of that scenario but I have a VERY difficult time looking at a Gingrich/Palin '12 ticket and thinking "well that makes sense"
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Why just Todd and not Sarah?xpTo paraphrase Blagoevich, she thinks her endorsement is pure gold and it's too soon to tell how to cash it in the most profitably. Keeping her powder dry, fer sure.
― Aimless, Monday, 9 January 2012 22:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
does palin really still have any draw? i'd think it would pale beside that of rubio, etc.
― mookieproof, Monday, 9 January 2012 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
hell of a difference between whether she has any draw and whether she thinks she has any draw
― unattractive on the g side (a hoy hoy), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
You don't want to piss off Palin, though. It's just that Florida is more important and a good showing amongst Latinos is more important than firing up the Palinista base
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think aero's suggestion makes a lot of sense, and there's no way that Rubio would ever get involved with a Newt shit show
(surely?)
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
― mookieproof, Monday, January 9, 2012 5:01 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yes exactly, republicans tying themselves in knots attemping to demonize the v behavior theyve spent their careers cheerfully promoting is a lol for sure
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 January 2012 22:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
She doesn't want the veep this time around, I don't think. Her other gigs are raking in too much money. My guess is she knows the wrong endorsement at this time could hurt her among her followers, who haven't coalesced around any single candidate, yet. That's why Todd is acting as the surrogate right now. It retains her deniability.
I predict she won't put her own name to an endorsement until the fog clears and whatever she does looks like a safe bet. If she can use the endorsement to boost herself, she will. Otherwise, she'll fall in line behind Willard after the convention, while sending all sorts of signals to her posse that she knows how pathetic he is.
― Aimless, Monday, 9 January 2012 22:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
from a lol perspective it's the only sensible choice
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
from a lol standpoint, nothing will beat Gingrich/Gibson with a beaver hand puppet '12
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
must resist joek
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
but it's just sitting there, waiting for you
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm thinking more that he's going to get special-effected into a certain television show.
In the context in which he said it, it seems as silly to me as guns-and-religion in '08. But that did linger with Obama, and this may linger with Romney.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 04:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
that this is legal is fairly insane
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
money on gingrich is wasted money
― the acquisition and practice of music is unfavourable to the health of (abanana), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
But for Mr. Gingrich, the donation could be both boon and burden: Mr. Adelson comes with potential liabilities. His main source of income, casinos, could upset some social conservatives. That he operates in China could rankle isolationist voters, while some of his views on Israel are hawkish by mainstream Republican standards.
sometimes i can kinda see why right-wingers complain about the Times. this is all speculative concern-trolling on behalf of imagined conservatives. (plus i doubt sheldon adelson's "views on israel are hawkish by mainstream republican standards." i mean, what would that even be.)
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
anyway it's funny to see the anti-newt people circling the wagons and start caring about the finer points of campaign finance:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287652/gingrich-and-his-super-pac-video-deroy-murdock
Gingrich may be in hotter water, however, for his super PAC’s video slamming Romney for his Bain years. As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and my old friend Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator wrote today, at Sunday’s Meet the Press debate, Gingrich seemed very familiar with that upcoming video and its contents and sources — perhaps excessively so. Candidates and their super PACs are not supposed to coordinate their activities. If Gingrich were not in touch with his super PAC, how did he know so many apparent details about this video?
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Money dirtying Romney is not wasted money!
― Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
well it may be wasted for Adelson's purposes but if some rich asshole wants to waste his money helping Romney and the GOP lose from my POV that's money well spent lol
otoh it totally shouldn't be legal in the first place
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can envision Bam quoting Newt's attacks on Mittens, that'll make you all feel extra good about doing your robotic duty.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's true, I love doing the robot
― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
why do you think people 'feel good' about any of this
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
(New avatar for Morbius.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 18:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
If Obama is 'Bam' can I start calling him Dr. Orby for his amazing perceptive powers?
― mh, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Orbitz
― Nicole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Let's stay focussed here.
New Hampshire primary is TONIGHT and we're all just standing around with our finger in, while there are burning questions to be asked. Will Congressman Paul make a secondary, tertiary, or quarternary primary splash? Will Newt's attack ads on Willard depress NH voters into staying in bed all day? I want prognostications and I want them NOW, people! Let's show some HUSTLE!
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
90% of you are clearly rooting against Romney, whereas anyone against the oligarchy should be rooting hard for Maximum Obamney.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
The devil we already know is the right man for the job. We boo and hiss the devil we don't know.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
lols @ maobama
― bob loblaw people (dayo), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
maobama looks v cheerful
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
can't believe ILXers aren't more excited about the Huntsman Hustle, dude is SURGING
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
eww
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Huntsman appears saner than any of his competitors, but he'd still be a total disaster in the White House, bcz politics, bro.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Huntsman entertaining a campaign stop with an impromptu version of China Pig
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum, yesterday (got it from The New Republic):
"Look at the guys that we voted on when it was their turn. Jerry Ford, it was his turn...let's put up Bob Dole, because it's his turn...let's put up John McCain, because it's his turn. Those moderates who can win. Those moderates who can win -- according to who? According to the national media and according to the experts who don't want a conservative and don't want a Republican. Ladies and gentlemen, we win elections when our people are excited about who to vote for...I remind you, in 1980, when we had another critical election, when we had another Democratic president running the country into the ground...we had a choice in the Republican primary. We had the establishment who the money was behind and the mainstream was behind in the Republican Party and that was George H.W. Bush and he won Iowa. But when New Hampshire people, moderate New Hampshire, moderate to liberal New Hampshire, when they voted, the people here in New Hampshire said, we're going to vote for what America needs, not what we're being told to do by people with money and power in the Republican Party...and you voted for Ronald Reagan. And if it wasn't for New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan would never have been president. Think about what you're doing and the vote that you cast and the message you send out of New Hampshire."
Stepping back and speaking objectively, I've gotta say that's pretty good. If I were voting for Romney today, that would definitely give me pause.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
ya but you can't assume people voting for romney are rational actors on any level
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
He overstates Reagan's peril in 1980 and Bush's popularity with the mainstream GOP.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Time for someone to hit back with an "I knew Ronald Reagan, and you are no Ronald Reagan."
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Followed by the Spartacus-like "*I* am Ronald Reagan!" montage.
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
(xxpost) Probably, but wouldn't Reagan have been in serious trouble if he had lost NH? (Don't know, just asking.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
nothing santorum has ever said tracks with what is real in any way, so i highly doubt his analysis. exactly what went into reagan's win in NH in 1980 i have no idea, but who knows.
acc to him, base excitement exists antagonistically with appeal to 'moderates' and leaning independents, which is kind of a funny admission if you think about it.
hah xp to alfred
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Reagan nearly derailed Ford in '76, no small feat against a sitting president. He certainly wasn't the underdog to GHWB in '80.
― pplains, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
The lesson I drew from Santorum's little bit of froth quoted above was: winning Iowa is rather meaningless.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know Reagan was the presumptive favourite, but I think there was some big campaign shake-up after Iowa, and I'm guessing the combination of that and two consecutive losees would have been a problem. (Checking, though, Iowa was close enough to be meaningless--32% to 30% for Bush--so maybe it was something of a non-issue.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
GHWB was the underdog in that scenario. Reagan had been building an organization to run for prez since the 60s.
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
the facts are both GHWB and Reagan were establishment candidates
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
no way GHWB would ever have been the nominee in '80 even knowing how history unfolded.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Reagan had more money and (obv) lots more name recognition, iirc.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
He definitely crushed Bush in NH (50-23) and SC (55-15). But from Santorum's point of view, I think "And if it wasn't for New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan would never have been president" is a good way to plant doubts in NH voters.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ladies and gentlemen, we win elections when our people are excited about who to vote for...
Find this pretty funny considering I don't think many Republicans are excited about Santorum. Self-identified conservatives (R & I) I've heard on CSPAN are way more excited by Paul, and the freeper fringe are salivating over unleashing the Newtron bomb on Obama.
― Oops, just a little Santorum surge... (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
(As Hail Marys go, I mean.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah--Santorum's calculus would be a lot more convincing if he had an ounce of charisma.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
unleashing the Newtron bomb on Obama.
too easy to make Goldwater/daisy connection.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Apparently Stephen Colbert is polling better than Jon Huntsman in South Carolina.
― Bon Ivoj (jaymc), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
"The new Public Policing Polling survey also found that 67 percent of the GOP debate's likely voters think that 'only people are people.'"
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
The South Carolina primary will be the first truly meaningful moment in this phase of things. If Romney is soundly rejected by the first pack of southern republicans to cast votes, he'll def be wounded. I say chances are good that things will be genuinely chaotic heading into Super Tuesday.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
*sigh*
u trying so hard to bleeve in Tinkerbell
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
The South Carolina primary will be the first truly meaningful moment in this phase of things.
lol come now, Aimless
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney is polling just fine in SC. republicans are coalescing nicely around the frontrunner and this thing is going to be over cleanly. sorry everyone!
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is going to be a boring election, gentlemen: Wonder Boy versus Flim-Flam Man.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh i don't agree with that at all, it's going to be wisconsin nationwide, candidates notwithstanding.
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama isn't leading the national equivalent of the anti-Walker forces, I'm afraid.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
when's the last time two guys w/ such spotless bios faced off?
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
that reminds me, I saw eliot spitzer on the street today
If Romney does no worse than a very close second in both SC and Florida, then I agree that we can put 'paid' to the republican nomination. If he's blown out in SC or in Florida, or is pushed down to third place, even by a small amount, then we have a race to giggle about for a while longer.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
mitt romney isn't walker, either! i don't think it matters.
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah it's over xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
But goole just pointed out that he's doing quite well in SC.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
From a few days ago but you get the idea:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354122-503544/romney-surges-in-south-carolina-poll-has-nearly-double-the-support-of-runner-up-santorum/
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
but you see, if Romney BARELY manages to get second place he may have a shot in the imaginary tea party I am holding in my mind
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
OK, I have to be the one to ask who's who?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
It doesn't matter.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is going to be a very entertaining election when y'all are freaking out over the electoral dead heat on Halloween. "For our children's sake, vote for the Detainer!"
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
OK, I see Nate Silver is calling it like this in South Carolina:
Mitt Romney 32.8%Newt Gingrich 23.0%Rick Santorum 22.8%
Which said result would be game over, imo. The remainder of the field would continue to squirm on the hook for a while, but they couldn't expect much longevity without a Mittplosion.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
Newt needs Santorum to keep doing Blah things
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know if this is sound or not:
http://theamericanscene.com/2012/01/09/win-place-and-show
The thing is, it leaves a number of obvious people--Rubio, Christie, Ryan--out of the equation. (If Romney were to lose against Obama, I would think anybody connected to this whole nomination cycle would be tainted going into 2016.) (Herman Cain included.)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
A Big Check From a Billionaire, and Gingrich Gets a LiftBy NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and ERIC LIPTON A $5 million check from Sheldon Adelson underscores how a Supreme Court ruling has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election.
idk if this is the guy or if they just used their stock tycoon.jpg
― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Oops, just a little Santorum surge... (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
as you might say, "which one is that"
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
also lol Obama is gonna wipe the floor with Romney, if there's a "dead heat" on Halloween I'll eat my hat
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
really? does Mitt have his own drone arsenal too? xp
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
It could happen, I suppose. And maybe not.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
100% certain Mitt is pro-drone strikes and pro-indefinite detentions what is your point
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney in 2008 famously said we should "double gitmo". which you'll admit is very different from "reduce it by 12 to 15% over 45 years"
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
ah, I thought we were talking about things that HAVE been done by an actual president! Has Mittens prosecuted whistleblowers too?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
what is the source of this "Obama is gonna wipe the floor with Romney" MEME, as you kidz call it? Was it the pared down "I love to fire people" distortion of typical Mittens blather?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think Geir hasn't come back because he realized that Morbs has taken this singleminded approach to dead horse beating to an entirely new level.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney lost his chance in November when the signs of an improving economy first showed themselves.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
man don't jinx it
― goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
the economy i mean.
what is the source of this "Obama is gonna wipe the floor with Romney" MEME, as you kidz call it?
uh, I am the source of it? I've been predicting this for at least a year
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah it's way too early to assume the economy's gonna be better than 'ehhhhh'
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
nothin means nothin til Labor Day
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's all the man in the White House needs
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno if 8% unemployment is really gonna sell as 'morning in america' but who knows
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
just clap yr hands and believe "he is gonna be sooooo liberal in his second term" /clinton96
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
The White House doesn't have to sell Morning in America (Reagan had 7% unemployment in '84) -- only Know Hope.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
no one here thinks this
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
ayo morbs have you ever been to a 'red' state?
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
leave morbs alone!!
― oneohtrix and park (m bison), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
He actually went to Birmingham, Alabama, last year iirc, but safe in a hermetically sealed bus.
― Steamtable Willie (WmC), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, context matters - that 7% was a huge drop from a year previous:
7.2 percent gdp growth in 1984. anyone want to bet on whether 2012 is gonna be a year of 7.2 percent gdp growth?? half of that would be a miracle.
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 23:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
you gotta be fair morbs I don't hear anybody here making this claim. people did then though for sure but nobody is now, I think even the most ardent Obama supporters don't have illusions about how liberal he's gonna be after NDAA et al
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 23:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Don't remind timellison.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
W_Stewart Will Stewart Santorum rally now playing Bob Marley's "Get Up, Stand Up." Gotta admit, did not see this one coming.15 minutes ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply
― scream blahula scream (govern yourself accordingly), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
W_Stewart Will Stewart Now Santorum event playing George Michael. Not sensing any irony here.12 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
― scream blahula scream (govern yourself accordingly), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum's sick and tired of the hism-schism
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
I smiled so big at that 1 thank you Shakey Mo
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
tho isn't it "ism-schism"
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh typos
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
He's ready to dienagotaheaveninnajesusname though
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh Tricky
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
use himseduce himdress him up in jism
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney wins. There you go.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 01:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
booooooring
― 2012 republican presidential nominee II: Hot, Ready and Legal! (will), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 01:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney's speech very tough on Europe.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 01:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney running at 54% on Intrade in the general; Europe down to 32%.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 01:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71297.html
― mh, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Too good to be true--I have to craft the perfect joke for that one. Back in a couple of hours.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
11th commandment, 13th, whatever. what's sad is that people still proudly invoke what reagan said. how the fuck people worship him, i have no idea. it's hilarious to think about what would happen if obama tried to invoke an eleventh amendment, and then said the most supremely cynical statement possible.
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
And Reagan never said it!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
eleventh commandment, fuck, whatever. ugh, it's just disgusting
he didn't say "“Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”?
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, someone else said it and then he repeated it like an asshole?
― your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
tbf, commandments 11 and 12 are about pokemon in herman's book
― mh, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
He "popularized" it because he was the only GOP satrap who wasn't personally an asshole.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
what did romney say about europeÉ
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
err make that a ?
He went off on some tangent about Obama trying to remake America in the image of his favourite European cities...something like that. And then he went after Europe again towards the end. He's promising to take the fight against Europe to South Carolina and Florida.
If he wins in November, he may have to deal with some of those European people, right?
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
He said he wanted to do away with liberals who insisted on adding an extra E and accent aigu.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
48% of the vote in, and Perry's at 704 votes--looking very good for over 1,000.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Memo to Alfred: David Gergen just called Romney's speech tonight "the most important of his life."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
if obama remade america in the image of his favorite european cities he would easily be the best president in history
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
unless his favorite city is rome
Awesome, clem. Now I can go to bed. Gergen is like a glass of hot milk.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
kathrynlopez a k-lo facebooker says of romney tonight: he was almost inspiring ... i was surprised
It felt very much like Romney was firing Europe, and was enjoying it a lot.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
europe!
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Looking forward to Romney's attack ads of Obama morphing into a topological map of Europe.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Phrase used in Romney speech: "The bitter politics of ENVY."
― timellison, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Just let me know when this is declared "the most important election of our lives."
yeah I know you guys aren't major deluded Dem hoes, with maybe one exception.
I went to Georgia twice in 2010, as well as Alabama. (And had barbecue in Lockhart, Texas.) I like how the really red ones here are brown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha deep santorum country
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 02:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
disappointed that perry is beating roemer
also that santorum's color on google isn't brown this time
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 03:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know who I would vote for in NH:
― der dukatenscheisser (Sanpaku), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 04:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Pretty clear he's just another shill for the corporate gigivopology.
― questino (seandalai), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 09:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
anyhoo, I'm glad we have some socialist candidates for president, if only for another week or two.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/romney_rivals_all_become_socialists_to_horror_of_conservatives/singleton/
(like p4reene calling BS on the 'firing ppl' outrage, too)
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 12:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
i missed this, from a couple days ago
It's one that I don't think we should be using as Republicans, "middle class." There are no classes in America. We are a country that don't allow for titles. We don't put people in classes. There may be middle-income people, but the idea that somehow or another we're going to buy into the class-warfare arguments of Barack Obama is something that should not be part of the Republican lexicon. That's their job -- divide, separate, put one group against another. That's not the language that I'll use as president. I'll use the language of bringing people together.
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
santorum, btw
I wonder if he pulled that out of his ass or if it's something we're gonna be hearing in the future.
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
gonna guess #1
daniel larison on why the gop contest has turned out the way it has:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/10/romneys-dreadful-inevitability-how-did-it-come-to-this/
The delusion that 2012 was supposed to represent “vindication” for the conservative movement helps explain why conservatives didn’t settle on a single candidate much earlier and stick with him. Because of the entirely unearned 2010 midterm victory, many conservatives seem to have concluded that 2008 was an aberration, and because of the slow recovery there has been overconfidence about Republican prospects in the fall.
That lowered the bar considerably as far as the quality of the presidential candidates was concerned. Some of these underqualified candidates joined the race in the belief that 2012 was bound to be a Republican victory, and for that reason they didn’t want to “waste” that victory on an insufficiently pure candidate such as Romney. Because of this, candidates had a much higher ideological standard to meet. Flawed and compromised candidates might have been all right back in 2007 at the nadir of the Bush era, but not now. As a result, none of the declared candidates with any of the necessary experience could measure up, and those that could measure up were woefully unprepared for the office.
The higher expectations of activists and pundits allowed the fantasy of additional candidates to linger for months and months (and it still hasn’t been snuffed out), which delayed the consolidation of the conservative vote behind one or two of the declared candidates. On the whole, the fantasy candidates put forward by pundits are just as underqualified as some of the flops, or they have just as much baggage as the flawed candidates, and their entry into the race would simply compound the problem that conservatives have, which is that they have too many choices and no way to reach consensus on any one of them. At the same time, Romney’s health care record was widely perceived as a major or possibly fatal liability for his candidacy, but when it came time for voters to register their views it evidently wasn’t nearly as damaging as almost everyone believed. Conservatives did not rally behind any one candidate to oppose Romney months ago because I think many of them expected Romney to falter or implode long before this, so they thought they had the luxury of time to choose from among the alternatives. Romney didn’t implode, and conservatives frittered away valuable time on various long-shot and incompetent candidates. Because they couldn’t really believe that Romney would ever prevail, most anti-Romney conservatives didn’t do what would have been required to stop him from winning the nomination.
ie. the wrong people thought it would be easy and the stronger people knew it would be hard. pretty perceptive imo
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah that seems pretty otm
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
back in 2007 at the nadir of the Bush era
The nadir of the Bush era came during his last months in office, late 2008, when Lehmann Bros. collapsed, soon followed by AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, and roughly $30 trillion vanished in a couple of months. It was a culmination, kind of like reaching the final circle of hell in the Inferno.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
The pre-nadir of the Bush era when they were running to become candidates in 2008.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
he means that 2007 was when the republican candidates for the 2008 election were getting started
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
― goole, Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:41 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yeah the other thing is imo the gops strongest candidates r prob siting on the sideline not wanting to run against an imcumbent, another case of smart people knowing this was gonna be harder than it looked
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
who even are 'the strongest candidates' tho? I feel like the gop's so deep in the crazyhole that there's a. nobody that can appeal to the whole partyb. nobody that's gonna have a CV that's attractive both to the base and the public at large
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean when christie is your ace in the hole...
any of their non-texan governors
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Speaking of which, other than get elected, make speeches and look presentable, what has Senator Rubio actually accomplished in the past couple of years?
― Aimless, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
a. hasn't had a sex scandal
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
b. hasn't had a financial scandal
c. looks presentable oh wait
he has presumably helped block the appointment of communist judges and bureaucrats -- what else do you want?
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:05 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
lol yeah its sort of just an assumption that there must be someone better out there
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
and im not talking abt christie!
remember when 'the media' was talking about whether chris christie was 'too fat' to be president and whether it 'was ok' to talk about that anyway.
good times.
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
too big to fail
― buzza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, that sounds about right. It looks like the Republicans for some reason thought "Hey, beating up your candidates for being not hewing to your principles looks like a blast! Why have we been letting the Democrats hog this fun?"
The problems being that a) principled is not a good look for Republicans and b) it's really not something they've been selecting for.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
being
I think 'one of those other governors' woulda just been another pawlenty. I mean it depends who we're talking about obv, but I think the way the ideological lines are drawn today make it just impossible for someone to have their cake and eat it too (other than christie obv.)
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
is it just me but once christie decided to not run did he just pack on another 100 lbs?? at that event with romney last week he looked way bigger.
― buzza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Look, there was an awful lot of nadir going around when Bush was in office - and some if it in Obama's term.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
Read last week's New Yorker story.
okay, so he's gotten elected, made speeches, looked presentable and read the New Yorker; what else?
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
(obama joke goes here)
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Laughed hard enough to spit lemonade from his nose.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
If that's a qualification then Gallagher would have long been dictator for life.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Listen, being a tolerably literate Florida Republican is an achievement.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:27 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh, look, Romney showed interest in marching at a gay rights parade in 2002.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
innnnnnnnnnteresting (as Bugs Bunny wd say)
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Parade-curious
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Should I march in the front or the back?"
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's not going to hurt him so much in a general election
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
It might hurt a little if he marched in front.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
base enthusiasm matters
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
At first
xpost
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
So does reaching out to the youths and the Independants
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Very hard to reach out to yutes when you're marching.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I decided agaisnt the 'tip enthusiasm matters, too'. Sorry
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
independants? well, he does speak french...
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
reaching around the youth is v important
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
more Santorum lolz:
In the tiny town of Riva del Garda in northern Italy, 83-year-old-Maria Malacarne Santorum keeps her family’s secrets—including those of her late husband’s cousin, Rick. In an exclusive interview with the Italian weekly magazine Oggi, Mrs. Santorum recalls fondly when Rick visited her in 1985 during his law internship in Florence, and when he came back again in 1986 and 1989. “He loved our culture and cuisine so much, he brought his wife-to-be, Karen, a massive cookbook of Italian recipes,” she said.
But the elder Santorum matriarch doesn’t understand why he has diverged so far from the family’s longtime political stance. “In Riva del Garda his grandfather Pietro and uncles were ‘red communists’ to the core,” writes Oggi journalist Giuseppe Fumagalli, likening the family to “Peppone” after a famous fictional Italian communist mayor who fought against an ultraconservative priest known as Don Cammillo and about which a popular television series is based. “But on the other side of the ocean, it’s like his family here doesn’t exist. Instead he draws crowds as the head of the ultraconservative faction of the Republican party, against divorce, gay marriage, abortion, and immigration.”
Those politics don’t play well in Riva del Garda, a community of ultraliberals. On the campaign trail, Santorum often touts his grandfather’s flight from Italy “to escape fascism,” but he has neglected to publicly mention their close ties with the Italian Communist Party. “Rick’s grandfather Pietro was a liberal man and he understood right away what was happening in Italy,” Mrs. Santorum told Oggi. “He was anti-fascist to the extreme, and the political climate in 1925 was stifling so he left for America. After a few years he returned to Italy with his wife and children, including Aldo, Rick’s father, who passed away late last year. It’s a shame he won’t have the joy to see his son’s success in his bid for the White House.” She goes on to explain how the family then became pillars of the Communist Party in Italy.
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
did we talk about chris christie basically telling a woman who heckled him to blow him
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
!
When did this happen?
― Nicole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Happened a few days ago:
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Blinded by my Barack-Obama-induced anger"--there for anyone who wants it.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
my god he's like a balloon wearing a belt
fwiw I can't make out the offending line
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Somethin' may go down tonight, but it ain't gonna be jobs, sweetheart."
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
that barely makes any sense
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
the guv is just trying to say that he likes ppl going down on him.
It's funny to hear the "Chicago ward pol" line come outta the mouth of a guy who looks like one of Johnny Friendly's goons in On the Waterfront.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/romney-christie-clash-with-occupy-protestors/
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is gross on so many different levels, although I do like Mitt nervously shuffling in the background.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 20:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol omg
josh marshall:
Yesterday we heard news that someone has actually tried to pull off voter impersonation fraud in Manchester, New Hampshire -- the exceedingly rare form of election fraud where someone tries to impersonate another person. That's also the sort of fraud that most voter ID laws are meant to stop.
The anecdote seemed odd, for a number of reasons.
And what do you know? The culprits were pals of notorious huckster James O'Keefe trying to prove what a big problem vote impersonation fraud is by trying to commit it. And like anyone who actually commits vote fraud should, it looks like they might be looking at jail time.
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
NYT blog is bleating "Could it really all be over this quickly?" hey, took longer than the race for the Dem nomination.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sounds like voter impersonation fraud isn't so easy after all. Thanks for the argument against voter ID laws, you dick
― mh, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
I hope they get actual jail time, but I doubt it.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
they might be looking at jail time
don't do the crime if you can't do the time
― Aimless, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
would love to see someone go to federal prison for extreme concern trolling
― some dude, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahahahahaha
― max, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
you laugh now, max
― nah (crüt), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Moreover, if one were inclined to make an oral sex joke when the word 'jobs' is already in the mix, you'd jape about 'jobs.'
oh rly
― dead precedents politics as usual (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
really? something may go down tonight.. . but it ain't gonna be jobs sweetheart
only thing that's 'going down' after christie's speech is a dozen donuts
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
What is it about Christie that turns us all into Jay Leno
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno -- I can see Christie going down on a corn dog.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
more like a meatball hero
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
now on o'reilly claiming he actually said "Somethin' may go brown tonight, but it ain't gonna be jobs, sweetheart."
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Christie's a fan of the "difficult brown"?
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
difficult brown hour
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
difficult brown out
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
something may bro down tonight
“See, beware, this is a warning, this is a cautionary tale, be inspired by someone who has built a life that America can be proud of, not by a Chicago ward politician,” Christie said. “I doubt he is, but I hope the president’s watching. I have a message for you Mr. President. This is the type of disoriented anger your cynicism and your division is causing in our country. Bring our country together, stop dividing it, Mr. President.
Man, this really warrants a massive 'fuck you' all the way around...
― Oops, just a little Santorum surge... (Dan Peterson), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
politicians calling each other cynical is always funny
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think to conservatives a "divided" country is one they don't run
― goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Man, Republicans seem awfully inept at saying colors these days.
― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
From the annals of highly ambiguous/contradictory/paradoxical headlines (TPM): "Has Rick Santorum Gone Soft On Gays?"
― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
The man in jail is always for freedom.
― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
why do you hate freedom Alfred
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Interesting argument both for and against Romney:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/moneybox/2012/01/king_of_bain_was_mitt_romney_a_looter_or_a_corporate_raider_.html
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
If it takes a village to raise a child, maybe it takes an asshole to govern a country.
I lol'd
― locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Chris Christie, the man so nice he was named twice
― mh, Thursday, 12 January 2012 01:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
His parents must have hated him to name him that.
― Nicole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 01:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
it was the villain in nicholas nickleby wasn't it?
― goole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 02:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
i call him criscriscristie
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 02:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
― mookieproof, Thursday, 12 January 2012 02:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Chris Christie-Christie-Christie-Stan
― nickn, Thursday, 12 January 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/mitt-romney-penis-c-span-prank-new-hampshire-primary-280731?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
― rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Thursday, 12 January 2012 02:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is a headline on the front page of CNN.com right now:
Ticker: Gingrich 'dogs' Romney in video
um I am guessing the people who wrote this have either A) never been to the UK, or B) live in London and have been in hysterics since the story went up
― Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Thursday, 12 January 2012 04:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jesus Christ the nostalgia the floods me when I see that Kriss Kross sleeve is very intense
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 January 2012 05:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
the full king of bain show is on youtube
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 12 January 2012 07:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 12 January 2012 07:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
this reaches a level of hypocrisy and unintended irony that is just surreal, even from the 2012 GOP. i mean, christie - self-proclaimed jersey tough guy - calls out obama as a ward politician? you're from new jersey, buddy. and this asshole's entire schtick revolves around inflaming disoriented anger, creating divisive vibes by scapegoating govt employees. republicans talk about christie's winning personality and i'm like waht all this man does is fucking yell at people.
― demolition with discretion (m coleman), Thursday, 12 January 2012 10:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Like any good Republican, he knows his Nixon.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 January 2012 12:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
clemenza otm but yeah m coleman it's like -- shocking, kinda, to hear a guy who's intentionally stoking anger & division then say "your policies are at fault for how grotesque we are"
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 January 2012 14:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
When South Carolina Tea Party types get annoyed with each other.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 January 2012 15:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
That reminds me of the This American Life story about fighting Tea Party members in the UP.
― Nicole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 15:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
^ pedantic / overly prideful Yooper here - that was in the northern lower penninsula
― joygoat, Thursday, 12 January 2012 16:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sorry, I misremembered it.
― Nicole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
@georgelazenbyPaul: Piter De Vries; Romney: Shaddam IV; Huntsman: Princess Irulan; Gingrich: Guild Navigator; Perry: Beast Rabban; Santorum: Water of Life
― goole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Which means Obama has drunk from Santorum and seen visions.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Tried and died, wot wot?
― Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Thursday, 12 January 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is fucking awesome
Angered by Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s slur on Romney as a “vulture capitalist,” deep-pocketed GOP donor Barry Wynn abandoned Perry and endorsed Romney yesterday, saying attacks on Romney’s tenure heading the private equity firm flies in the face of a political party that champions free-market capitalism.
I tried to find a shot here of Charlton Heston & the other astronaut being forced by mutant psychics to fight each other but couldn't, but you get the idea
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 05:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://spreadingromney.com/
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 13 January 2012 06:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://d14.zedo.com/OzoDB/w/7/1107994/V3/Romney_DoYouLike_336x280nb.jpg
― buzza, Friday, 13 January 2012 07:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
One suspects that the “vulture capitalist” line resonates because it serves, for many, not only as a description of Romney’s career but of his personality. It captures something about him—the way he seems to embody the least attractive qualities of both the animal and the automaton. Listening to Romney, one sometimes feels trapped in a science-fiction story that has been written to explore the question of whether robots can lie, or be greedy.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/01/shouting-toward-south-carolina.html#ixzz1jLAXHEyj
― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Friday, 13 January 2012 12:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
is there any evidence that it's resonating?
― caek, Friday, 13 January 2012 12:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
i sorta saw it as more as why it seems poignant rather than why it's proving effective - you're right that idk whether it seems to be a persuasive line of attack - but i think it maybe does sum up what's unlikeable about him
― quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Friday, 13 January 2012 12:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
ja
― caek, Friday, 13 January 2012 12:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
He's pretty much the embodiment of the guy who fired your dad.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 13 January 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
republicans just doing the obamas work for him, p lol
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 January 2012 17:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
dream on
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 January 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
yep, all this inside baseball is sure to defeat Romney the way the Air National Guard manipulation defeated W.
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 January 2012 18:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
stick to being morally superior morbs, you have no knack for understanding this stuff
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 January 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
you dont even get what 'inside baseball' means lol
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 January 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think he has a point here.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
in a prez race, goony, it's anything that happens before September
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
Morbs yr wrong here - all this stuff really does fragment the right - their version of disgruntled progressives is disgruntled wingnuts, and Romney is exactly the kind of guy to make them acquire critical mass. He is the guy who fails to apostrophize his "ing" words: they hate that shit. Your core Republican voter hates perceived "snobs"; positing that Obama is one has really been stock-in-trade for them for a while. They liked Bush; they thought he seemed like the kind of guy they could vote for 'cause he was just folks. They liked McCain less, but most of them could still stomach him, because he was folksy. Romney is a catastrophic choice for this segment of the GOP base; literally every attempt he makes to relate to them is going to look like the pandering it is.
It doesn't determine the race, of course, there's plenty of fight left, but the GOP has basically awarded itself the 8 in several 10-8 rounds and is, by its own choice, now fighting from a disadvantage, which is lol considering what a terrible president they're running against - all they had to do was nominate somebody who wasn't insane that their own people didn't hate. WHOOPS, TOO HARD. this is lol! have a lol for heaven's sake!
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
if the republicans get a head start on painting romney in the exact light obama is planning on, then that helps obama, thats obvs, its not desisive or anything, but its not nothing, and it is a lol
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not that Morbs doesn't have a point, but the National Guard manipulation probably did cost Bush votes, just as the swift-boaters lost Kerry votes. The essence of negative attacks is to peel off a segment of voters, however large or small, and erode the opponent's total support.
To make up an example, let's say a candidate voted against some bill that included money for research into ocular cancer (I don't even know if ocular cancer exists, tbh), then blasting that candidate's vote might peel off a certain percentage of people whose had a family member with ocular cancer, because this one issue carries enormous emotional weight for those few people and they literally can't imagine voting for that candidate any more, based on that single fact.
Repeat this tactic over and over again and you'll pick off tens of thousands of one-issue voters. And in these days, with a billion dollars of campaign cash on either side, and so many ways to filter this info into voters's minds, it becomes possible to go negative both wholesale on tv and retail via the web. They do it cuz it works.
― Aimless, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I note the fact that some of the commenters at places like Hot Air are apparently serious in hoping that Colbert's president-of-South-Carolina run massively fractures Obama's voting base. If they're THAT desperate...
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
off topic: Is @georgelazenby a friend of ours? He is a winner.
― mick signals, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
doubt this arc is gonna run til November
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
there's the meta-effect of determining the grounds and bounds of 'conversation' about the candidate. the media and public chase each other in these things and candidacies try to control the perceptions of both. mitt romney does not want his character or the election to be about leveraged buyouts or private equity firms; chances are everyone will be talking about something else soon anyway, but even conservatives have to admit that everyone hates bankers and managers at the moment. the hysterical treatment of all of this from places like NR is clear enough.
note how romney responded to the attacks from gingrich about bain capital by saying, in his acceptance speech, that obama wants to put all of free enterprise on trial
― goole, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I think anytime a job is lost, it's a tragedy," the candidate admitted. "For the family, for the individual that loses the job, it's just devastating. And every time we invested in a business, it was to try to encourage that business to have ongoing life. The idea of making a short-term profit doesn't really exist in business."
― goole, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
wd've linked Giuliani on Fox calling Newt an "ignorant" anti-capitalist, but why spoil everyone's lunch?
― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's not, but it does its work! I'm sticking with my early-rounds metaphor man. Don't get me wrong I'm w/you on the bigger question of what's the fuckin difference but to switch sports, from a handicapping-the-race standpoint the GOP horse looks pretty washy at its morning workouts
― unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 13 January 2012 19:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meanwhile (consider the links Sullivan provides):
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/does-romney-have-a-mormon-problem-with-evangelicals.html
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Consider that any attacks made by Obama on Romney's Bain connection would have to be made by surrogates atm, it is highly convenient that his surrogates happen to be Republicans. Romney is still struggling with how to answer these. Of course, if he solves this puzzle now, it will help deflect the attacks in Sept and beyond, when it counts.
― Aimless, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think there is a 'solve this puzzle', rich people who fire poor people will be a sore subject in nov 2012 absent uh 10% gdp growth every month til then
― iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
isn't the answer to call everyone a commie, like Giuliani and Limbaugh have been doing?!
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 13 January 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
the politics of "envy" stuff still plays well with some stubborn dittohead folks who won't admit Wall Street and mortgage industry folks did anything sleazy
― curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
right but the fact that the guy who already won the nomination still has to alienate the public just to keep the base is telling
― iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
rich people who fire poor people will be a sore subject
Ah, yes, but hard-working capitalists who reorganize businesses to strengthen them and let them grow new jobs in the future, now that is a different kettle of fish. It's the old competing narratives thingie again.
― Aimless, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
that kettle of fish doesn't smell the same in 2012
― iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
There's a large portion of the public that he is not alienating. There are polls showing Romney ahead of Obama in Florida and elsewhere
― curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah he polls better against a currently unpopular president than the rest of the field, but that's just due to...the rest of the field.
the bigger issue is that the guy who just won the nomination isn't gonna have the chance to 'move to the center', there's not gonna be any 'compassionate conservative' talk, he's being forced to double down on the brute force capitalism and robot businessman persona. that might not alienate everybody, but it does alienate plenty of people. and his business career - his ace in the hole w/ a shitty economy - is already being framed as the guy who fires people instead of the guy who hires people.
― iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
worth noting that gingrich's attack -- that private equity is 'vulture capitalism' and not good for anyone else is basically true.
― goole, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
well that's something of a simplification, I'd go for 'quite often true'
― iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/an-interview-with-josh-kosman-on-the-embeddedness-of-private-equity-in-the-tax-code/
Kosman: The whole industry started in the mid-to-late 1970s. The original leveraged buyout firms saw that there were no laws against companies taking out loans to finance their own sales, like a mortgage. So when a private equity firms buys a company and puts 20 percent down, and the company puts down 80 percent, the company is responsible for repaying that.
Now the tax angle is that the company can take the interest it pays on its loans off of taxes. That reduces the tax rate of companies after they are acquired in LBOs by about half. Banks, also realizing this tax effect, were willing to finance these deals. At the time, you could also depreciate the assets of the company you were buying — that’s not true today.
They saw that you could buy a company through a leveraged buyout and radically reduce its tax rate. The company then could use those savings to pay off the increase in its debt loads. For every dollar that the company paid off in debt, your equity value rises by that same dollar, as long as the value of the company remains the same.
Konczal: So the business model is based on a capital structure and tax arbitrage?
Kosman: Yes. It’s a transfer of wealth as well. It’s taking the wealth of the company and transferring it to the private equity firm, as long as it can pay down its debt. It think it is real – the very early firms targeted industries in predictable industries with reliable cash flows in which they by and large could handle this debt. As more went into this industry, it became very hard to speak to the original model. Now firms are taken over in very volatile industries. And they are taking on debts where they have to pay 15 times their cash flow over seven years — they are way over-levered.
― goole, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
well my point was more in this paragraph
That sounds about right. If you took away this deduction, you’d still have takeovers, but you’d have a lot less leverage and the buyer would be forced to really improve the company in order to make profits. I think that would be a great thing.
― iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
The passion!
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/santorum-calls-romney-bland-1301750.html
"You think of Romney, you think of boring times! You think of Santorum and you're all excited, I can tell!"
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 13 January 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Meantime, the continuing success of Rick Perry's presidential campaign:
http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-virginia-gop-primary-ruling-20120113,0,6053544.story
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 13 January 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink