who are YOU gonna vote for??
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Morbz duh
― Disco Bob & MC Criminal (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
splendid thread title
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
Only 6.5 months of shopping days away!
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
my vote is pretty important cause I live in a big state (new york) so I don't want to just give it to just anybody, gonna be thinking this over for a long time
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
gonna have some long talks w/ my rabbi, family members, message board people
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I live in California so zzz
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
def Nieuwenhuis for National League centerfielder
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dianne Feinstein's running again for Senate, will win, zzz.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
ugh wish Feinstein's career was over already
― Disco Bob & MC Criminal (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
congratulation to willard mitt romney!!
― goole, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
writing in Yosemite Sam as I do every 4 years
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
well he does have a decent chance of winning your state
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Tea Party hates rabbits and evolution.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw I think the number of ppl susceptible to "the most important election of your lifetime" has decreased a tad this cycle, haven't seen it anywhere. Maybe just reserved for use by cable idiots now.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
Duck season!
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
surprised at aero's vote. why legitimize Yosemite Sam's continuing reign of terror?
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
so should I try to retain my VA registration until November despite probably living the whole year in MA so my vote will matter more for the presidency or should I register in MA so I can vote for Elizabeth Warren?
― raw feel vegan (silby), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
ma, virginia prob won't turn the election
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Trying to think of how this scenario compares to '08. Romney seems more hardened in his beliefs than McCain. Not sure how that plays out.
― timellison, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not sure how/if/when beliefs enter into any of this
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol, isn't the n*rr*tive for Mittens that he has no beliefs? as it would be for Bam if his followers were sentient.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
If he's actually properly got the nomination now, I wouldn't be surprised to see him down in Zuccotti Park the evening talking to the plain folks.
― Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
there is pretty good evidence for the statement 'romney has no real beliefs' outside of possibly mormonism
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, maybe I could say instead that he presents a more hardened stance in his rhetoric.
― timellison, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw I think the number of ppl susceptible to "the most important election of your lifetime" has decreased a tad this cycle, haven't seen it anywhere.
Its importance has increased to "most important election since 1860."
― Hey Jude, don't make it BAD MENTAL HEALTH (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Each candidate believes in his own will to power as the will of the universe.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
let me guess, Dan: Maddow?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
santorum, actually
― goole, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney has a pretty constant core belief, but it's not the kind that will endear you to voters because it's so narrow.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
is it the "I should be president" thing?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
not really, but that's an offshoot of his "free market i am a business man and basically a little god" mentality.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also the victimization issue that people were talking about on the other thread. McCain didn't embody this as much. This campaign seems like it will be more paranoid.
― timellison, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
romney def believes in the power of business consulting but he's actually kinda bad at being cocky
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
awesome, i can be first to say
Good Luck, USA
― red is hungry green is jawless (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I am the only person who sees clearly that America's hair is on fire! That is why I feel such urgency to be your president."
― Aimless, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
"we're sorry senator, you're not allowed to abort your candidacy -- you'll need to carry it to full term"
― Silky Slim (dan m), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
(xpost) Gingrich may have started the 1860 phrase and Santorum picked up on it, I dunno.
And so now we have Newt Gingrich insisting that 2012 "is the most important election since 1860." And some in the punditocracy go even further; according to columnist E. J. Dionne, "Everyone agrees that the 2012 election will be a turning point involving one of the most momentous choices in American history."
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&id=33338:the-greatest-post-in-all-our-lifetimes
― Hey Jude, don't make it BAD MENTAL HEALTH (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-27-point-gender-gap-that-could-decide-the-election/2012/04/10/gIQAlm5E8S_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
A wide gender gap underlies the current state of the race. Romney is up eight percentage points among male voters but trails by 19 among women.
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
2008 gap wuz 13 points
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
This year has made it pretty clear that the republican party views women as second class citizens, I'm surprised it is not more than 19 points.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
the Democratic Party only views non-millionaire women as second-class citizens
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ashley Judd 4 Prez imo
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/cain-women-gender-gap-romney-obama.html
men vs. other people
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, hell _is_ other people, ya know, as the many other people in Cain's life have no doubt proven to him thru litigation of harmless actions and jokes
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 20:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney behind the scenes at Fox
― boxall, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:44 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
a putative historian on the internet-talk-show annex of NRO, the hoover institution presents uncommon knowledge with peter robinson, pulled this one a few months ago, cuz this election is america's great choice between Administration & Liberty. i am leaning liberty but idk what if i got sick.
― their private gesture for bison (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
i dunno, the election of 1864 was p. important too
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 23:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
campaign's not over until someone cries holding a doll iirc
― supreme sundae (reddening), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 06:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
doll is in the hospital iirc
― ♆ (gr8080), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 07:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
what's going on over there on the right
― j., Wednesday, 11 April 2012 11:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Five Republicans have filed the necessary papers and $500 fee to qualify for the June 26 Utah presidential primary election, but with Rick Santorum dropping out of the race Tuesday, only four will be on the ballot.
Or possibly three.
Newt Gingrich’s check bounced.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 12:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bah, here's the URL: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53886982-90/utah-romney-gingrich-campaign.html.csp
latest Elon poll on our anti-gay marriage prop shows 61% opposed - if we don't pass the bill California did I will mail the crow directly to you
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 12:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Elon poll doesn't screen out non-voters though - the most recent PPP poll that is a voter poll is a bit more pessimistic:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/north-carolinians-support-but-dont-understand-marriage-amendment.html
(though there's still room for a little optimism there if the anti-Amendment One can get the message across before May, and the end of the contested GOP primary season will also help, perhaps)
― carson dial, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah full gay marriage is nowhere close to being legalized in any southern state, but looking at those results 40% of 18-29 y/os in north carolina are for it + 16% for civil unions, which highlights the 'we just gotta wait for old people to die' solution
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
alternatively we could take away peoples votes after age 50 maybe
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Here's to hoping. Meanwhile, in this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/magazine/republicans-who-supported-gay-marriage.html?_r=1&hp
Some (sad) roffles:
I’ve had a few conversations with Long, trying to understand what harm they think they are defending marriage from. In one conversation I recounted my own classic wedding at the Holy Name of Jesus church, and wondered how somebody else’s less conventional marriage could diminish the joy of it.“Well, I don’t think it hurts anybody,” Long replied, “but I think a society has to have certain standards, and since the beginning of time, marriage has been between a man and a woman.” Marriage, he elaborated, is about children. “You’re not going to procreate children with same-sex couples.”I told him that would be news to my daughters’ school classmates, the ones with two moms or two dads. And by the way, we don’t prohibit elderly, infertile or just plain procreation-averse couples from marrying.“I know plenty of gay couples, O.K.?” he snapped back.
“Well, I don’t think it hurts anybody,” Long replied, “but I think a society has to have certain standards, and since the beginning of time, marriage has been between a man and a woman.” Marriage, he elaborated, is about children. “You’re not going to procreate children with same-sex couples.”
I told him that would be news to my daughters’ school classmates, the ones with two moms or two dads. And by the way, we don’t prohibit elderly, infertile or just plain procreation-averse couples from marrying.
“I know plenty of gay couples, O.K.?” he snapped back.
Pobrecito.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
good morning!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
gawker's "fox mole" has been found and fired w/in 24 hours damn
― goole, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shit, that was quick. I'm disappointed.
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
uh surely that was expected
― Jilly Boel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
perhaps even desired
ie, you're more likely to get a job somewhere else for being FIRED FROM FOX rather than just being an employee of Fox
― Jilly Boel (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 17:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://gawker.com/5901100/i-am-the-fox-mole-and-im-still-here
― Silky Slim (dan m), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Just about to post that link. Yeah, as of 13:54 Eastern, dude's still at their desk.
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
;-)
― max, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
MAX IS THE MOLE
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
He joined Fox News years ago on a suicide mission...
that's a long suicide
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
I suspected when he voted for all those Randite trojan horses in the action-film poll
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol I would support this
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
full disclosure, I'd be unable to vote under that rule pretty fucking soon here but if I gotta take one for the team, well, shit, the team looks good to me
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
If that happened, we old people would take to the streets and engage in a vicious campaign of pie-flinging and gurning until our civil rights were restored.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw aero I webmailed you about something, dunno if you check that email
― iatee, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
you'd still get a senior's discount at Shoney's iirc
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
We'd jape at every infant in a pram until it cried in terror.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Allan West says some things.
The conservative tea party icon also got in shots at Democrats and President Obama, who spoke Tuesday at Florida Atlantic University. West said Obama was "scared" to have a discussion with him. He later said "he's heard" up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn't name names.
At the first of two campaign town-hall events in Martin County on Tuesday, the Plantation Republican told a New Hope Fellowship Church crowd it'd be disingenuous to pretend he knows everything about the area, but said he supports local projects like inlet dredging. But he contended that big national issues, such as gas prices, turn out to be the most important locally.
"I understand everything about the (St. Lucie) Inlet. I already represent 70 to 75 miles of coastline. Plenty of inlets, plenty of ports. I got it," West said. "I understand about the (St. Lucie) river situation. I understand about (Lake) Okeechobee. But it won't mean a hill of beans if the United States of America goes from $15.6 trillion in debt to $26 trillion in debt."
Translation: "I don't know shit about your district but I can't wait to be your FOX News commentator."
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Plantation Republican"
can I just
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Current headline at latimes.com:
"Romney says he and Santorum will come together"
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
He later said "he's heard" up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn't name names.
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 12 April 2012 01:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Clay, Thursday, 12 April 2012 01:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't remember getting it - if you used the ilx link, that goes to a box I don't use. I'll send you something through here -
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 April 2012 01:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
which may not have worked either, let me know we'll figure it out
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 April 2012 01:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
hmm not seeing it. uh it's quick I'll fb msg you.
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 01:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol are we friends there, I'm sick & drugged up and have zero idea what your government name is tbh
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
no we aren't you have to accept the req i just sent. uh it's...related to my username.
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
sdrawkcab
― Mordy, Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am too doped up on cold meds to make the "iatee is _______?" joke I wanna make
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
George Soros?
Sidney Crosby?
man that would be so cool if I were secretly george soros
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have always been hoping to find out that I'm george soros, like I just forgot about it or something
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I, Atee
― does Red Stripe work like poppers? (Abbbottt), Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
"fuck wow I have a fucking lotta money it seems like, go me"
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
"weirdly it turns out that i am the satanic enemy of right-wing christian america."
― Mordy, Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
well I am they just don't know who I am and I don't have any money
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 02:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
*head spins around, vomits money*
romneys no its obama whos waging the real war on women attack is hilarious and sad
― lag∞n, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I like the way this [redacted] thinks!!"
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
uhhhhh
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ooops, if I did, it was by complete accident.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha okay that's kinda funny then
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I had always thought your name was some sort of vowel joke I didn't get, like "seven ate nine!" but with letters.
― beachville, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol
― lag∞n, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
my name is a vowel joke I don't even get
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
: D
― beachville, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ha, yeah, I thought the same thing as beachville. Didn't realize that sdrawkcab would actually be sdrawrof.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
u broke the code
― lag∞n, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
not general election, but i just got an email from the e. warren campaign that she walloped scott brown in Q1 fundraising (though his bankroll is obv bigger) and she's currently leading him by about a point past margin of error
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
are you sure it was past the margin of error?
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/poll-elizabeth-warren-takes-one-point-lead-over
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Isn't that part of the "general" election? The presidential election is the name of the big bore.
xp
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
In the past we have had a separate thread for all the House and Senate races
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't care either way if someone wants to start one
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 14:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
i really like the campaign she's running - she's putting the screws to brown w/o coming off as especially petty. the grassroots fundraising and organization are really top notch, taking a page from bama '08 but w/ (actually sincere) populist messages at the core. although i could have done without the 'trip to the aqaurium' email w/ her grandkids' email.
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
she's the only candidate i've ever given $$ who doesn't rep me directly
― it's smdh time in America (will), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's a weird election for me inasmuch as i've known brown (personally) for a long, long time and respect him as a person but hate him as a politician. warren drives me bonkers as a person, but i couldn't have a higher esteem for her politically, so...
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
interesting, how do you know him remy?
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
boy scoutsselectman in my childhood hometownwe share a mechanicmet him a million times growing upmy dad and he hung out in the early '80s
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
do you think your mechanic is the type of person who can 'make mistakes' for the right amount of money?
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
i probably don't have the right amount of money, unless it's fallen under the driver's seat. plus, i really like him! he gave me a banana split one time (not a sex joke) and i think he drove me home from soccer practice. elizabeth warren came into a store i worked in ca. .09 and ordered very complicated business cards at two minutes past closing time.
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
is that the sum total of "drives me bonkers as a person"?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not all of it. Her affect is sometimes haughty Cambridgey-Fancy-Scarf-Lady, and some other times a little transparently calculated. But, as I said earlier, I've got immense respect for her work, her intellect, her campaign, and I do like her brand of populism.
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
he gave me a banana split one time (not a sex joke) and i think he drove me home from soccer practice.
Somehow I imagine this docudrama minifilm starring Will Ferrell.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yeah. people who insist on calling Allen West a "Plantation Republican" are just as bad as old politicians who throw around the word "niggardly" and then go "what? what? it doesn't have anything to do with the n-word!" imo
(I don't expect everyone on ILX to agree with me abt this)
― crüt, Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
No but see he's actually FROM Plantation, FL. It just results in crazy awkwardness.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know that. and niggardly doesn't actually have anything to do with the n-word. you can say "Republican from Plantation." don't say "Plantation Republican."
― crüt, Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Florida republican" should be pejorative enough
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
no more pejorative than "Florida Democrat"
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
can we all just agree that the word 'florida' taints any noun that follows it
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
"The state with the prettiest name" – Elizabeth Bishop
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
like hell will I agree with that
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Thursday, 12 April 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
when can we finally make Puerto Rico and Cuba states?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
when they learn to speak american
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Flo Rida Republican
― crüt, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wait wait wait, somebody besides me is from Plantation, Florida?? I've seriously spent my whole life undoing people's confusion when they see my place of birth written as PLANTATION on a form. It's like when I lived on a street that was just named BOULEVARD.
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Plantation is only thirty miles away from me. Whole lotta nuthin'.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members
Communists are only scary to old people.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
might wanna check the hubbub outside the Miami baseball stadium to verify
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
The only hubbub is seniors trying to find a parking space before they give up and park illegally again.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are a limited number of early bird specials available, i'll have you know
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can't emebed any of the photos of everyone in the parking lot screaming about Ozzie Guillen and Hitler, so...
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://latinorebels.com/2012/04/11/video-from-ozzie-guillen-protest-in-miami/
― goole, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Guillen protesters are either 60 or Miami Herald columnists.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
(housekeeping note: i'm kinda in favor of just having this be a big free-for-all rest-of-2012 politics thread. separate threads for congress and general stuff seems like a recipe for duplication. "election season" tends to warp everything else around it. the presidential race promises to be only not-boring in how annoying it is anyway)
― goole, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh I think we're in a for a very lolz-y prez campaign
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
(...but also maintain a politics thread that's actual about the important shit that goes on instead of the duopoly horse race.)
yeah, who cares
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
is that what i said? no, it isn't
― goole, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah we still have the gen politics thread
― iatee, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
I thought you were asking if we should split up the horseraces
I dunno, goole – it looks like a snooze.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's what i said!
― goole, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
(l-r: obama, romney)
― fka snush (remy bean), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh ok I reread it
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
or l-r: gore, bush amirite lol
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
meh, it will get way more fun when the economy re-tanks in the fall
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
We will then rely on you to prop it up. Don't ask me how.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 April 2012 16:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rabbit season
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Thursday, 12 April 2012 17:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Now this is good--we have a Silly Controversy to distract from Presidential Evil that everyone can Weigh In On:
She seems sincere--she looked right into the camera.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
The B____ Who Used to Run the Music Industry
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wow, I didn't know any of that RIAA stuff. I watched a lot of her in '08. I have something of a crush on her. I don't know if she's ready to switch teams, though.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
just a teeny taste for Shakey on how Team Bam can lose the election
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha waht
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is nothing, a 24-hr newscycle blip of no consequence
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
many more nothings to come
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 21:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
also totally unrelated to "Team Bam". why anybody cares what Hilary Rosen thinks about Romney is a bit of a mystery, beyond the most cynical explanation that this has all just been a trumped-up non-controversy for a slow news day
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
More! I'm dying of boredom.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha yes this thing 99% of our country is not paying attention to will surely be Obama's undoing!
― Mordy, Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I always suspected Morbz was the 1%
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean STUFF LIKE THIS. You know, rich Hollywood dyke opens her mouth, inserts condescending foot.
I knew it was a mistake to come back.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
you were gone?
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:11 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think he's referring to his Lenten fast
― raw feel vegan (silby), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty sure nothing like this will come out of the Obama campaign. Much less the endless stream of similar nothings that would be required to reverse Romney and the GOP's deep structural problems.
Romney's been fucked from the start. I should've started taking cash bets from all you fools over a year ago.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
nobody except music and/or politics nerds knows or cares who Hillary Rosen is. and this won't change.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha morbs gimme a break. your ODS is getting as bad as the rightwingers i read for fun. "rich hollywood dyke" eh?
speaking of taking a beating tho:
matt stoller on two primaries lost big by progressives
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/internet-democrats-take-a-beating-in-illinois.html
he draws on two other reports, grim/terkel on illinois:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/ilya-sheyman-illinois-congress-progressives_n_1372454.html?ref=politics
...and the rothenberg report on maryland
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/news/article/maryland-primary-boosts-democratic-prospects
p interesting in both cases
― goole, Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have to assume Morbius isn't versed in the details of this, else he'd (surprise) be all over Obama.
1) What Rosen initially said was rational and fair, if politically clumsy;2) Obama's side has rushed in to denounce (or renounce, or condemn--I forget the exact protocol) her, for reasons that are probably 10% honorable (wives and family should be off-limits, stay-at-home wives do no "not work") and 90% running for cover.
And yes, it'll probably all be forgotten by Monday.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
ABC News reporter, wiping slobber from chin, said, "Ann Romney, Governor Romney's secret weapon, is a secret no more."
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Lol yeah this is less than nothing. A personal attack that will be rather weakly blown up to fill otherwise dead air.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've been pretending that I think this whole thing is nothing, because I don't want everyone jumping on me for thinking it's something. But, as always, I think some of the substance is pretty interesting (not any impact on the election, which of course is non-existent).
1) Does Ann Romney being rich preclude her from speaking out about (or understanding) economic anxiety?2) Once she does, is it okay for Rosen to ridicule her?
It's also spilled over into Rosen's sexuality and the Catholic League and adoption: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/is-this-all-there-is-war-on-moms-adoptive-parents-define-campaign-news-day-1.php. Those of you who hate all this will applaud Alec MacGillis's piece:
Apparently, we’re supposed to shrug at all this, roll with it. Deny or complain about the reality of the modern news cycle, and you’re a nostalgic prude. But I’m willing to suffer that label. This stuff is ridiculous, and I’ve been through enough of these campaigns to know that it’s getting worse. When the possible future First Lady, a woman who by most reports is as dignified as they come, is dragooned into setting up a Twitter account late on a weekday night so she can tweet her outrage over a line spoken on a news network no one watches, and her grown sons then chime in with their own go-mom tweets, and the rest of us get breathless ("game on!")—well, it’s time to pause for at least a millisecond and recognize that while this is how it is, it doesn’t have to be this way. We do still have personal agency. We can shut it off, put it down, and get the nail clipper.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 April 2012 22:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
1) Does Ann Romney being rich preclude her from speaking out about (or understanding) economic anxiety?
It didn't prevent Eleanor Roosevelt. But Ann Romney lacks Mrs. Roosevelt's curiosity (evident even in the twenties and early thirties). As for Rosen, she proved she's an amateur by making a remark that thousands of bloggers left and right would turn into front page news. When you're working for the frontrunner that's not what you do.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
she is not working for the frontrunner
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 April 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
no. it does, however, give others due cause to doubt her ability to really understand the economic concerns of the poor and middle class.
2) Once she does, is it okay for Rosen to ridicule her?
sure. but it's also okay for others to take offense at that ridicule.
― BEMORE SUPER FABBY (contenderizer), Thursday, 12 April 2012 23:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
I loved this:
Barbara Bush joined in the chorus of those defending Ann Romney today, saying on Fox News that “five boys is a handful, trust me. Raising George Walker was not easy.”
Mom and Obama united as to who's really to blame.
― clemenza, Thursday, 12 April 2012 23:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
wasn't Ann Romney in Throw Momma from the Train?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 April 2012 23:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw the #AskRomney hashtag on twitter is full of cheap, obvious lulz, but lulz nonetheless.
#AskRomney when you saw the Trayvon Martin story on the news, how surprised were you that black people still exist
#askromney how many people say ritt momney on accident?
#AskRomney Why didn't you become Batman? You have enough money to be Batman. Are you afraid to be Batman?
#AskRomney a/s/l?
#AskRomney Which days in her life did Ann Romney work? Please specify
#AskRomney If I put on the sunglasses Rowdy Roddy Piper gave me, will you look like an alien?
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 12 April 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw how many Pavlovian base bonus pts for both "Hilary" and "Rosen"?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 00:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Show us on your abacus.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 00:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Friday, 13 April 2012 00:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
every story/tweet ive seen abt this is the press complaining abt the presses frivolousness in reporting it, like guys you dont have to talk abt it you know
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
let's get back to the dog on Mittens' car roof
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
thats least funny, the dog pooped all over the car
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 00:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw morbs i think you should agree to do some sort of penance if obama wins and the economy doesnt implode, like eat a keyboard key or something, think abt it
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 00:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait, so did Hillary Rosen tell Ann Romney to go home and get her fucking shinebox or something?!?
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 00:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
mitt said he consults anne re economy and this lady on the tv who doesnt work for obama but maybe has some ties to the dnc said basically wtf does anne romney know abt the economy shes never had a job
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Thursday, April 12, 2012
now what shall you eat I wonder
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
are you taking sides here al you think obamas gonna lose
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
prob. has a lot of experience hiring and firing interior designers and whatnot
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:02 PM
He'll likely win but the economy's going under again in the next five years at most. Europe is at best unsettled, we've imposed no meaningful regulation on Wall Street, the JOBS Act is a joke, and income inequality is worse than it was under Bush ten years ago.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol five years ill mark that prediction on my calendar
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
here hold my marker
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
you should maybe go for like 8 youre p much guaranteed to get a recession during that period
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
lagoon: i know what Hillary Rosen said. i was making a joke b/c Phil D posted a pic of Billy Batts from goodfellas.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
ah lol that makes sense
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think you should agree to do some sort of penance if obama wins and the economy doesnt implode
I've never predicted either will/won't happen. In the first case, I don't care.
When she was prez of RIAA, the station mgr of WFMU reg called Rosen 'The Worst Woman in the World.'
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was riffing on Alfred's "show us on your abacus." Went with the wiseguy joke instead of the lol old joke. What a disaster.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
That prediction was actually rather restrained and conservative. I would endorse it without much trepidation.
― Aimless, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
seeing as rescissions happen like every 6 years its not any sort of meaningful prediction was my point
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am willing to bet against a recession this year, I'll bet you a beer morbs
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:52 PM
I hope you're right but you're not, as Cliff said to Clair Huxtable.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
what am i not right abt here alfred
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
Distinctions between "recession" and "downturn" or b/w "slower recovery than expected" and "it will remain shitty" are meaningless when we've done little to prevent the spiral from starting again.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
your argument is extremely vague!
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
"recession" is the least of our worries when predatory lending continues and regulation of the financial sector is nominal at best
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 01:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
the gray parts are recessions
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
thats all fine and good al but then what are you predicting will happen in the next five years exactly
recession has a very strict definition alfred, and it's not 'the least of our worries'
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 01:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
"exactly"? We're not economists. Like I said, I'll take a recession over another crash.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
what in particular are you predicting
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
that the economy is no longer in a "recession" means bloody little to the long-term un(der)employed.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm heartened that companies are hiring again but I remain depressed about a banking system that was neither disciplined by DC nor learned nothing about what happened in 2008, which makes another meltdown inevitable.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
you mean a melt down on par w/the one we just had, another 'great recession'
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
no it means plenty to the un and underemployed, because there is a big difference between 8% unemployment and 13% unemployment eisber, even if you are currently unemployed
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
and anyone who believes that Obama's "populism" is anything but crude electioneering intended to keep the dirty hippies quiet is a fool.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Pundits say "recession" because they're afraid of the implications of "depression" or, my favorite 19th century word, "panic."
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
no pundits say recession because it is a word with a precise and useful definition
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know what we're arguing about! You don't agree that circumstances are in place for a crash at least as bad as 2008's?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes -- pundits, whom we should praise for their precise and useful definitions, especially when they're on cable television!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's why we are hearing all of these stories about "unemployed need not apply" and rampant age discrimination in hiring ...
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
yall can free associate w/the best of em, YOU should be on cable news
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
but hey, silly me, i'm old enough to remember a day when Democratic politicians actually gave a shit about the long-term unemployed (or at least went through the motions of doing so) -- that was before "change we can believe in," though.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
sure but thats not what we were talking abt at all
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah also that was before republicans took control of congress
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
that is still the best looking owl ever. i wish he was a ice cream because i would eat him.
― BEMORE SUPER FABBY (contenderizer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:07 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
you can create whatever law you want but if people are gonna discriminate in hiring there's no way you can 'know they did it'
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
This started because you picked on Morbs about Obama and the economy as if the implication was that either our economic health depended on Obama's reelection or that we should reward Obama because we're not losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month like in 2009. If voters decided on the latter, that's fine, but it's no reason to be sanguine. If I'm wrong, please correct me -- no snark.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
i picked on morbs be cause he predicted the economy would bottom out before the election and obama would lose!
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think this has anything to do with obama? it's just not likely that the economy is gonna crash this year.
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is a classic liberal argument
Liberal #1: Things are shitty!
Liberal #2: Things have always been shitty. People are shitty. What can you do?
(walk silently to voting booth)
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think that prediction was like republicans who say obama is a muslim. it's more about expressing his annoyance than actually predicting anything
― Mordy, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
um, i've had fellow lawyer friends who are making a good living going after companies who discriminate in hiring, firing and other employment practices.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
(exit PAUL KRUGMAN, scarf blowing in the wind)
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just thought its was a really silly prediction is all, there was NO value judgement attached
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
well maybe more lawyers is the solution to our economic problems then
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
for the record, i don't expect an economic crash ... or even a downturn ... by Election Day. but who the fuck knows, esp given what's happening in Europe.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
they know how to throw parties!
xpost
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
and even if things don't turn to shit by November 2012 that doesn't mean they won't turn to shit sometime thereafter since (as Alfred noted) we've done precious little to stop the financial industry from engaging in the types of shenanigans that caused the 2008 financial crash in the first place.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
he predicted the economy would bottom out before the election and obama would lose!
didn't!
But yes we are going to have an apocalyptic crash in the next decade, and you can blame all the cocksuckers in both partee.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
and to repeat myself: anyone who expects anyone in the Obama Administration to do so is deluded. stating that "Romney will be worse" is not much of a counterargument.
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:15 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
europe is not gonna let greece et al default on their debt, they know it would be catastrophic, theyre just gonna do other less dumb things instead
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Europe should force Greek men to work and let the women hang out in cafes and smoke.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:18 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:57 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:54 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:58 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:59 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
unless of course Spain and Italy collapse and then I'm not sure they can really do anything at all xposts
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
man those responses are like samples in a Steinski track
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
the prediction of economic collapse in the fall is there for all to see, the prediction of obamas loss is i admit only implied but if there one example of how obama can lose the election that will be followed by many more of them its stands to reason that they will add up to a loss CASE CLOSED
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:23 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
obvs this stuff is v complex and i dont have a super good handle on it but its my understanding that its generally thought to be within the eu's power to prevent a total meltdown
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
going back to the Anne Romney thing
The "she's never worked a day in her life" thing is terrible and stupid, BUT Anne Romney also reminds me of that scene in Sex and the City 2 where Charlotte is bitching about how her kid ruining her fancy dress and wondering how people raise children without full time help.
I'm not saying that raising five kids isn't tough, but it's a hell of lot easier if you have an incredible amount of money and resources and presumably hired help to clean the mansion. She doesn't know what its like to raise five kids on a median income, or share a car with the husband or wonder how you're going to stretch your shopping budget to feed growing children.
I don't like the comments and obviously they were politically stupid, but somebody should raise the point much more loudly that her husband is talking about defunding Planned Parenthood from the federal level, there have been hearings about women's health coverage, and on a state level a slew of these personhood and ultrasound laws as well as repealing certain rights for women to get Equal Pay. The media finds Anne to be likeable and 'sympathetic' (for whatever reason she deserves sympathy other than being married to Mitt), but somebody should call her out on distorting the reality of what's going on with women right now by saying the "real war" is by Obama by not giving them jobs. It's utterly reprehensible.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm no expert either, but from my understanding it's not as simple as "we'll bail them out" because at some point it can get so bad that there's just not enough money for the EU to do that. keep in mind that by "the EU" we generally mean Germany right now. Greece is having trouble getting the austerity measures through that the bailout requires, and Italy's political troubles and economic issues have just last week created a lot more tensions. If the Greece bailout once again fails, its not out of the question that there'll be a domino effect. The EU never had contingencies for if someone left the Euro, and if that happens you're looking at not only a panic but a hell of a rough transition. I'm not saying "Weimar Germany" or anything but that result is not totally out of the question.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
lag∞n, i mean everything i post just as much as you do. Christ on the cross, I save my sincerity for important shit like the comedy canon, not the unavoidable fall of the American empire.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
it was all fun and games until Apatow came along
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
also Obama is running against a zillionaire Fred Willard imitator who makes John Kerry look like FDR
SCREEN DOOR CLOSED
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
why does it matter whether ann romney ever held a real job or not? most employed ppl don't know anything about how the economy works.
― Mordy, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
most successful businessmen don't either tbf
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
SHHHHHHHH
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
next you'll be telling me Bloomberg's wealthperience didn't pull NYC out of the shitter
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
if anything, not working and having someone take care of your domestic stuff probably frees up enough time to survey economic theory
― Mordy, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
"rosa, can you take the kids to the park? Martin Wolf just published a book..."
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 02:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
enough time to survey economic theory
...especially when taking up heavy drinking is not allowed by your religion.
― Aimless, Friday, 13 April 2012 02:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:43 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i was just messin w/you morbs, dont worry im not gonna hold you to that prediction
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 03:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
i do think you should eat yr keyboard tho, just because
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 03:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
doc forbade qwerty
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 03:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 03:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
gubke yaeh things can obvs spiral out of control but my reading of the situation is that a messy divorce is unlikely, tho in the long term imho itd be good to get rid of the euro in some orderly fashion that doesnt ruin the world economy if at all possible, either that or make the e.u. more like an irl country, cause what they got now dont make no sense, also i feel like its fundamentally wrong how even tho spains economy is weak i still cant go there eat their hams for cheap, worst of both worlds really
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 03:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
the great jamon crisis is deserving of its own thread
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 13 April 2012 03:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 03:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
i can't believe a pundit on tv said something controversial. this changes everything.
― neutral sequence for flute (blank), Friday, 13 April 2012 05:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
the allan west thing was obviously a lame "dad" joke. actually the timing was pretty good.
― neutral sequence for flute (blank), Friday, 13 April 2012 05:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno, it took a looongg time. I think he was pausing for effect and then was surprised by how long the crowd murmured. When he finally said it he didn't even say it very loudly.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 13 April 2012 07:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
The media finds Anne to be likeable and 'sympathetic' (for whatever reason she deserves sympathy other than being married to Mitt), but somebody should call her out on distorting the reality of what's going on with women right now by saying the "real war" is by Obama by not giving them jobs. It's utterly reprehensible.
Romney's (i.e., Anne's) health issues obviously figure into the media's treatment of her, and just in general (as long as their "wifely," and don't speak out too much) wives get treated well by the media. Rosen wasn't very artful, but I think calling Romney out was exactly what she was trying to do.
Or not. As someone who of course has 100% faith in Obama's genius at the political long-game, I think the whole episode was engineered so he'd have a chance to rush in and magnanimously defend stay-at-home moms.
― clemenza, Friday, 13 April 2012 11:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
"They're," not "their." Teacher.
― clemenza, Friday, 13 April 2012 11:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Why can't this just be a personal attack? Why does it have to turn in to a serious discussion on the role of women as perceived by The Mets vs. The Yankees?
Plus, yeah, Anne raising 5 kids is a full time job. FOR YOUR NANNY
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 13 April 2012 14:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
nannies
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 16:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
i did a lot of research on this yesterday and as far as i can tell the romneys never hired a nanny
― max, Friday, 13 April 2012 17:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
gdamn it
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 17:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
au pairs?
― lag∞n, Friday, 13 April 2012 17:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
satellite bigamy wives?
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Friday, 13 April 2012 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
― kurwa mać (Polish for "long life") (Eisbaer), Friday, 13 April 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
nanny or no, the crucial distinction is between a single working mother trying to raise kids on her own and a married woman whose husband is so wealthy that she never even had to consider working outside the home. it's not unreasonable to suggest that the latter might lack insight into the concerns of and issues facing the former.
― BEMORE SUPER FABBY (contenderizer), Friday, 13 April 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah well she is not gonna be president and this is just a game
― iatee, Friday, 13 April 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
John Dickerson tries to quantify controversies on a four-point scale:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/04/ann_romney_and_umbrage_the_four_kinds_of_campaign_controversies_and_which_ones_actually_matter_.html
Yesterday's Rosen/Romney whatever, which most people here dismissed, is a level 2 ("frivolous and noteworthy"); Obama's Russian live mic from last week, which even more people here dismissed, is awarded a level 4 ("serious and noteworthy"). My point: no one's going to agree on which of these things mean anything.
― clemenza, Friday, 13 April 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
thanks!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 13 April 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
They are all little points of light that dot the void.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 13 April 2012 23:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
i heard mitt romney was cuaght masterbating on a hotel balcony in connecticut.
― adam r jackson, Saturday, 14 April 2012 00:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's a level 3: "serious but unimportant."
― clemenza, Saturday, 14 April 2012 01:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
the whole dumbass megillah: hopeless but not serious
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 14 April 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Connecticut's solidly blue these days. If it had been an Ohio balcony, level 4.
― clemenza, Saturday, 14 April 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
So sad when the only place you can masturbate in peace is a hotel balcony. And even then you don't get any privacy!
― Aimless, Saturday, 14 April 2012 02:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
pictures plz
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 14 April 2012 02:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Reasons given in News Hour piece for the Republican primary challenge to Dick Lugar's senate seat in Indiana: he voted for the debt ceiling increase, the auto bailout, and the two Obama Supreme Court nominees.
― timellison, Saturday, 14 April 2012 02:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Saturday, 14 April 2012 03:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
― BEMORE SUPER FABBY (contenderizer), Saturday, 14 April 2012 06:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've been checking all over this morning, and I have to say that I find the conspiracy of silence surrounding the Romney masturbation story very troubling--especially in light of the documentation above.
― clemenza, Saturday, 14 April 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
obvs this kind of post modern approach has been employed before but im not sure its a tactic you really want to lean on, strange times http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/republicans-recite-dem-attack-lines----with-little-hope-of-success.php
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 13:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah I don't think so:
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's push for a Republican version of immigration legislation looks like the answer to the GOP's — namely Mitt Romney's — election-year prayers.Rubio is the telegenic son of Cuban exiles and a potential vice presidential pick. He is pulling together a bill that would allow young illegal immigrants to remain in the United States but denies them citizenship.
Rubio is the telegenic son of Cuban exiles and a potential vice presidential pick. He is pulling together a bill that would allow young illegal immigrants to remain in the United States but denies them citizenship.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
... why do we need a bill for that
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
legalized apartheid/american Gastarbeiter = NAGL
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
sign of our times that a "moderate/thoughtful" Republican thinks that our immigration policies should resemble those of Dubai.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
what a bizarrely written article
― goole, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
every paragraph has something about the what this bill will do for the political fortunes of the GOP, a) that's totally fucked up and b) they're all wrong anyway
there is nothing at all about what is even in this bill. the 2nd page is how furious the anti-immigrant part of the GOP is already. jesus the AP is garbage
― goole, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
haa oh it's a "work-in-progress"?
Opponents of Rubio's work-in-progress already have appealed to their rank-and-file members to contact the senator and express their opposition.
Numbers USA, which wants to reduce the number of legal and illegal immigrants, provided talking points to their nearly 1 million members.
"It is downright appalling that you are working on a DREAM Act amnesty. There is no difference between giving illegal aliens citizenship and giving them an amnesty. They would still be able to compete against unemployed Americans for jobs! You need to drop this plan presto!" the group said.
imagine the temptation they had to say "pronto" right there
― goole, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha I thought you were exaggerating
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
goole OTM. This is written by an apparatchik with a boner for Rubio.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol here's all they say about the bill:
Rubio, who notably called on his party to tone down the anti-immigrant talk earlier this year, is working on a plan that would allow young illegal immigrants who came to the United States with their parents to apply for non-immigrant visas. They would be permitted to stay in the country to study or work, could obtain a driver's license but would not be able to vote. They later could apply for residency, but they would not have a special path to citizenship.
"Mommy and daddy have to go back home, but you can stay here and sweep floors."
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
uh so his plan is to basically call off the ICE dogs and tell "young" people to call a consulate? man who could have a problem with that.
― goole, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rubio — telegenic son
he's a chubby fuck
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Maybe they all just need to read this. Or maybe 'Job Creating' isn't as big a priority as Immigrant Hating.
Immigrants Founded Half Of Top U.S. Start-Up Companies: StudyFirst Posted: 12/21/11 08:51 AM ET Updated: 12/21/11 10:17 PM ETImmigrants founded or cofounded almost half of 50 top venture-backed companies in the United States, a new study shows, underscoring some of the high stakes in potential immigration reform.
Immigrants founded or cofounded almost half of 50 top venture-backed companies in the United States, a new study shows, underscoring some of the high stakes in potential immigration reform.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/immigrants-startups_n_1162590.html
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/down-the-memory-hole-romney-calls-kris-kobach-just-a-supporter.php
ha maybe this is paving the way for rubio after all
what none of these articles ever mention is that anti-immigrant sentiment cuts up dems as much as it does the republicans.
― goole, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
"both candidates have a good bit of upside potential"
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150815242/the-obama-romney-poll-a-palooza-whats-it-mean
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 11:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
"upside potential" – dear god in heaven I'm happy for Orwell's sake that he's dead.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 13:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
"potential upside" wouldn't upset you, would it? Possibly redundant but a common sports term, so cozily at home in politocs.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/four-recent-national-polls-inc.php
Ron Brownstein:
Even with their modest variations, these four surveys paint a similar picture. Obama is largely holding the minority and college-educated white women who comprise two pillars of the modern Democratic base (along with young people.) But he is facing erosion among blue-collar white men and struggling to maintain even his modest 2008 support among the two swing quadrants in the white electorate: the college-plus white men and non-college white women.
For the moment, that division of allegiances is enough to provide Obama an overall advantage (he would lead slightly even in the Gallup track if the minority share of the vote was adjusted to its level in 2008). But it's not enough of an edge for him to breathe easy-and the fact that most of the white electorate is resisting him at least as much as it did in 2008 suggests he may never entirely get to such a comfortable place before November, even if he remains ahead overall
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's a pretty reasonable and informative article
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Brownstein's? He's one of the better political journalists.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
him too but i meant the npr one
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I skimmed the NPR and its basic point is exactly right, I thought: this is inevitably going to be close, and the idea that Obama is up by 9 (like in the CNN poll) is silly.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
of course it's going to be close
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
pop vote margin doesn't mean anything much, of course
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
e.g. Nixon barely won it in '68 but took the electoral college rather handily
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
yup and the gop has a pretty basic advantage w/ the math, it usually doesn't matter but when it did, it did
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 14:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
national polls aren't measuring the electoral college, so what are we talking about
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
we're talking about an article summarizing the polls and what pollsters think about them which is: they mean not very much right now
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
right the polls that are way to early to be very meaningful are about the popular vote and the popular vote is almost always v close
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:06 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yup
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
if the popular vote is always close then it's not always close u know
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
woah
I feel like I just took the red pill
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
When I said it's bound to be close, I meant electorally, not the popular vote--as in, this is going to be a close election period. I really do believe that. I know Romney has a ton of weaknesses, but Obama's approval has been bouncing around between 45-50 for months now; that seems fixed in place, and I can't see it producing anything but a close electoral election.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
hell prob win by roughly how much he beat mccian, which is only close if you're basing it on some random idea of what close means
― lag∞n, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
nooo way he'll win w/ that margin
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
more like bush 2004 I think
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
He could win by that much, but I don't see it as probable given that he's Reality Obama instead of Changemaker '08. His youthful acolytes, deep down, know he's an asshole.
It depends how deeply Team Mittens puts their hands in the woodchipper.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
every 4 years I start paying attention to stuff like this^ and it feels about the same as unlocking a new media experience for a JJ Abrams movie
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Deep Down, You Know He's an Asshole"
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I look at that electoral map linked to above, and I think it would only take a mediocre jobs report or two to send most of those toss-up states Romney's way. But then you have to balance that with how weak/unliked Romney is at present.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are not very many unemployed, undecided voters in ohio closely following month to month macroeconomic data
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm gonna guess up to at least the elbows
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
after which they will just attach a new pair of bajillion dollars Robomormon hands
That's hardly what I meant. Mediocre jobs report = more people without jobs = what used to be a toss-up no longer a toss-up.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
well I think the bigger thing is that they're just in a permanent state of 'toss-up' because we're concerned w/ what will happen in nov not what would happen if every state voted today. there is good reason to believe that peoples opinion of romney will sour after half a year of him on tv every day and there is some reason to believe that the economy will be a bit better in nov. those two trends are more important than any swing state poll can be today.
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's important to highlight how few people follow politics to the extent we do, even today the 'average american' knows very little about romney
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
they know he's a bajillionaire and a mormon
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's probably about it
there is good reason to believe that peoples opinion of romney will sour after half a year of him on tv every day and there is some reason to believe that the economy will be a bit better in nov
You can also say the opposite, and about Obama - and I'm not being contrarian. If you're unemployed in Akron and voted for Obama in '08 it's possible that you're sick of seeing him on the teevee.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but that's something that's already true for a lot of people and is 'in the numbers' in a way that peoples future dislike of romney is not
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not that I have too much faith in this kind of forecasting this far out, but the RCP method strikes me as pretty goofy and susceptible... like, Georgia for example, their average puts Romney +12, but that's because they're averaging the two polls where Romney is the furthest ahead, one of which is from December and presumably not very useful at all. The one that gives Romney the smallest advantage (+3) they don't include in the average, for reasons that escape me - maybe it's explained somewhere. Anyway, basically it's an average of only two polls. Not to say Obama has any prospect of winning Georgia (it went McCain 52-47 in Obama's surge election) but you know what I'm getting at.
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
One thing I often hear on TV (from all of Alfred's favourite people) is that impressions of the economy tend to be frozen in place five or six months out from the election--i.e., that some improvement in the late summer/early fall won't mean much. Example: Bush in '92. I don't claim to know whether this is true in general.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also weird is how all of their grey "toss up states," if you actually click on them, turn out to be Obama states using their math, except for Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina. Presumably there's some other metric involved but it's just odd to me - it's like they think they have this all figured out with the numbers, but they sort of know those results MUST be out of whack because they would turn the whole map blue and it's pretty clear that's not going to happen IRL - - so they turn a bunch of them grey but then it's just like, hey guys, maybe it's too soon to be doing this kind of super-electoral-predicto-map.
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
the safe bet is to never take anything said about politics on tv to have any value, ever
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
"frozen in place" probably FAIRLY true? I mean it makes sense to me instinctively, since the actual effect on people's lives of new bad or good news may take a while to really sink in. But it doesn't take long to turn it into an ad ("Well, the latest news is out - let the facts speak for themselves...") so if it fits a larger theme it'll stick.
2008 might be an interesting test case of this, really.
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Pundits conflate "the economy" with "my finances." I've been doing better financially the last two years despite the condition of Florida (chaos and disorder, thanks to the most conservative governor in our history) and the uneven national recovery but doing worse during the Bush boom years. That's why Reagan's question in '80 ("Are YOU better off now than you were four years ago?") was sharper than Mark Halperin asking voters "Do you think the economy's improving or getting worse?")
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
*doing worse = did worse
Probably just as likely that in 6 months everybody will be used to what they dislike about Romney and it won't be as big an issue. And I do think a lot of people vote for "change" when they don't like where they are now, without thinking too much about whether the change will be for the better or for the worse.
massive x-post
― nickn, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
the state of conservative coalescence
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/18/the_gop%E2%80%99s_very_peculiar_unity/singleton/
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ehhh - I wouldn't be SO sure? Like, Kerry was the presumptive nominee quite early, didn't mean Bush and Rove weren't able to load up his negatives (by completely making shit up) for the rest of the campaign.
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
But frankly, in the land of dirty tricks and ratfuckery, what would help Obama most would be to have a shadow operation somehow within the GOP, launching continued volleys at Romney from the right and trying to get them vote for a third-party candidate to "send a message to Washington" about "real conservative values." Forget the independents and keep eroding that soft support he has within his party. My dream is that Newt Gingrich actually will play this role without realizing it, but I realize that people have third-party Republican split fantasies every four years and it never goes anywhere.
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
well all things considered kerry was probably a 'stronger candidate' than romney is and actually had fewer negatives to exploit...the effect of the swiftboat type stuff was really marginal
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
but his opponent didn't have to run w/ 8% unemployment
lol @ the mere thought of Change We Can Believe In having a dirty tricks operation at all, much less one in the GOP.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 16:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
(Iatee,)
Growing up, I'd get pretty excited about NASCAR races. And I still love them. That's why I want to be the one to tell you that the folks planning the 2012 Democratic National Convention have figured out a way for you to show your support -- on a NASCAR stock car.
The convention's host committee is going to debut an official "Powered by the American People" car. And they want to put your name on it.
When you become a sponsor by donating just $5 or more, your name will appear on the car.
For me, this is a no-brainer. All you have to do is tell them how to spell your name, and you're off.
Sponsor the "Powered by the American People" stock car.
Grassroots support is the only way this convention is going to be a success. The 2012 convention will be funded by supporters like you, not special interests, lobbyists or political action committees -- and that's why we're not putting any corporate logos on the car. Just the names of folks like you who step up to make this happen.
The convention is going to kick off with a free Labor Day celebration at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, where everyone who comes out will see the official stock car.
Is your name going to be on it?
https//:charlottein2012.com/Powered_By_the_American_People
Let us know soon.
Messina
Jim MessinaCampaign ManagerObama for America
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 17:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
"absolutely! my name is 'Liqmi Balszak'"
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 17:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm opting for Heywood Jablome
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 17:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/296373/why-romney-has-real-chance-victor-davis-hanson
― goole, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 17:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
wow, that was a lot of bullshit piled on top of a couple salient observations about unemployment & voter enthusiasm
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't mean to hate on Charlotte but fuckin A of all the places in NC to go. Hold the fucking convention at Kill Devil Hills or something. Asheville, try Asheville, plenty of weed in Asheville. Raleigh. Wrightsville Beach. Build a convention hall in Henderson, play a lotta Coltrane at the convention, late spacey shit, it'll be cool. No no underrated A. We gotta go to fucking Charlotte. Things'll be super-cool in Char
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sort of blows my mind that it's going to be this close between Obama and Romney, solely because Romney is the least human and least empathetic person I have ever seen in my life. It makes sense if you factor in how much Obama threw the Left under a truck.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
It makes sense if you factor in how much Obama threw the Left under a truck.
that's really not the issue, the people who're disgusted enough to stay home are extremely low in number. right-wing propaganda machine + few signature accomplishments that can't be framed under multiple narratives + jobs/economy not zipping upwards fast enough for public to feel that Reagan-y sky's-the-limit good feeling = problems for the incumbent imo
Obama will still waste this clown, there will literally be an ad that's just the "corporations are people, my friend" exhange with no other voiceover
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
aero otm
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, it takes a couple hundred words to illustrate Obama's respect for corporate peoplehood.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe I will do an Occupy Charlotte trek paired w/ sidetrip to Raleigh! seems like a good week for it.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
there will literally be an ad that's just the "corporations are people, my friend" exhange
I would hope so, but I've seen these sorts of golden opportunities overlooked or refused in the past, by candidates I thought would have smarter advisors. At the upper reaches of national campaigns you can't count on anyone knowing what ordinary people care about, except as abstractions based on polling. Obama is too deep in his cocoon by now to be in charge of these decisions. Maybe Howard Dean will be smart enough to do it, but idk.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
Howard Dean?? isn't he two chairmen ago?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
who keeps track of DNC chairmen?
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
not me, but he's yesterday's Scream.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
this isn't nothing btw.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
like, u don't need to be zizek to realize that the subtlety of the case you need to make is correlated to the volume of the crime.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know, I'm just lamenting
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
look you guys I agree with you. it's just that Obama is presently in the "to make the case against me, you have to have a few minutes and not be crazy" position. that eliminates most of the people who want to unseat him, since they are of the distracted-by-light-on-a-bumper strain
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
"8% unemployment"
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
That's all Romney is gonna say, and that will be enough for some to vote for him.
x-postDebbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Dem is the current DNC chair.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
What makes this a horse race is that a huge proportion of the voting population do not need to hear a reasonable case made against Obama. They will simply rely on their visceral dislike to guide their vote and Romney needs only to feed that dislike by telling them they are right to feel that way.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
the distracted-by-light-on-a-bumper strain
are they related to the distracted-by-awesome-hair strain?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, I caught a Bill Maher clip of Debbie Wasserman Schultz doing the Obama-doesn't-REALLY-support-indefinite-detention dance. Vile.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
A significant minority are simply not going to vote for a muslim - nothing racist about that.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wasserman-Schultz is beloved by her constituency. I can't tell her apart from Ros-Lehtinen tbh.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think when the stakes seem so high ('the most important election of your lifetime!' but also, more seriously, this is the most public, possibly most powerful position in the world) you kinda psychologically want to hedge your bets about what is possible as much as you can. it's tempting to gird yourself for the possibility that romney wins so that you're not in a state of shock and horror if he does. there are probably other good reasons for wanting to see this as a horserace (to make it more exciting? to not make a prediction that makes you look like a fool? out of hope? out of the realization that the world is full of uncertainty and anything could happen). logically, tho, it's hard for me to accept that it's going to be a close election. everything i've learnt about american politics, and observed in my life, suggests that obama is going to win easily such that it'll be hard to believe that anyone thought he might not.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Against stupidity even the gods contend in vain."
-- Fredrich Schiller --
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty interesting unemployment post here from a Republican dude who I got googling around about the unemployment trends. I agree that "8%" is going to sound pretty bad, I assume the Obama campaign is going to hijack a little 99% rhetoric & that'll probably be where it happens. OWS ppl will be v. angry about this, there will be much rage in their self-contained circles.
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
kinda a truth about history is that ahistorical unpredictable events occur all the time, so any kind of prognostication always comes with the caveat, 'assuming a seismic shift in history doesn't change the facts about everything-'
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Reagan won with 7% unemployment
(not to be interpreted as an endorsement of Obbie)
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah because heaven forbid
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
1983-07-01 9.41983-08-01 9.51983-09-01 9.21983-10-01 8.81983-11-01 8.51983-12-01 8.31984-01-01 8.01984-02-01 7.81984-03-01 7.81984-04-01 7.71984-05-01 7.41984-06-01 7.21984-07-01 7.51984-08-01 7.51984-09-01 7.31984-10-01 7.41984-11-01 7.2
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
vs
2010-08-01 9.62010-09-01 9.52010-10-01 9.52010-11-01 9.82010-12-01 9.42011-01-01 9.12011-02-01 9.02011-03-01 8.92011-04-01 9.02011-05-01 9.02011-06-01 9.12011-07-01 9.12011-08-01 9.12011-09-01 9.02011-10-01 8.92011-11-01 8.72011-12-01 8.52012-01-01 8.32012-02-01 8.32012-03-01 8.2
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
so taking into account where each recession started, obama's recovery is only lagging 0.2 points behind reagan's?
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
The most shocking thing is there's no "Corporations Are People" auto-tune video on youtube.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah I didn't even include the peak of the recession in that
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
afaics, it's a damn miracle we didn't have the Great Depression II when the worldwide housing bubble collapsed. As it stands Europe's still in deep shit, which Obama (and Bernanke) can do nothing about. But a majority of Americans either don't notice or don't care that there is world beyond our borders.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is there like a "Most Robotic Things Romney Has Said" Top 10 anywhere I can look at for source material?
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
xxp anyway, still very comparable and we all know how reagan did that election
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
marking Bam down for 49 states then!
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
C-3P0 is more convincing.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd guess no just bc i can't imagine that kind of victory for any candidate in 2012, but i think he's got the election locked up. if it turns out i'm wrong, i'll probably be more upset about president romney than about my failure accurately predict the election xp
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah they're not comparable tho!
gdp growth by quarter: 1983:2 10.901983:3 6.501983:4 7.001984:1 7.401984:2 5.001984:3 2.30
^ this is not happening
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
ftr 'I think obama will win' and 'I think unemployment will be around 8%'...but if last year looked like 1983, obama would win this by double digits
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think people are underestimating the "hey this isn't exactly how i think it should be i'm voting for the other guy" mentality among the electorate.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
paying $4 at the pump, houses still worth less than the mortgages (if they haven't walked away yet), and an employer's market squeezing advancement opportunities/raises/etc.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
look how well it worked for Kerry
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
A friend just lost his 3rd job in 3 years and is trying to figure out if at-home freelancing is going to pay more than UI ... he's not gonna vote for Mitt, but maybe not O either.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
but that was a dissatisfied "anyone but Bush" portion because they paid attention to the war and the politics. I'm talking about people who don't generally give a shit but they just see that they're still in a not-great position financially. xpost
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
they just see that they're still in a not-great position financially
so they vote for the robot billionaire? makes sense.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
after it became apparent that neither Gingrich nor Santorum were going to be the GOP nominee, i resolved that unless it's obvious that it's going to be too close for comfort, then i am not voting for President at all.
so lol disgruntled liberal at me all you like.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
well if obama can't win nj he can't win the general election anyway so don't overthink it
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
what i mean is, i would've voted for Obama again if either Santorum or Gingrich were nominated only in the spirit of "Hindenburg v. Hitler" or a "Chirac v. Le Pen" b/c Gingrich or Santorum were exactly that bad. but since it's Obama and Romney, i really don't give a fuck which of those two corporate suck-ups wins.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
if you're hungry and the choice is between more gruel, less gruel, or nothing at all, then you should ask for more gruel, even if you find the gruel itself difficult to get down.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
unless you're in new jersey
― iatee, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
the gruelest state
except that neither Obama nor Romney are "more gruel" candidates.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think you actually understood Aimless's post
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's my point. there's no logic to it, other than "this guy isn't working for me i'll try the other guy."
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
also if it were santorum or gingrich i might not have bothered voting but Romney is pretty much everything I really can't stand in the world all wrapped up in one person. no matter how much they both grovel to the corporations, Obama isn't Romney.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, i understood it well enough. i'm just not eager to do the "lesser of two evils" thing (of which Aimless's post is a variant) any more unless it's absolutely necessary. gruel is still gruel.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm going to proudly vote for obama just to give the middle finger to holier-than-thou ilxors
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
in fact, for each ilxor who posts here that they're sitting out this election, i'm going to make another campaign call in PA on election day
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
a vote for Romney would be more effective if that is yer true desire.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
holier-than-thou white male ilxors
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
they need a thread
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
they've got a board though
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
excelsior!
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
bring back Gabbneb if you want "balance," then. as it is, as long as deej is around there are still doe-eyed Obama groupies around so worry not about me being a grouch.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's precisely when white male voters abstain or vote Romney in sufficient numbers that he could overcome the gender and race gaps and win the election.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
once again the fate of the free world rests in the hands of white males!
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
holier-than-thou ilxors
hey hey my my, liberal bullshit will never die
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
my my hey heyit's better to lie down than to post away
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
out of the Hope and into the bray
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
wow, a glimmer of self-awareness
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ain't been a liberal since I used the Evil Lessers argument to vote for that pathetic hack Mondale.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
i believe you meant haven't, not ain't.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, we natter on about whether this or that is racist here all the time, but perhaps keeping one's political hands lilywhite might even end up having an adverse effect on minorities.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
right -- if we don't vote the terrorists win.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
heard that at least 80 members of congress are communists so I don't know why you guys are so bummed about the state of US politics
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
let's be real here - of all the people saying they are likely to abstain, Alfred's Floridian vote is ostensibly the only one that could possibly matter
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
i hope we remember this when if a newly-reelected Obama conveniently forgets about the Buffett Rule and other nice liberal-sounding campaign utterances or decides it's time to slash Social Security and Medicaid. none of that would have an adverse effect on minorities, you know.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just assumed that secret public republican alfred was going to vote for reaganomney
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
(sorry to single you out Alfred, but it really doesn't matter who Morbz or I vote for)
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
dude obama is going to go hardcore socialist if he gets a second term because he doesn't have a re-election to worry about duh
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Mordy, Wednesday, April 18, 2012 3:40 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
you're welcome, guys
*lights pipe* *strokes smug boho beard*
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
the Buffett Rule and other nice liberal-sounding campaign utterances or decides it's time to slash Social Security and Medicaid
are we pretending that Romney would somehow be better/different in these departments
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
considering that i'm in a semi-flip state, and that i promised to make campaign calls for every ilxor that abstains from voting for obama, morbz should go vote since he'll be giving more votes to obama by not voting.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Alfred's Floridian vote is ostensibly the only one that could possibly matter
I live in one of the state's bluest counties. Despite the loudness of septuagenarian Cubans, I'll be okay should I do the nasty.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
2008
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
2004
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:05 PM (53 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
no, but that's exactly my point.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh i forgot that state's electoral votes are distributed based on county results and not on state-wide popular vote
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Despite the loudness of septuagenarian Cubans, I'll be okay should I do the nasty.
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
if Obama wins re-election Ted Nugent will be either dead or in prison by this time next year so if that's not motivation...
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
is that you reminding yourself, Mordy?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
as the only person on this thread who belongs to an ethnic group that actually had federal legislation in this country describing its members as subhuman property and state legislation within the past century specifically aimed at preventing people like me voting, you can all fuck off with this "oh it doesn't matter, I'm not voting" bullshit
I don't even care from the "Obama must win" standpoint; the blind privilege inherent in being politically connected and refusing to vote is enraging.
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I never said I wouldn't vote -- I said I may not vote for Obama.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
fine, then i'll vote for Mickey Mouse.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
I vote in every election and will do so until I die.
it's just that the "President" portion of my ballot may be occupied by a write-in vote for Morbz.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
and whatever i do wr2 the Presidential ballot, i still plan to show up & vote for the Congressional candidates. even if i think that the entire Democratic Party is a stinking pile of poo too.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm voting for Carl Sagan
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
In theory, DJP, I agree with you. Just give me someone to vote for. "Refusing to vote" for one of 2 people who will make things worse at different speeds is defensible, especially when by the Democratic voters' standars, no one who will actually stop the slide to oblivion can ever get elected.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
and not voting accomplishes what?
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
well might get some chores done around the house instead, I guess
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dislike the lesser of two evils argument as much as the next guy. I have been spending much of my adult life trying to escape it, even to the point of registering with my local Green party so as not to be a registered Democrat, and Ialways try to work actively for candidates who actually seem attractive, as opposed to less evil.
But there comes a point in most elections where the choices are narrowed down and petulance over this fact doesn't get you anywhere. The choice of failing to vote might seem attractive compared to voting for the lesser of two evils, but in reality it merely ensures your complete irrelevance. Shit, I've even given $$ and done phone banking for the lesser of two evil candidates, because I'd rather be a tiny bit relevant, however infintesimally small that relevance may be, than just pout about things.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, november 6th is already a scheduled laundry day.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
also d4n, you recently posted re Obama/Holder on civil liberties/strip searches that the Administration seems to want to make the entire country know what it feels like to be black. So who is this theoretical damage-control helping in the long run? and how?
in reality it merely ensures your complete irrelevance.
No. The corporate-owned "democratic process" does that.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
also, i didn't say that under no circumstances would i vote for Obama again -- i stated that i hold my nose and vote for him if come Election Day the election is too close to call. (i'll also add that i may do so if the Supreme Court rules that the ACA is unconstitutional.)
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Aimless, has anyone said he's staying home on Election Day? I will go on voting in county and congressional elections; and in Florida we have at least four other candidates for prez.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
i think it makes sense to keep the slightly better party in power just in case somebody comes up with the magical game-changer that will overthrow our corporate overlords. would rather have a slightly sympathetic ear in government.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
and before any goes "lol you live in New Jersey you're just posturing!" my home state's blue-statedness is only a recent phenomenon and not etched in stone. look at who our current governor is, after all.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Kathryn Jean Lopez @kathrynlopez
is barack obama losing catholics?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Louis XVI and Kerensky weren't entirely unsympathetic to the howling masses, either. just sayin'.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
in terms of stuff like starting wars, detonating weapons, unbalancing the fragile state of world politics, there's def a better + worse candidate here (even if romney is probably better on this stuff than psychotic mccain). it's not even lesser of two evils. try to keep the guy who wants to drop a nuke on iran out of office.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Alf, that was in response to Eisbaer.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't expect anything but the lesser of two evils in a democracy. My sense of white privilege is so high that frankly, anything less than being King-Emperor would likely disaapoint me but if you think that encouraging the obscurantist, often racist wing of the right w/a win this year, however much Mittens wasn't really the girl they were really in love with, then I disagree with your take on the long-term narrative of American polical party history and with all the wignnut damage that they're doing in the States, I'd like a Pres who only enrages me a couple times a fortnight and not every single morning.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Voting only for perfect candidates, classic or dud.
I am sure McCain would have appointed Sotomayor, and she is exactly the same as Scalia.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
anyway, in the scheme of human history almost no decisions the president makes matter. will anyone know obama or romney's name in 4012?
answer: no, because our descendants will be living like molepeople testing the irradiation in the soil above them and telling stories about the days humans walked topside and felt the heat of the sun
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
successfully resisted a joek
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is this a serious question? And, do you realize you have essentially phrased it as "why are these dark fascists inflicting their race war on us?"
jesus fucking christ
― an independent online phenomenon (DJP), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
anyway, i think that this entire debate is going to be academic b/c i think that Obama will win reelection (even if it's too close for comfort).
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
relevant: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/is_obama_no_better_than_the_gop/
Yes, both Obama and McCain will be interventionist. But if one would invade Iran and the other wouldn’t … well, that’s a massive difference, even if both would embark on Libya-type adventures. There’s a good chance that Guantanamo stays open regardless of who is elected, but Romney’s supporters include many who support reinstituting torture; that’s extremely unlikely to be U.S. policy if Obama is reelected. Again, I’d call that a massive difference. On taxes, too, one candidate supports modest increases in tax rates for upper-level taxpayers, while the other favors large tax cuts from current levels; if either party wins a landslide, it’s likely that those positions would be enacted.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
in terms of stuff like starting wars, detonating weapons, unbalancing the fragile state of world politics, there's def a better + worse candidate here
See you're going by what pols SAY here, and Obama is just the most prominent, latest example that such shit means nothing. Rombot would govern as closely to Obot as O has to Bushbot. Too close.
That "perfect candidate" shit is another eternal strawman. Yep, PERFECT is the ONLY standard by which Bam falls short!
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
i hope the mole overlord refuses to sanction massive reeducation torture, my back is still hurting from last week's celebratory beatings
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
do you realize you have essentially phrased it as "why are these dark fascists inflicting their race war on us?"
oh c'mon man, how is that possible?
they say that both candidates will be exactly the same, but the one promoting the destruction of our mushroom field food silos bc the great mole god will provide scares me. i'm going to vote for the with the eye-gauging platform. i can't see down here anyway and i need food to live.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, we all know how Obama well has honored his 2008 campaign pledges. perfect ain't even in it, he hasn't even lived up to his own words.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Morbs, I think you have successfully convinced us all that Obama is not perfect. We are in your debt for this. So, if you think we are backsliding on this question, plz, sir, can we have another?
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's kinda nice that obama + romney are even letting us vote instead of just telling us who is the new overseer. i know that it doesn't matter which one i vote for, but it makes me feel like a participant when i pull the poll lever and get an 'i voted' sticker.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Rombot would govern as closely to Obot as O has to Bushbot. Too close.
yeah see this just isn't remotely true. If you think, for example, that Dubya would have handled the Gulf oil spill the way Obama did, you are wrong. Obama also did not initiate a war of convenience that crippled the economy. Obama did not appoint Scalia or Roberts etc etc
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
what curmudgeon is not convinced of, Aimless, is that opposing Obama = opposing all imperfection.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shakey, try to imagine the gap between "identical" and "too similsr"
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
at least Dubya threw Ken Lay under a bus -- where are the Wall Street prosecutions?
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean, not only are Jon Corzine and Jaime Dimon still walking the earth as free men, they were both seriously mentioned to head the Treasury Department!
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yep, PERFECT is the ONLY standard by which Bam falls short!
I agree that Obama has some shortcomings, some of them he brought, and some because of his fear of the Fox-gargling psychotics of the right and how they may try to undermine him but he is getting us out of Afghanistan. I still support the aid to the Libyan rebels. You cannot know the outcome of a national rebellion but, c'mon, it didn't cost us that much to help them out and I do remember that w/o the help of France, Holland and Spain we wouldn't have won our independence. With what Romney has said and what he owes the baying wolves on the neo-con right, God alone knows what fuckery his administration might get up to.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just don't want a businessman in the white house
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama is a business, man
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
he is getting us out of Afghanistan
oh c'mon -- after sending more troops?!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
based on that sliver then Nixon got us out of Vietnam.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
he always said he was going to concentrate on Afghanistan. Not that I'm making apologies for all of the other awful things Obama has signed off on.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nixon DID get us out of Vietnam!
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
re: Afghanistan it seems abundantly clear to me that Obama can't wait to pull all our troops out and wash his hands of the mess. I fully expect troop withdrawal schedules to go forward as planned.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bin Laden's dead, Al Qaeda's in disarray, nothing to be gained from prolonged hostilities in Afghanistan
I don't care what he can't wait to do. CUZ HE'S BEEN WAITIN'
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier),
The burglar killed your dog and raped your sister. Thank goodness he's outta the house!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 21:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
well you know me, I'm not praising Nixon or anything but them's the facts
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 22:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I fully expect troop withdrawal schedules to go forward as planned.
Especially since the Afghan govmt wants us to keep to them. A precipitous pull-out would have been politically harrowing domestically, destabilizing for Afghanistan and pretty difficult wrt NATO.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Wednesday, 18 April 2012 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
In a speech in which he stressed the need for education and opportunity, he contrasted his own life story with that of his likely GOP rival. “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn’t. Somebody gave us a chance. Just like these folks up here are looking for a chance.” Obama said.
Playing the spoon card! (Don't worry--that was supposed to sound stupid.) I imagine Obama will be very good at needling Romney. How Romney handles it--whether he brushes it aside or continually gets sidetracked by every little barb--may have some bearing on the campaign.
― clemenza, Thursday, 19 April 2012 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
is that you reminding yourself, Mordy?― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:08 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:08 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
I was being sarcastic. Are you claiming that a State's electoral votes are assigned by individual districts as opposed to a state wide popular vote? At one point in history maybe, but surely that's not the case in Florida in 2012, right?
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
(I'm sure someone will helpfully correct me if I've been laboring under an electoral misunderstanding.)
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 00:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was returning the sarcasm, and, yes, you're right. However, the resilience of the blue vote in the counties in which I live relieves me of the pressure of voting for a Dem.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
for prez, that is
why does the county that you are in matter more than the county anyone else is in, when it comes to a national election
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Moral suasion.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama has governed to the right of my ideal, and there are some specific instances about which I am v upset, but most of the protests I've seen here recently are a bunch of bullshit.
Just curious, Obama haters, what modern president would you have voted for?
^this is a dumb-ass comparison
^who would you vote for? Barr? Aquaman?
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
would vote for aquaman
― raw feel vegan (silby), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
how so? and why hasn't anyone involved in the financial meltdown been thrown in jail yet?!? where are the DOJ or SEC investigations -- that's right, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
difficult to do when the markets control everything
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm down with people being severely disappointed in Obama, but I think its largely an extension of late capitalism.
but hey, i hear that the prosecutions and other good things are coming as long as Barry gets reelected ... after the campaign checks from Goldman Sachs and the hedge-funders clear.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah capitalism sucks balls
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
and the Republicans have been (at best) repugnant and (at worst) batshit crazy for as long as i can remember ... that hasn't changed, and it won't change any time soon.
what has changed, though, is that Democratic voters have constantly lowered their expectations to the point where their standard-bearer is essentially little more than Bush-Cheney v. 2.0 -- and they're making excuses for it.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm sure W would've gotten around to repealing DADT eventually.
― raw feel vegan (silby), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
hedge-funders have gay kids.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
and daughters who can get knocked up.
we need a primitive revolution
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
and thank the Congress for repealing DADT, not Obama.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah they overrode his veto
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obamacare is letting me stay on my parents' insurance; will vote w/ my craven self-interest in mind.
― raw feel vegan (silby), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
hedge funders brought gay marriage to New York state, strangely
― boxall, Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
they did
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
if Obama has made your life better in some way, then fine vote for him ... i never said to not vote in your self-interest.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
the election must be heating up, we're having the "you people who think that for example authorizing the assassination of a U.S. citizen effectively eliminates any moral gap between you & the other side are 'asking for perfection' argument." cool!
look. the murder of al-Awlaki, and his 16-year-old son, by unmanned drones under the president's orders - this, like the continuation of torture policies, enters into such morally reprehensible territory that it's mystifying to me that people of good conscience can't, at the very least, say "yes - I get how on a moral basis you cannot give your vote to such a candidate." I get that for some, the response is, look, be all that as it may, you're going to get one candidate or the other, therefore choose the one who is likely to accomplish more good. this, too, is a moral argument, and a very fine one, but it doesn't answer, morally, the question of lending support to lawlessness and murder. That is not really a question for which the "you must vote for the candidate who you believe will do more good" people really have an answer, even though they are making, in my opinion, an argument that also comes from a moral place. this I think is usually the point at which people get accused of asking for ponies, but demanding a moral justification is not asking for ponies imo: it's a reasonable demand.
I'm resigned to voting for Democrats; I don't like it, but I'm actively involved in pro-choice politics now, and for the sake of my sanity I've become pretty much a one-issue voter. On the other issues I mourn and fret and pray that anyone who'd allow the torture of another human being will suffer every day of his life in his heart and never know peace. but I'll vote for the ones who might do a cause that's important to me more good during the immediate siege on reproductive rights, and I think narrowly speaking that's how one can get morally comfortable with voting in people who you know will actively do terrible things.
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
if i were a Frenchman 10 years ago, i would've voted for Jacques Chirac over the neofascist knuckledragger. that didn't make Jacques Chirac any less of a crooked bastard, merely that the alternative was unthinkable.
likewise, if i end up voting for Obama again the least his supporters or apologists (as if there's a difference at this point) could do is not insult my intelligence -- can it with the "change we can believe in" bullshit this time.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
in fairness I haven't heard a whole lot of Obama apologizing of late. I think everybody's pretty bummed, but some people choose to keep their focus on some positive things, which do exist. I think that's a fair enough strategy individually. But I don't think "here are the positives, and they're very real!" (as in health care: a real thing, a real benefit of Obama's admin that people have attained because he was willing to stake his presidency on it) is an answer to questions of profound moral weight. health care is also a question of profound moral weight, and there's a discussion to be had there, but torture, detention without charge, state-sanctioned murder of its own citizens: enumerated goods do not counterbalance these in any way. they are a case apart.
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not sure the 'citizen' element of the assassination is a moral one.
I'm not sure anyone here would argue that Obama's great. I think people get frustrated at the notion of "it doesn't matter they're as bad as each other". Maybe I'm just utilitarian though.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
you're going to get one candidate or the other, therefore choose the one who is likely to accomplish more good. this, too, is a moral argument, and a very fine one, but it doesn't answer, morally, the question of lending support to lawlessness and murder. That is not really a question for which the "you must vote for the candidate who you believe will do more good" people really have an answer
well 'the answer' is that not voting or voting for a third party is not any more or less of a morally neutral action than voting. you might not 'feel' like you are lending support to candidate a or candidate b, but as far as numbers go, not voting is the same thing as 'voting for the guy who would otherwise win' and you 'should realize' that that's the result of your isolated action
but really voting is mostly about the 'feeling' part, so whatever
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 04:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
iatee nobody said anything about a third party
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
well I included it cause the effects are the same math-wise not cause I have beef w/ third parties
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
really tho in a country w/ 300m people spending energy trying to convince anybody to vote any particular way in a national election is just as irrational as voting for a third party, probably more, so I dunno
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I agree that Obama has some shortcomings, some of them he brought, and some because of his fear of the Fox-gargling psychotics of the right and how they may try to undermine him but he is getting us out of Afghanistan. I still support the aid to the Libyan rebels. You cannot know the outcome of a national rebellion but, c'mon, it didn't cost us that much to help them out and I do remember that w/o the help of France, Holland and Spain we wouldn't have won our independence.
didn't 'cost us that much' unless you believe -- like, yknow, candidate obama claimed to -- that presidents have no constitutional authority to attack other countries without congressional authorization.
i'll vote for obama for dreary lesser-of-two-evils reasons, but i won't delude myself about what kind of guy he is.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, otm. it's hard to argue that someone with whom i merely disagree with on policy matters (romney) is as bad as someone who's ordered the murder of an american citizen without a trial. [/morbius]
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
like I genuinely don't care how you vote for pres aero, and if the election ends up being decided by north carolina, and by one vote in north carolina, I think the lols would be worth the loss this time around
btw I didn't even 'vote for obama' cause my ballot got screwed up.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
the thing is the stay-home sympathizer in me feels like "yeah - whichever one wins is cool with me" is an ok position & is morally defensible in many cases. but actually iatee I'm with you, I think people who basically try to Sell The Candidate have the right idea - make one's inner decision but don't try to reason people into behavior, it's a nonstarter
it is, insofar as the citizen is guaranteed the same rights as any of us under the law. this is an immobile cornerstone of our law. your government will not just order your assassination, you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. unilaterally stripping a citizen of those rights is a profound outrage to democracy.
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
aero otm. it's far worse than anything romney has done (though of course he's lacked the power), arguably as bad as anything bush ever did.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean, i'm gonna vote for obama cuz [throws hand up in the air] what else am i gonna do? but i'm not happy about it. have never felt more despondent about my options in an election year.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
you also have the option 'don't overthink it'
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah man can you just allow people to cling to their humanity while they vote for the candidate you're pumped about? actually caring about philosophical questions is not "overthinking," it's an important part of many people's lives
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I care about philosophical questions too! I just don't think there's much moral responsibility in one individual's vote in a national election. there are lots of things you do everyday that do have moral responsibilities attached to them and are interesting to think about, but voting is mostly just a formality and thinking too much bout your responsibility w/ the checking of one box is sorta navel gazing. whereas the fact that you didn't volunteer at the homeless shelter today, that should actually be a weight on your shoulders. etc.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol voting
― velko, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
I guess I separate policy/legal decisions from strictly moral ones.
I'd probably agree with you guys if this horrendous action was on Romney or the Republican's platform at all, but since it's not and they have no objections, I'm going to assume they would have done the same thing. Which leaves us with two candidates that will assassinate US citizens abroad without trial, but one of which will also gut programs for the poor, cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood, and will actively pursue an economic policy that will ensure even greater income inequality than there is already.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
not to say that Obama's policies haven't made the income inequality gap worse, mind, but at least he pays lip service to the notion that it is not an inherently 'good' thing.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
but also you know, this is America. we haven't really had a moral leg to stand on in a long time.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just don't think there's much moral responsibility in one individual's vote in a national election. there are lots of things you do everyday that do have moral responsibilities attached to them and are interesting to think about, but voting is mostly just a formality and thinking too much bout your responsibility w/ the checking of one box is sorta navel gazing. whereas the fact that you didn't volunteer at the homeless shelter today, that should actually be a weight on your shoulders. etc.
ye gods, that's ridiculous. i do not feel guilt every day that i fail to spend in service to humanity. i'm simply not that altruistic. and the actual act of casting a vote is not the whole of what we mean when we talk about "voting". the act is tied to the complex networks of consideration that constitute our political and moral philosophies. to vote is to endorse, and the less we can find to actively endorse, the less enticing the prospect of voting becomes. this is natural and sensible. if we were equally enthusiastic about voting regardless of the choices, candidates would have little incentive to support our values.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
their incentive would be...to ensure that they got the vote, and not the other dude
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh - I fall on both sides - I think the actual effectiveness of a vote doesn't really figure much in its moral weight, morality for me is in a loftier realm. (I know if DJP were awake he'd ring my fuckin bell for that one though + there's a compelling case to be made against leaning too hard on abstract morality.) at the same time, I've heavily increased my real-world helping-out efforts over the past five years, Paul's right, "faith w/o works" etc. But voting remains a "work."
contenderizer otm that broader rippling effects of voting have to do with the forming of consituencies within the body politic & plenty of other stuff, I don't think it's as isolated an act as iatee claims - it's participation. people get motivated by doing it, or discouraged, and that can lead to them e.g. volunteering at shelters.
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, but democrats can basically count on the support of liberal voters simply because they're, generally speaking, more liberal than the alternative. unless they depend on generating real enthusiasm among liberal voters, they have no incentive to offer more than meager support of liberal values.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd probably agree with you guys if this horrendous action was on Romney or the Republican's platform at all, but since it's not and they have no objections, I'm going to assume they would have done the same thing.
i just don't know. i'm not going to assume that anyone's a monster until they actually do something monstrous. after all, i gave obama the benefit of the doubt until he proved me wrong. and it's worth noting that while bush may have set the precedent, he doesn't seem to have gone as far in this direction as obama. so...
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
contenderizer otm that broader rippling effects of voting have to do with the forming of consituencies within the body politic & plenty of other stuff, I don't think it's as isolated an act as iatee claims - it's participation. people get motivated by doing it, or discouraged, and that can lead to them e.g. volunteering at shelters
I think this is true but again it becomes a behavioral and personal thing and not an effect youre having on other people. like, voting is good because it's a civic virtue as an act, sure, that's why I do it even though my votes have never managed to change any election and never will. but voting for candidate a or candidate b doesn't really come into play, which is why I didn't say 'don't vote' I said 'don't overthink it'
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
My guess is that it was advisors/CIA/military folk telling him what to do and he got the legal team to work on it. I imagine they would have advised anyone else in office to do the same, and I think it more likely that Obama would say 'no' than Romney or most Republicans for that matter, being as they're traditionally (and vocally) more hawkish than the Dems.
Again, it being not mentioned at all by a party that is dead set on telling everyone who will listen that Obama is stripping them of their rights makes me think they don't see it that way.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Of course, if Bush had done it there would be more than just The Daily Show expressing outrage.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
ike, voting is good because it's a civic virtue as an act, sure, that's why I do it even though my votes have never managed to change any election and never will. but voting for candidate a or candidate b doesn't really come into play, which is why I didn't say 'don't vote' I said 'don't overthink it']
there's a weird disconnect there, imo. every individual vote, when considered in isolation, makes no difference in a national election, sure. otoh, votes in aggregate make a huge difference, and votes in aggregate can't exist absent individual votes. this should be enough to dispel the notion that the individual vote is "mostly just a formality". it's like carrying a coffin. i can't carry a coffin on my own. if i weren't there, the other five guys could probably manage it without me. but that doesn't mean that my participation is insignificant. i'm as important as anyone involved. shared responsibility is not necessarily diminished.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've never voted in a Presidential Election. Now that I'm in Virginia, it feels maybe more important, but actually I'm not entirely sure if it matters. I'm voting for the experience.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
carrying a coffin is a good analogy for america
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
my vote for mondale changed the course of history
― buzza, Thursday, 19 April 2012 05:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am assuming that Obama picked up the paper one day, saw one of those "20% of electorate think Obama is a Muslim" polls, and thought "Well, it look like I'm going to have to kill some brown people to get re-elected".
(Or maybe he has a real taste for it - we don't really know)
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 06:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
really?
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 06:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also hey guys there's this thing called Google :)
Romney forcefully defends killing of al-Awlaki
Romney, Perry congratulate Obama; Perry gives backhanded praise
Mitt Romney: Death of AL-AWLAKI a Major Victory
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 06:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, i know. i'm drawing a moral distinction between ordering a murder and congratulating the murderer, splitting hairs perhaps. also saying that i'm agnostic about what people might have done if they'd had the power when they didn't. not endorsing romney or perry, btw.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 07:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
the al-Awlaki assassination was the no-man's-land action for me. Believe it or not, I would've considered voting for him (as I said in November '08). You've all got your beyond-this-I-won't-go moments; this one was mine, as bad as Candidate Obama siding with Republicans on warrantless wiretapping. I'm quite aware that Justices Ginsberg and maybe Breyer will retire or die in the next couple years and would prefer Obama nominating their successors but I can't even trust the decision making of a man so unconcerned about the morality of killing an American citizen without bringing him before a court.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 09:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp not literally no, but seems like he both has a massive handicap as regards foreign policy (or the one vector of foreign policy that will get any play), and a blank cheque from the Democratic Party because they are the Democratic Party. He seems, to me, to cut more of a Tommy Carcetti figure than an actual villain like Nixon - willing to make bad deals to get further (in this case to set Obamacare in - I would like if he went mad socialist in the next term, but I consider it about as likely as Eisbaer's slash theory above).
Also as a non-USier the details of "these people that we're killing with no stated rationale or oversight have a different passport to these people we've been killing with no stated rationale or oversight" still elude me, particularly as Gubke says compared to the other elements of that sentence.
One thing I'm surprised to hear about is torture - I'd thought that apart, from refusing to prosecute Bush-era torture, Obama's hands were clean on that?
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 10:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
If he needed the cannon fodder, maybe.
Obama 2012: For the Lip Service
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
He and Holder have continued the late Bush administration policy of banning it; now we target suspects with drone missiles.
"these people that we're killing with no stated rationale or oversight have a different passport to these people we've been killing with no stated rationale or oversight" still elude me
al-Awlaki is an American citizen and thus has constitutional rights. We must take the government's word that he was A Dangerous Fellow.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 12:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Right, but the last sentence is also true of lots of other people.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 13:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
This made me laugh:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/river-phoenix-reacts-to-the-romney-nomination.html?tw_p=twt
― clemenza, Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Many governments kill their own citizens with no judicial process whatsoever. Some guys just get together in a room and decide who to kill. It sucks balls to be a citizen of such a country.
My own government is now able to kill my fellow citizens without a judicial process. It cites various reasons for doing this, but none of those reasons rise above the simple need to maintain an unbreachable wall of safeguards between me and the guys who got together in that room.
― Aimless, Thursday, 19 April 2012 15:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
right which is why this is a legal issue not a moral one
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-04-18/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know if you're being a pedant.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Because we can't verify whether al-Awlaki committed the crimes for which the Obama administration had him killed, his death IS a moral blight if you believe in due process and the presumption of innocence. How can you separate law and morality from this act?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:51 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Man, this is a pretty great read. This stuff really should be mobilized in the campaign - Romney comes off as like, Roger Smith.
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
man we have this voting conversation a lot
― goole, Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
if you believe that due process and the presumption of innocence is a moral right then you should believe its a moral right to everyone in the world
if the american gov't is assassinating people I really don't care more if it's happening in nyc to american citizens or cairo to non-american citizens
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
iatee sometimes you say smart shit and then there's times like this
the law stems from principles, this isn't hard to get, I'm glad you love the brotherhood of man so much that you're incapable of understanding how a government parceling out the rights its own founding documents guarantees to its citizens isn't a big deal but you're on the wrong side here so just moveon.org imo
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
There are no such things as rights dudes, they're privileges.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah the constitution stems from 18th century 'principles' not 21st century ones, that's why it's currently 'constitutional' for a 16 y/o to buy a gun which will be used to kill people and 'not constitutional' for the govt to mandate health insurance, really dgaf about 'constitutional' when the question is right or wrong
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Because singling out his status as an American Citizen makes it a legal case, as opposed to the moral argument that which shouldn't be killing *anyone at all*, and certainly not without due process. We're all pretty sure Bin Laden was responsible for what he said he was, but I still don't like the idea of shooting a guy in the face that is not an immediate threat to the soldier.
In a legal sense, it is certainly troubling - especially as they apparently have the "justification" locked away in the counsel's office somewhere - but in the moral sense I don't see it as any different from the huge number of crimes this administration/country has committed time and time again without many people raising an eyelid.
So, legally, I'd say it's troubling, but as troubling as the sentencing of Tarek Mehanna to 17 years. Or as troubling as the fact that, on an almost daily basis, police officers in this country violate personal rights and run roughshod over daily lives and we, as a people, have very little-to-no recourse to address the issue unless somehow the media takes an interest. Personal freedoms have been eroding for a long while, both legally and practically.
xposts
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
when have I ever written otherwise?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Legal and moral are not two separate spheres. And there are pragmatic concerns here, too.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, April 19, 2012 3:19 AM (7 hours ago)
I have no control over what foreign governments do to their citizens or to citizens of my country. For the most part, that's out of my hands. Though I have substantial moral qualms about war in general, I am tentatively willing to accept that it may be necessary in certain circumstances for my government to set out to kill people without a trial. I do not accept, however, that it is ever acceptable for my country to deliberately assassinate American citizens without a public trial of some kind. This is both a legal and a moral issue. It is moral in the sense that my government, as a representative democracy, is an extension of my will. I am the "we the people" that authorizes and empowers my government. Therefore, when my government behaves in an immoral manner, I bear some moral responsibility. At the very least I am obligated to register my objection and to allow my values to guide my political participation in America's governance. It may also be immoral for my government to assassinate non-US citizens, but that's a slightly different issue, one that obviously has different implications about the relationship between the US government and its citizenry.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i don't really agree with that.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
really dgaf about 'constitutional' when the question is right or wrong
This ia a terrible attitude, imo, though a sadly common one these days. The constitution is a device that protects a mechanism, and that mechanism in turn protects us against a wide variety of abuses of governmental powers. It's not a perfect tool, but it's a good one, and the idea that it's only valid to the extent that it ensures the success of our values is very short-sighted, imo.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I bear the same moral responsibility when 'we the people' kills someone in mexico and when it kills someone in arizona
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
what part of it?
yeah i agree with that xposts
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I disagree with contenderizer only insofar as he endorses the theory of collective guilt.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah. i was born into this country without a choice. the country is a construct, not some moral reflection on me.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
i choose to see it as collective responsibility, not collective guilt. like, regardless of how we came to be here, we have a responsibility to ensure that the government that claims to represent us behaves in accordance with our values. imo. how far you take this is up to you.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have no control over what foreign governments do to their citizens or to citizens of my country. For the most part, that's out of my hands.
the level of control we have over nearly everything is extremely limited. i could make a huge list but i'll just let that sit as a principle. this is also why the moral attachment you have to any one individual you vote for is very limited.
you voted for a man, he does something horrible, what level of responsibility do you have for that thing? as much as guilt can be quantified, i'd say it is an amount indistinguishable from zero. what control do you have over affairs, in that moment after you learned of the murder? only over your own power to say that it is shitty. which is about the same as your vote in the first place: a vote is a speech act "given the options that life offered up at this moment, i guess i pick this guy"
i don't understand the sense of accounting that goes, "my vote means that everything this government does for four years in on my conscience, i won't bear eight". st. peter isn't holding you to such a raw deal.
― goole, Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Personal freedoms have been eroding for a long while, both legally and practically.
Personal freedoms in this country have never existed.
― I need new, hip khakis (DJP), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
A vote is also an incredibly diffuse instrument of responsibility: if you want to make your views on this (any) matter clearer than when you voted - here's the streets, take to them.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
st. peter isn't holding me to anything. i choose my own sense of moral responsibility. if the french government does something i see as immoral, i may register an objection by some means or another, but I'm not terribly likely to view myself as helping shape French policy. I feel less responsibility to ensure that the wold world acts in accordance with my values than I do to ensure that America does so. And I feel less responsibility to police America's actions than my own. Expanding circles of selfhood and localism.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well exactly. I'm not just talking about voting.
struggling w this Capitalization business, obv
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dude, are you simply not following this? The US government that kills a US citizen is the same one that kills a foreign national!
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
the levels of control i can exert on actors within the french and american governments appear pretty similar to me.
― goole, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha how morbsy is that
you voted for a man, he does something horrible, what level of responsibility do you have for that thing? as much as guilt can be quantified, i'd say it is an amount indistinguishable from zero. what control do you have over affairs, in that moment after you learned of the murder?
You gain some in the moment he's up for re-election. And in your choice to register protest in other forms.
I understand the decision to vote for Obama on a lesser-evil basis even though I won't do it. What I don't understand is how the Democratic Party, the news media, or anyone else will distinguish your reluctant vote from "yay Barack, keep on doin what yer doin."
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think that's the heart of it, actually. The problem with sticking to moral principles when it comes to voting is that the reality for me is that America largely doesn't reflect my values, sometimes in its laws and framework, and a lot more in practicality. That's not just the government, of course. It's the private companies (whom I still believe do the most damage) and the citizens who accept it. Part of the reason I don't like Americans running around the world killing folk in "defense" of this country is that I'm not entirely convinced its a country worth defending.
There needs to be a significant change, but that won't happen until the people decide that what's going on is "wrong" and there's a popular force backing the kinds of thing OWS is talking about. If that were to happen, I think Obama would be more inclined to follow that lead than Romney, who would outright ignore it as "wrong".
So really, despite all the shitty things Obama has done, it always goes back to Romney being worse. I'll vote for the person who does the least amount of damage to the people who need it most. Just because I don't like what the President has done, I don't think I can in good conscious not do my part by voting if doing nothing allows for the possibility that the downtrodden in society are going to be worse off, or that women can't get access to adequate healthcare, or that Romney's trickle-down, businessmen-know-best attitude won't be unleashed on an unsuspecting and largely uninformed citizenry.
But you know, that's just my own personal moral justification.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Because a vote for Obama DOES register as "yah, Barack, keep on doin what yer doin"?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Morbs OTM about the media, but I'm about as likely to reach up into the sky and touch the moon than affect any change in that risible industry.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
obama was going to 'do what he was gonna do' whether he won 51% or 60% of the vote, he would not if he won 49% of the vote
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, the US govmint/political process is more illegitimate than it has been post-Voting Rights Act, so ... well, we know what the next logical step is.
actually Gukbe, the way the media talked about Occupy DID change, if only by degrees, from September to November. Don't be so cynical.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think pretty much the best + only reason to vote is bc Democracy as a principle is worth supporting and one of the best ways to participate in a Democracy is to vote. It kinda doesn't matter who you vote for (statistically or ethically) and it kinda doesn't matter what they do (Zizek argues that dictators can actually be better for citizens than presidents since if a dictator fucks up he loses his head, if the president fucks up the citizens just vote in a new one who does the same shit). All that really matters is reaffirming Democracy bc the idea that everyone has a right to self-determination is one of the only good ideas human beings have come up with and even if it doesn't always shake out that great, we should still celebrate it. The whole lesser of two evils thing is kinda a sideshow.
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
so let's get a democracy.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
we have one we just live in a country w/ lots of stupid people
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obamney are not candidates, they are paid agents of the ruling oligarchy.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I watched too much Fox News I think.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
i know, sucks doesn't it? the point i'm trying to make is that voting is not a "free" act. not being a free and open choice, i dunno, something about a tragic sensibility goes here.
― goole, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
True, but one candidate is going to limit access women have to healthcare, mammograms, and birth control, whereas the other isn't.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:11 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Oh sure, I object to assassinations of foreign nationals in much the same sense that I do assassinations of American citizens. I would say that the legal and pragmatic issues involved are vastly different, but that the moral differences are slight (thought not trivial).
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
From the getgo, the USA structured its government to favor the wealthy over the poor and it has always been a titanic struggle for the poor and other powerless people to get their concerns addressed by the government. That's why Eugene Debs could get millions of votes for president and still get put in jail for sedition. And that was when the poor were far better organized than they are today.
― Aimless, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
OTM. If you think that the government is going to do evil, rob the poor to fatten the rich, and trash civil liberties no matter which of the "electable" parties is in office, then by all means work for change, take to the streets in protest, write a blog or w/e. But that shouldn't prevent you from at least considering that there mgith be a lesser between the two available evils, and that if so, then some real good might be served in the sort run by at least grudgingly supporting it. That's the spirit in which I'll be voting for Omaba, fwiw.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp oh okay you're not following this - that's pretty much what we were talking about.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
If you think that the government is going to do evil, rob the poor to fatten the rich, and trash civil liberties no matter which of the "electable" parties is in office
At what point does the factor that the civil liberties situation has gotten worse (because it has) from Dubya to Obama offset the grudging support?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
when you genuinely believe that mitt romney would be a better president
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
at the point where, practically, you have a pretty good notion that Obama is not going to send teams of assassins to pick off citizens in the streets of New York, but you know for certain Romney is going to cut programs that have very real (even life or death in some cases) affects on this country's citizens. At least that's where that line exists for me. xpost
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
If the #1 issue is climate change -- because pretty much fucknothing has been done on that front in 3-1/2 years -- the social-budget cuts (there will still be Democrats to block those, right? sadlol) are sort of thrown into relief by We're All Gonna Die.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Hey single mother on a low income working three jobs, I'm sorry that the cause of your recent illness turns out to be cancer that could have been caught early had the government not cut funding, but I couldn't vote for Obama because I didn't agree with him. Still, I had to make a stand, even if it was just for my own piece of mind. Don't worry though, I did it for all of us!"
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well yes, we should definitely vote for the candidate that is going to do something about climate change. What's that name again?
Good question. As a lifelong liberal supporter of the Democratic Party, I've never really had to ask myself that question. Like, Clinton might not have been much better than Reagan or Bush Sr., but he sure as hell wasn't worse. Same goes for Obama, IMO. I don't think that he's worse than Bush Jr. when his administration's actions are taken on the whole, though with regard to civil liberties and executive power, yeah, he's expanded on Bush Jr.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
If one believes that Romney could not possibly be any worse than Obama, or to put it another way, that it is the same as a choice between Papa Doc and Baby Doc, or between Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, then you should definitely toss aside any thought that one's vote could possibly be signifigant.
At which point, if you dare, you go to the streets, or form an underground resistance cell, or smuggle news items about your oppression to outside journalists. Anything but vote or participate in legitimizing your oppressor.
I think that things are presently dim and the outlook is dismal for effective social enlightenment taking hold of the US government. But I also think that elections can still make a difference in outcomes and to conclude otherwise is premature and somewhat over-dramatizing the situation.
― Aimless, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Has it really gotten worse? Haven't there been some rays of light, like the Supreme Court ruling that warrantless GPS tracking is a no-no.
― o. nate, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's gotten more codified
― I need new, hip khakis (DJP), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
well, the fact that a congress that already had passed multiple historically large bills, w/ sinking approval ratings, in the middle of a historic recession attempted a comprehensive bill but eventually failed isn't the same thing as 'fucknothing has been done' - lots was done politically, it didn't pass. I mean, the #1 issue def is climate change and if there were a reason to believe that romney were going to be a better president w/r/t climate change, or that 'having more democrats in office and fewer republicans' was gonna be correlated w/ worse climate change legislation, it would def make things more complicated. but it's not, it's pretty straight-forward, the only way there will be real climate change legislation is w/ a 'even bigger than 2008' type democratic sweep.
you don't have to love the democratic party or even have any feelings towards the party to hope for that event to happen.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also, if things like gay rights count as civil liberties (I think they do) then dropping DADT and not defending DOMA should be counted as victories too. xp
― o. nate, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've yet to hear an argument for not voting (short of plans for revolution) that isn't sophomoric and that doesn't smack of privilege. "The world will blow up either way"...yeah and if it doesn't, your life probably WON'T be affected either way, lucky you.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
because pretty much fucknothing has been done on that front in 3-1/2 years
lol as opposed to the 8 preceding years amirite
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm sympathetic enough with the frustrations of our political system, that I won't even play the "lesser of two evils" game. vote for mickey mouse, nader, whatever, it's the simplest way to be accounted for as an active citizen in the country you pay taxes in and to avoid it is simply lazy.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
da croup otm. if you're an american liberal, i figure it's better to work to make the democratic party what you want it to be than just to sit in the corner and sulk because it isn't. otoh, if you're expended all the effort you can manage on the former and still don't have it it in you to vote for anyone, then i figure you've earned the right to take a powder.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
let's be honest here. no one on this thread refusing to vote is setting the world on fire resisting the government. i know, i know, you guys are all secret revolutionaries affecting change on the ground roots level and who the fuck am i i don't know u.
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm lazy as fuck about political engagement so I'm not going to say "if you don't like it, get involved." But if everyone too fucking moral and glorious to add to the democratic party's mandate went and did a third party/write-in vote, the dem party may well bug the fuck out and try to win you back from mickey mouse.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
anyway, i've contracted a van to drive ppl without transportation to the polls all day this november to cast votes for our satanic lord obama and i'm painting "Morbz4Bammers" on the side and my vanity license plate is gonna read 'ILXDemCrew."
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
Or, if you had a political system where a vote for a third party wasn't half a vote for the other party...
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
they have those systems in much of the world, centrist parties still run the show
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
and the third parties that you vote for end up either 'compromising' or having no political power
but you get to feel better about your vote I guess?
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't think the argument against voting (maybe just in an abstract way, though) is sophomoric. If enough democrats are upset with the state of the party and they show it by not voting, it will make a difference. The problem is that to make that point you're going let it in something worse for 4-8 years, and the reality is there aren't enough of those democrats to make a significant change anyway. Even if they could, they're still a minority within the genreal population. The sad fact is that Americans aren't terribly progressive or well-informed on issues like Climate Change and the specifics of what "the war on Terror" is and what we've given up in order to fight it.
As I've said before, if a groundswell movement like OWS can really sway public opinion (they got income inequality into the national discussion, but they'll need to do A LOT more), then I'd rather have Obama or a Dem in office who might be happy to change things if it becomes politically expedient than Romney or a Republican who is ideologically opposed to such changes.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
well yeah, that's the thing
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah i don't buy this line, true or not.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
sound like a Republican
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
you're conflating the argument against voting and the argument against voting for the democratic party, Gubke. Because the enlightened true liberals are such a minority, they might stand out more as thirdparty/write-in voters than as part of the couchbound/disenfranchised.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, they're the same thing though. Or at least have the same outcome.
lolwat?
― Mordy, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
one suggests a group willing to engage, one doesn't xpost
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
you should start buying stuff that is true. good habit to get into.
I wish we could have a third party, but the unlikelihood has been argued to death.
Arguably the Republican Party is closer to splitting off into two at the moments, but when this was being discussed some months ago (tea party threats and all) I was wishing it would happen because it would means the collapse of Republican power for a while.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
I would very much like to not buy it, but I find that I can't glue enough fairy wings to my outfit to overcome reality's drag coefficient
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
no one on this thread refusing to vote is setting the world on fire resisting the government.
again, has anyone on this thread said he wouldn't vote at all?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well it isn't actually true that by voting for Nader I am actually voting half a vote for W.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I told people not to vote I think
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
actually vs. effectively
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I realise that one suggests a group will engage and the other will not, and maybe they'll work a little harder to get that group, but realistically that group isn't big enough to enact fundamental change unless there's some sort of Tea Party organization-like takeover, but that would probably only alienate the "moderate" Democratic voters - the majority, I would say. The American people just aren't with it.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
Your vote only adds to the total of the party you vote for.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Whatever you think of Nader's policies, he was certainly a more progressive candidate than Gore, and despite him getting a pretty decent voter turnout, it didn't push the Dems to the left because they had to combat the Republican machine.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes well if george bush is ahead by one vote, your 'not vote' is what wins him the election therefore it is not a neutral act, but again, it doesn't really matter
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Imagine all the not votes Nader missed out on.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Gukbe, I'm suggesting an alternative to couch-riding on November 6th for people won't sully themselves with the Democratic Party. Your cynicism about the chance of real third party change is neither here nor there.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
like its all fine and dandy for the norms to spend weeks on end contemplating who they will vote for but honestly everyone itt is pretty up on things, everyone itt knows that things will be 'marginally better' with dems in charge and that their individual vote is not 'a particularly important thing'. most people live in places where the chances that their individual vote affects the election is not just statistically unlikely, but statistically *pretty much impossible*. don't overthink it.
there are lots of cool things to argue about, this just isn't one.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
If, as an American, you're depressed about the way your party is tending, the Tea Party provide a great example of how best to deal with it. Don't disengage. Don't endorse Quixotic third party candidates that only disempower the major party you might otherwise vote for. Band together in little cells and work like fucking CRAZY to get candidates you actually can support into the process at the local level. Rally and protest and organize tirelessly to force your party in the direction that suits you. I mean, I'm not an activist, so I'm not telling anyone that this is what they have to do, but it clearly can work. Tea Party activism had a significant impact on the fortunes and philosophies of the Republican party.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
And I'm saying that the people who stay at home or go and vote for a third party aren't able to enact change that way, so in the end the result is the same, except of course that the person who goes out and votes for that third party will have a sense of self-satisfaction (assuming they're too ignorant to realise the actual damage their decision might have on the people by allowing Romney in).
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
well we're already talking about a group of people who are in it for self-satisfaction, gukbe. and i still like them more than people who don't engage at all.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
contenderizer otm re: Tea Party activisim within the Democratic Party, even if I'm not as hopeful about the results.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I just see lazy vs smug and I can't figure out which is better/worse. Maybe smug, but here I go again, choosing the lesser of two evils. xpost
i figure it's better to work to make the democratic party what you want it to be than just to sit in the corner and sulk
Resisting the "when pigs fly" temptation re it changing, I see "working" as meaning OWS far more than any vote-as-gesture I can make (esp, as goddamn Shakey always points out, in NY).
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I agree that ows is more important than voting
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
if only you could fit both in a day
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
of course i've never voted in my life so wdik
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well, to pick a concrete example, if it was possible to indicate with your vote that you'd prefer Ralph Nader but of the other two you'd rather Gore to Bush...
Nader in particular because his numbers would be higher were it not for all the people told that voting for him would be a waste. You don't even particularly need to want Nader as president for this to be a good idea, just a Democratic party spooked by Nader.
xpost to hell and back :)
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
agree that OWS is more important than voting for its potential, but i think voting is important
it's just such an idiotic binary
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Contenderizer OTM on need for Dem Tea Party.
― o. nate, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
also the insanity of any ilxor avoiding a chance to be heard, even if they're just making noise
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
the problem with developing a "Dem Tea Party" is that libs seem much more chained-for-life to the party than the righty nuts are to "theirs." There are ILXors who have posted "fuck Obama" (or close enough) in the last 2 years who are heavily sighing and voting for him again.
we need an ALL OF THE ABOVE participatory policy, just like Bush and Obama's energy policy.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
Are there any Dems running that might fit in with an equivalent Dem Tea Party? Elizabeth Warren, maybe?
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
chained to the party as is, I meant
I want to see Warren in action as an officeholder before we can guess.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
libs tend to be more practical, which is certainly an issue in this case. will be interested to see how the Tea Party does in the upcoming election as well as 2014. There's a risk of alienating the "moderates", and as this country is mostly made up of those waffling morons, they might be necessary in elections.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Maybe the comparison is inapposite but no one would say that Eugene Debs' vote totals in 1912 represented the failure of socialism to make an imprint. The power of his insurgency forced Wilson and TR to the left such that if they didn't reckon with the socialists' demands we might have the threat of genuine revolution in a few years. The point is that third or fourth parties, as contenderizer said, take hard work and years of detail mastering, and if done well they influence the two-party system.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ideally, OWS would be the Dem Tea Party. Problem is that it seems too proud of its oppositionalism to take up the mantle.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Is there like a crazy liberal Koch family member that OWS could recruit?
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Do any of you even follow politics in countries where there are real 3rd party spoiler chances?
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm happy that OWS hasn't aligned itself with the Dems. If it really works, the Dems will have to come to them, which gives them much more power.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Libs don't need a Koch member. We've got GEORGE SOROS, who is already the puppetmaster for the long-term socialist takeover designs of the Democratic Party.
Anyone read Barney Frank's, er, frank interview from a couple days ago? He addresses specifically the work that feeds grass roots movements.
A:I believe very strongly that people on the left are too prone to do things that are emotionally satisfying and not politically useful. I have a rule, and it’s true of Occupy, it’s true of the gay-rights movement: If you care deeply about a cause, and you are engaged in an activity on behalf of that cause that is great fun and makes you feel good and warm and enthusiastic, you’re probably not helping, because you’re out there with your friends, and political work is much tougher and harder. And I think it’s now clear that it is the disciplined political work that we’ve been able to do that’s won us victories. I am going to write about the history of the LGBT movement partly to make the point that, in America at least, this is the way you do progressive causes.
Q: So if you look at something like Pride Weekend—
A:Pride Weekend was very important early on because people didn’t know who we were. The hiddenness was a problem. Today, pride has no political role. It’s a fun thing for people.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes agreed but it does need to corral a few political supporters. We need the equivalent of a Jon Corzine proselytizing for it.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
the problem with bringing up Debs is that the entrenched political/corporate forces have had almost a century to consolidate their power in such a way that I'm not sure that would happen again anytime soon.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ideally, OWS would be the Dem Tea Party.
haha, HOOS to thread.
Barney Frank wants everything to the left of Santorum allied w/ the Democrats, no surprise.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am guessing that "Become a political party" is waaaay down the list of OWS's plans.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
We need the equivalent of a Jon Corzine proselytizing for it.
Man, I hope youre talking about fortune and not political skills.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
libs tend to be more practical
Okay, now I feel old.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
actually my mistake: I meant DeMint.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Anyone starting a Dem Tea Party should probably take the opportunity to read a few dozen books about the Civil Rights movement first - Tea Party as far as I can tell has gotten this far because it is the first bare-feet revolutionary thing to happen to the Republicans in a long time.
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
If, as an American, you're depressed about the way your party is tending, the Tea Party provide a great example of how best to deal with it.
this is a weird thing to say. The Tea Party has accomplished nothing to speak of legislatively, and is essentially crippling the national electoral chances of the GOP as a whole.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
also get a weird or disingenuous vibe from Frank that everybody active in OWS is "having great fun" by sleeping w/ rats, getting clubbed and pepper-sprayed, etc.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
what fun!
OWS + grassroots work is more important/significant than voting imho so good on Morbz and Aero (and anybody else I may have forgotten)
my main issue with OWS is they've largely already lost the PR battle and are now scuffling at the margins. May have missed the window of opportunity to gain the sympathies of the larger electorate and impact party platforms.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I didn't care for the remark either. The more interesting stuff I didn't paste.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'd say they accomplished a good deal on a state level (ahem, wisconsin), and the fact that they ran aground is, to my mind, a product of the fact that they were successful in advancing critically flawed policies and philosophies. organizational model is still a good one.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
How scared of OWS is the DNC?
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Frank's comments about OWS are obviously fairly self-serving there. shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
not at all, because they aren't running primary challengers.
May have missed the window of opportunity to gain the sympathies of the larger electorate and impact party platforms.
i almost think they actively shunned any change to matter on that level, like the compromises involved would have been anathema
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Partisans only talking to fellow partisans is a great way to build a base and lose in generals every time.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
the only reason the GOP has pivoted to pander to the Tea Party types is because they successfully unseated GOPers with their own nominees.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I think that's definitely what happened contenderizer
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Trotskyites vs Leninists vs Stalinists... *yawn*
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
OWS + grassroots work is more important/significant than voting
This whole "activism VS voting" thing reminds me of Gore explaining away his air-conditioned mansion by saying he makes up his carbon footprint in other ways.
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
not an either/or proposition but one has more direct results than the other
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
so what?
― da croupier, Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
so buttons
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
my main issue with OWS is they've largely already lost the PR battle and are now scuffling at the margins
Spring and summer will tell the tale.
You know what the Tea Party has accomplished? With their batshit worldview and 'critique' of the Administration, they make 'mainstream' Dems snarl at any left-leaners' failure to defend Obama against both imagined and real faults.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
dunno if you can blame the Tea Party for that. GOP has always been the bogeyman, whether it was Dubya or the Contract With America or the Tea Party
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Tea Party's biggest influence has been on the media imo. Fox has something to use as a rallying cry, MSNBC has an object of hatred, etc...
They did incredibly well across state elections, as has been said, and reasonably so in the midterms. Those are the types of elections that the general populous doesn't really turn out for, though, which is why I'm interested to see how they do in November and in 2014, when people might have realized just how shitty things have become under them in various states.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
If such a huge swathe of the Republican Party didn't believe that Obama is genuinely destroying this country's very soul (i.e. if there was a white Democrat in office) I think the party would be much more broken than it currently is. I imagine the same might happen with a Dem equivalent because we "true" liberals are still a minority.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
ewww ... i know what you meant, Alfred, but i'm still ewwwwww at the mention of that flaming sack of diarrhea's name.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
and not to step outta line re OWS (since i have no involvement with them and i obviously defer to anyone that does), but my prob ignorant opinion is that the best thing for them is to remain aloof of the Democratic Party (at least in its current state). if Obama et al had been even a third of what they led folks to think they'd be, there'd be no OWS to begin w/ (and his "change we can believe in" 2008 campaign bullshit is responsible for folks not getting organized even earlier).
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
whether it was Dubya or the Contract With America or the Tea Party
The TP is a new level of bete noires for the Dem rank and file.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^alzheimer's setting already?
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
setting IN
like really you don't remember the garment-rending/teeth-gnashing despair of the Dubya years? remarkable.
yep and I still think it's more rabid now
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
also, the wingnuts also believed that Bill Clinton was genuinely destroying the country's very soul. Teabag-style hysteria is nothing new (only the Tea Party/Teabag nomenclature is new).
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^
they impeached Clinton for chrissakes
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 21:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
the problem with developing a "Dem Tea Party" is that libs seem much more chained-for-life to the party than the righty nuts are to "theirs.".
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, April 19, 2012 8:37 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I don't see any evidence of this at all. The right-wingers were all too happy to rally around McCain. Sure maybe some of them were into Perot, but Perot was more likely to get the support of independent-esque libertarians than righty nuts. This is actually one of the GOP's greatest strengths-- getting the base to rally around a lame Presidential candidate. It's the independents that they have to worry about.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 19 April 2012 22:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
the prob with developng a dem tea party is that the far left-wing is a marginal demographic in america. including in nyc. in a lot of ways the carnival atmosphere of zuccotti park helped mask the fact that, outside of one or two large rallies which were boosted by union turnout - there weren't that many people. I was there every day for weeks on end. there weren't that many people.
it has nothing to do with the party system.
― iatee, Thursday, 19 April 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
which is why it's a PR battle. OWS needs converts.
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 22:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
the PR battle won a few fronts -- lookit at how The One Percent entered discourse. Even the GOP had to appropriate it.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 19 April 2012 23:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:59 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
as i remember it, there wasn't anywhere near as much foaming "they're destroying america!!!" panic w clinton than there has been with obama. clinton got impeached, sure, but there was a grinning, gameplayer's distance about the whole thing.
and i honestly think that dems were more freaked out by bush jr than they are by the tea party
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
"...as there has been with obama."
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 April 2012 23:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
there wasn't anywhere near as much foaming "they're destroying america!!!" panic w clinton than there has been with obama
well, Bubba is white. So yeah that removes a significant portion of the type of shit levelled at Obama. But there was still plenty of hysteria - Hillary killed Vince Foster! Socialized medicine! Travelgate!
― Jilly Boel and the Eltones (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 April 2012 23:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ron Brown RIP
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 19 April 2012 23:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
the far left-wing is a marginal demographic in america
I'm not talking about FAR LEFTISTS, but 1933-1975-vintage mainstream liberal Democrats. Who are now batshit-crazily labeled far leftists.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah well that war was lost
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
well I meant it in a relative sense. I don't think their label really matters. in places where solid left-wing democrats can win elections, they do win elections! there just aren't that many of those places.
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I do my best to never leave those places
oh good, just one more post iatee and we can have another aerosmith v. iatee debate the ppl who live in flyover country
― Mordy, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
called 'flyover' for a reason amirite
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
contenderizer, this is false. Untrue. I can tell you because I read and heard a lot of the nonsense at the time. Plus, there's always the entertaining tome The Death of American Virtue published in 2010 that records the bleatings of the right wing in luscious detail.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
A list of the accusations published or aired by the pre-Internet media: HRC and Bill Clinton ran a Murder, Inc in Arkansas that they transferred to DC, as evinced in the "suicide" of Vince Foster; Clinton as rapist; HRC as socialist bitch-hag.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
fly over THIS! *d-generation x double crotch karate chop gesture*
― Mississippi Butt Hurt (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
this went on for eight years, and perhaps the most grotesque thing Bill Clinton forced upon a left wing that despised him was forcing them to defend him against the calumny hurled day after day in Congress, talk shows, talk radio, and so on.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
none of that was as 'respected' as the Birth Certificate Debate
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah jeez that chicken hawk David Brock wrote a book of Clinton slash fiction.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
the reason why a lot of folks who might've voted for Nader in 2000 remained on the Party Reservation was PRECISELY b/c of the constant stream of demented nastiness that had been directed at Clinton, Gore and anyone to the left of Limbaugh. as in, "you'd have to be CRAZY to do anything that would let those people take charge." and after the Contract with America, the GOP takeover in 1994, Newt as Speaker (there's a reason why someone like me who's thinking of sitting out Obama v. Romney would get out and vote Obama had Gingrich won the GOP nomination), Monicagate and a zillion other things there was good reason for this mindset.
maybe Teabag shit wasn't as bad then as now, since Clinton isn't black ("first black President" challops notwithstanding). but it was still pretty fucking awful.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
after all, it was the 2000 election that turned Paul Krugman from a neoliberal, somewhat Gabbneb-esque type into what he is today.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
People will disagree: the vilest nonsense said about Obama lacked the vehemence of the personal attacks on Clinton. The right wing didn't merely question Clinton's ability to govern -- they called him a rapist and monster. I don't ever remember reading any GOP satrap calling the Obama marriage a sham or picking on their daughters' looks.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
which is why the likes of Trent Lott puckering his jowls and smelling the fragrant memory of two good ol' boys sittin' on the porch amuses me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/us/politics/08clinton.html
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's also why some of us (OK, me) are immune to "lesser of two evils" talk wr2 Obama. we've heard it before or (in my case) we used those arguments ourselves ... and look at where it got us.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
if Bill took more personal venom it's bcz he was the first hippie "sex addict" president.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean at least JFK had the decency to come from money
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, i generally agree. to my mind there's a hysteria and vitriol directed at obama that's by no means new, but that does seem somewhat novel in its ubiquity. hooks in w stuff like nutbag arapaho sheriff (and arizona bigot sinkhole in general), birthers, obama as muslim, obama as communist, endless racist everything to generate the impression of a sea of foaming psychosis that i just didn't experience quite so intensely during the clinton years. maybe i just didn't notice, i dunno. takes me back to the peak years of "moral majority" influence under reagan, tbh.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Clinton was loathed, man; the guy had no friends in town. As grotesquely as the right wing commentariat has described Obama's centrist presidency, I still often read squibs about the president's great charm and intelligence (e.g. Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, Krautgotterdmmerunghammer, George Will).
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
The right wing has done this since 1936. Also:
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
No internet meant a nineties consumer was limited to three broadcast and a few cable channels, but there was no escaping the noise about the perfidy of the Clintons. I had arguments with my father, loud ones, in which he insisted that Clinton was a worse president than Nixon because he betrayed his family.
My father, a die-hard conservative who believes in abortion rights and has always thought Reagan a smiling idiot, has acknowledged he was a fool.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, I think the moral majority element was key. The Evangelicals influence has certainly waned (first, by neo-con patriotism, then by tea party/recession reactions). So you'd use "RAPIST MONSTER" because that's what would get people going. There's also the element that Obama really doesn't have anything in his personality to be that kind of 'moral degenerate', so instead it's been all about all those things contenderizer just mentioned there.
There also always felt like an element with the Clinton stuff of those twins in the Simpsons, asking if Lisa is gonna marry a carrot. They just threw every little bullshit thing at him, and when one of them stuck it was like Lisa saying "yes, I'm gonna marry a carrot" and they jumped for joy screaming "SHE ADMITTED IT".
Still, I don't remember the violent rhetoric that gets heard at various tea party/Republican events back in the Clinton days. Somebody telling Santorum to imagine Obama when he's firing a gun, or Nugent's talk of beheading, or all the various other instances feels pretty new. Like instead of the moral rot of Clinton, we have a genuine insurgency in the White House seeking to overthrow the country. Like he's some sort of one-man sleeper cell.
I think it really peaked when Beck was still on Fox and he was spending five hours a week with charts and chalkboards explaining how Soros was using Obama as a puppet to organize a communist rising in Europe and an Islamist rising in the Middle East so they could combine, attack the US, and create a New World Order.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dare you to watch ten minutes of The Clinton Chronicles.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
maybe i was too young and just missed all the violent rhetoric then.
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Still, I don't remember the violent rhetoric that gets heard at various tea party/Republican events back in the Clinton days.
the militia types (pandered to by Ron Paul), the talk about Ruby Ridge and Waco, Jesse Helms opining that Clinton had better never appear at any military bases in his state, etc.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
GOD..."Ruby Ridge" triggers a host of unpleasant associations. Just like "Webster Hubbell."
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
My father, a die-hard conservative who believes in abortion rights and has always thought Reagan a smiling idiot
so who does he vote for now?
my dad is 75; clinton was the first democrat he ever voted for. now he can't say the word 'republican' without adding the phrase 'fucking assholes'
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
i remember one Thanksgiving argument w/ my Dad in 1998, where he was rambling on and on about how Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky had tarnished the Oval Office & was unbecoming of a President & "how dare he do that in OUR White House?!?"
then again, Dad also goes off on similar tirades when the topic of Governor Christie's boorishness comes up and he loathed Nixon. so at least he is consistent in his old-school views of the proper decorum of elected officials.
― a big fat fucking fat guy in a barrel what could be better? (Eisbaer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
He votes for Republicans because he believes in anything-but-Dems (he did vote for Bob Graham).
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
what is his top issue (since it evidently is not abortion)?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, i remember. still seemed more isolated, less desperately unhinged and violent. like what gubke says about "those twins in the simpsons" rings true to me. during the clinton years, the wingnut stuff felt more like a game, the charade of outrage as "business as usual" strategy (and sop to the fringe). during the obama years, the outrage feels more incoherent, panicky and organic, seems to have taken on an independent life of its own.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
part of the difference is that jesse helms was an asshole, but not an idiot. his successors are far more likely to be both
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Taxes and federal encroachment, i.e. taxes.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
He and Mom recognize that their support of access to abortion means they're persona non grata in the GOP. Mom, like Betty Ford and Barbara Bush, will say, "I'm conservative; the government has no right to tell me what to do with my body."
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
do you have siblings? what do they think?
(sorry, not trying specifically to grill you, just curious)
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
and if they vote gop regardless, how persona non grata can they be?
― mookieproof, Friday, 20 April 2012 00:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
My younger and married sister doesn't vote; her husband's a conservative who's curious and empathetic about his brother in law's gay life.
One doesn't discuss abortion. Cubans are closer to neocons: bedroom matters don't interest them.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 00:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
hmm how curious
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 01:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
there wasn't anywhere near as much foaming "they're destroying america!!!" panic w clinton than there has been with obama.
Oh lord! You just weren't hanging out in the correct places, then. The foaming at the mouth over Clinton was EPIC among the right wing conservatives. Because of my situation and exposure at the time, I saw far more of the Clinton hysteria than I've seen with Obama. Far more.
― Aimless, Friday, 20 April 2012 03:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
what were the criticisms? like, why were good conservatives supposed to hate clinton? i remember vince foster and whitewater, of course, but i never got the impression that many people seriously believed that he'd had anyone killed, or that whitewater was any worse than minor-league venality. when the lewinsky business came up, a lot of conservatives got all extra-frothy about clinton's moral turpitude, but the outrage seemed at once personal ("he disgusts me and doesn't deserve to be president") and strategic ("we can use this to take him down").
with obama, it seems as though they consider him a literal enemy of the state, like he's actively and intentionally trying to destroy both america and "the christian religion upon which it was founded". he's not just a bad, undeserving president, he's a hitler-level monster who must be stopped before he institutes godless communist tyranny. or so it seems to me.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Friday, 20 April 2012 04:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah man, people absolutely believed that shit. They believed the swift boating of Kerry too.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 20 April 2012 05:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
you guys are reminding me of Alvy Singer's parents arguing whether the Atlantic or Pacific is the greater ocean.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 April 2012 05:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
seems like the Pacific in a walk I wld think
― raw feel vegan (silby), Friday, 20 April 2012 05:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
more volcanoes for one thing
sicker waves too
― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Friday, 20 April 2012 05:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Atlantic has a better class of lobsters
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Friday, 20 April 2012 05:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
Are we giving the Atlantic credit for the Mediterranean?
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 20 April 2012 05:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh why not
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Friday, 20 April 2012 05:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
If you were over the age of, say, fifteen the Clinton criticism was drip drip drip nonstop for eight years. If there was a break it happened in late '99 and 2000 -- when the right wing said fuck it and concentrated on electing Bush -- so maybe that's what contenderizer means.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 10:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://blogs.todayonline.com/forartssake/2012/04/19/we-rat-on-tsai-ming-liang-and-his-muses/#more-5057
nice interview, about a new film, living next door to Lee Kang-sheng & his theatre work, in case anyone's been wondering what he's been upto. he had another film, The Diary of a Young Boy in development for a while that I think's disappeared.
I saw What Time Is It There? again recently. so wonderful.
― blossom smulch (schlump), Friday, 20 April 2012 11:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
If there was a break it happened in late '99 and 2000 -- when the right wing said fuck it and concentrated on electing Bush -- so maybe that's what contenderizer means.
i was talking more about tone than amount or consistency of criticism, but i think we understand each other pretty well at this point, and just happen to disagree
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Friday, 20 April 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
They bayed at some of his last-minute pardons, though, and rightfully so.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
yep
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Fred Clark's written about the hyperbolic rightwing Satanazi paranoia on the rise. If you're personally lacking something in your life and need a Great Evil to thrash against and thus prove your persecuted righteousness to your self, you amp up the forces you imagine are aligned against you.
That way, you don't actually have to _do_ anything; you don't have to go out into the world and try to help people or expend any effort at all. Because your enemies are the Forces of Darkness, you're a hero just by taking a moral stand and posting on the internet which is your action against them. You can prove to yourself that you're a good person in the most facile, slack-assed way possible.
Much like so much American rightwing bullshit in the last twenty years, this shit comes from internal psychodrama, not from political belief. Side effect is that mere rational argument and basic facts ain't going to change these people's minds. You can't reason a fellow out of a position Reason never led him into.
also, from here:Rick Santorum and the Anti Kitten-Burning Coalition
I am, unambiguously and without qualification, opposed to burning kittens. I am also confident that you are opposed to this too. And that latter point is why I cannot join the Anti Kitten-Burning Coalition.The AKBC, again, is on the correct side of this issue. Its members, quite rightly, are vehemently opposed to something to which they ought to be vehemently opposed. But that isn’t what motivates them. What drives them, their central organizing principle, is the notion that they represent a beleaguered and controversial minority view. They imagine that their stance against burning kittens — sweet, adorable, innocent kittens — is something that separates and distinguishes them from most other people. They imagine that their opposition to burning kittens is a brave and exceptional stance that elevates them above most other people.In other words, the central concern of the Anti Kitten-Burning Coalition is not a defense of kittens, but an accusation against most other people. They are not driven by their opposition to kitten-burning, but by their opposition to a make-believe faction of other people whom they imagine favor kitten-burning. That this vast bloc of pro kitten-burning people cannot be found and does not exist does nothing to dampen their enthusiastic campaign against these supposed monstrously cruel others. It is a delusion, but the AKBC enjoys this delusion.This delusion gives their lives meaning and purpose. It makes their lives more exciting. And it enables them to bask in the idea that they are good and righteous people — or at least the possibility that they are better than some imagined faction of monstrously cruel other people.This delusion has become a central defining trait of American politics. Imaginary monsters — other people who are imagined to favor kitten-burning or other monstrous cruelties — are a greater focus of American politics than jobs, taxes, highways and bridges, or environmental protection. Millions of votes are mobilized and cast based on the imaginary fear of an imaginary faction of kitten-burning monsters.
The AKBC, again, is on the correct side of this issue. Its members, quite rightly, are vehemently opposed to something to which they ought to be vehemently opposed. But that isn’t what motivates them. What drives them, their central organizing principle, is the notion that they represent a beleaguered and controversial minority view. They imagine that their stance against burning kittens — sweet, adorable, innocent kittens — is something that separates and distinguishes them from most other people. They imagine that their opposition to burning kittens is a brave and exceptional stance that elevates them above most other people.
In other words, the central concern of the Anti Kitten-Burning Coalition is not a defense of kittens, but an accusation against most other people. They are not driven by their opposition to kitten-burning, but by their opposition to a make-believe faction of other people whom they imagine favor kitten-burning. That this vast bloc of pro kitten-burning people cannot be found and does not exist does nothing to dampen their enthusiastic campaign against these supposed monstrously cruel others. It is a delusion, but the AKBC enjoys this delusion.
This delusion gives their lives meaning and purpose. It makes their lives more exciting. And it enables them to bask in the idea that they are good and righteous people — or at least the possibility that they are better than some imagined faction of monstrously cruel other people.
This delusion has become a central defining trait of American politics. Imaginary monsters — other people who are imagined to favor kitten-burning or other monstrous cruelties — are a greater focus of American politics than jobs, taxes, highways and bridges, or environmental protection. Millions of votes are mobilized and cast based on the imaginary fear of an imaginary faction of kitten-burning monsters.
That link is great b/c he goes into four reasons why people(e.g. Santorum & his voters) deliberately choose to believe such horrible things about the real world:
1. It’s exciting to believe in imaginary monsters.2. A fiendish foil for self-righteousness.3. If the monsters don’t exist, the theory isn’t true.4. Imaginary monsters give our fears a face.
2. A fiendish foil for self-righteousness.
3. If the monsters don’t exist, the theory isn’t true.
4. Imaginary monsters give our fears a face.
And he's written a lot about this kinda thing
It's all great stuff and I heavily recommend checking it out, if only to lower the compulsion I sometimes feel to bulk-quote it all here as a response to folks wondering why american idiots loudly choose their idiotic stances.
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Friday, 20 April 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
It just now occurred to me who Mitt reminds me of on the surface.
Son of a governor became a governor himself. has run for president twice.
― pplains, Friday, 20 April 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's the silver sideburns mostly.
Governor Mittbeam
― heavy is the head that eats the crayons (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 20 April 2012 19:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney-Lady Gaga romance imminent.
― clemenza, Friday, 20 April 2012 20:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/always-remember-were-not-normal/2012/04/20/gIQAXxEkVT_blog.html
― iatee, Friday, 20 April 2012 21:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
I found out about “Cookiegate” this morning. I was about eight hours late on the dog stuff and, when I asked someone who tweeted about it to explain what they were talking about, they literally didn’t believe that I could possibly be ignorant of such a consequential topic. After I learned the story, I felt a little worse about myself for being in any way involved in the tornado of idiocy that is American politics.
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Saturday, 21 April 2012 19:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
never realized plato's cave had a roadway...learn something every day
― Doctor Casino, Sunday, 22 April 2012 05:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
plato's increasingly fucke-up cave
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Sunday, 22 April 2012 07:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
Was faffing about on Kickstarter tonight and found this:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1339254269/ron-paul-road-to-revolution
what the living fuck: some dude is making an NES-style platformer Ron Paul game, and got $8K+ from Kickstarter to make it.
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Sunday, 22 April 2012 08:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
It looks like it might be an interesting game, but if there is a revolution, then anyone who says "*WINK*" then follows that up with an actual wink will be first against the wall.
― Andrew Farrell, Sunday, 22 April 2012 09:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Accurate assessment, I think:
http://politics.salon.com/2012/04/20/mitt%E2%80%99s_one_undeniable_advantage/singleton/
― clemenza, Sunday, 22 April 2012 17:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, sadly
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Monday, 23 April 2012 06:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Isn't there thousands of people that Obama can wheel out to say "I'd have a job now, if it wasn't for Mitt Romney"? Or have they all been used up by the GOP candidates' brief foray into socialism?
― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 23 April 2012 07:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm sure there are plenty of such people, but somebody in a (paid) TV ad saying "I'd have a job now, if it wasn't for Mitt Romney" won't likely do much to offset the dissatisfaction of people feeling the pinch who see Obama as having failed them.
― yuppie bullshit chocolate blogbait (contenderizer), Monday, 23 April 2012 07:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Sure, but you're not voting for a time machine, you're voting for one guy vs another.
― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 23 April 2012 08:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― I need new, hip khakis (DJP), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
expect to see a lot, lot, lot more of this
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/04/dog_soldiers_ri.php
― goole, Monday, 23 April 2012 20:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
what the
― I need new, hip khakis (DJP), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jesus, why are Republicans _so bad_ at jokes?
― Andrew Farrell, Monday, 23 April 2012 20:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama's mother "was not only a Communist fellow-traveler," he wrote, "but the sort of 1960s woman who (as we used to say) 'put her body on the line,' first by marrying two Third World men, and then by spending her career in the Third World."
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
"as we used to say"
so apparently if you say J1m Tr34ch3r's name three times he'll appear (or so i've learnt from the Village Voice comments thread). anyone feel like summoning him?
― Mordy, Monday, 23 April 2012 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
ah, spengler.
― goole, Monday, 23 April 2012 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
got to love the reasoning that goes from obama praising the social arrangements of poor indonesia as being at least more stable than those of poor chicago, to spengler using it as proof of preferring traditional pre-capitalism to "creative destruction." like, are you really going to argue that a '70s american ghetto is the best billboard for capital?
― goole, Monday, 23 April 2012 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, Jim Treacher should come here. he seems a treat
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jim Treacher
― heavy is the head that eats the crayons (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
jim treacher wears a diaper
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
also the comments on that voice article - in particular at jim treacher the diaper wearer's expense - are a traet
― heavy is the head that eats the crayons (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 April 2012 21:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
The story of eating dog food in an impoverished third world country vs. tying your pet to the roof of your car. Yes, they both have dogs in them, but they really have nothing to do with each other. As much as I love dogs, the issue of their attitudes towards dogs aren't really important to me and secondary to these narratives. To me, Obama's is about someone who came from poverty and Romney's is about a robot dangerously out of touch with human behavior.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 23 April 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
um, it's not dog food, guy
― goole, Monday, 23 April 2012 21:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
dog as food, more like
― I need new, hip khakis (DJP), Monday, 23 April 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's ok to eat pussy but not dog?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 April 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I went to the National Association of Broadcasters convention last week in Vegas -- had never been before -- mainly a tech and gear festival for all things broadcasted, even though the definiton of 'broadcasting' keeps shifting. But this article published in the wednesday daily really leapt out at me. Basically a cheerleading conversation about how great Twitter & Facebook has been for political news because there is now no shortage of content or stories; the 24 hour news cycle is no longer starving, there's always something to write about, so hooray. Then, in the last few paragraphs, a few tiny mentions about how accuracy is still important, and the challenge of making sure that unvetted twitter commentary can be verified before broadcast. The tiny stuff, you know.
The Las Vegas airport with a view of the main strip's skyline = perfect place to have my mind blown by this article
http://www.nabshowdaily.com/2012/Article/128458
― Milton Parker, Monday, 23 April 2012 21:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, would you listen to yourself.
― pplains, Monday, 23 April 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
l/r: Jim Treacher, ILX
― Aimless, Monday, 23 April 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
i see no diaper. jim wears a diaper.
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Monday, 23 April 2012 22:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
hey guys sorry I haven't been around but I hear that guy who wears diapers might stop by so I thought I'd say hey. You guys know about this guy? Big diaper dude, Jim something. Trecher maybe - Treacher? think so. Really into the whole diaper scene, if you see him give him my best
― same old song and placenta (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 23 April 2012 22:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
aero i think you mean jim treacher. i know he wears a diaper anyway.
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Monday, 23 April 2012 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
And at Pajamas Media, David P. Goldman went for historical perspective: Obama's mother "was not only a Communist fellow-traveler," he wrote, "but the sort of 1960s woman who (as we used to say) 'put her body on the line,' first by marrying two Third World men, and then by spending her career in the Third World."
― Matt Armstrong, Monday, 23 April 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Third World men"
American Politics: Yo Mama edition
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 23 April 2012 23:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty sure there was something else commie-hating right-wingers in the 60s used to call a white woman marrying a black man
― heavy is the head that eats the crayons (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 April 2012 23:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
"lucky"
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 April 2012 23:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hey, did I hear that Jim Treacher might start posting here?
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Monday, 23 April 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Can i smell diaper?
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 06:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
ahahahaa
― goole, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 13:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw david p. goldman = "spengler", who's had this theme of obama's mom being a race-crazy whore for a while now
― goole, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 13:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
nu-spengler is ed anger of the blog ra
I don't even know who or what jerry treecler is, but I don't think his diapers should be near this thread.
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 13:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
trust me you don't want jerry without his diaper
― I accidentally sonned your dome (stevie), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 14:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
I loled
― crüt, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 14:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
There's nothing like getting a "Clooney and me" email from Barack.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, dip. that email was rough. this sort of thing happens in every national campaign ever, but I prefer my bernie sanders emails. grayson emails jumped the shark a while ago.
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
i kinda feel bad i've deleted all my campaign emails. four years of those subject lines would make some kind of found poem.
the clooney business is ridiculous.
― goole, Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
why? what's he gonna run on, his record?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is how I imagine my date with clooney & obama:
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
just some cool dudes talking retail politics
― HE HATES THESE CANS (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
whats john cusack doing in that convertible
― wolves in our wounds (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 21:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
holding the legs
keeping charlie sheen company
― THE KITTEN TYPE (contenderizer), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno -- I liked Out of Sight.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 24 April 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Interesting round-up of how engaged--disengaged, more accurately--ex-presidents have been in elections over the years (in light of Clinton's sudden prominence):
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/bill_clinton_to_the_rescue/singleton/
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 01:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
Roosevelt's post-presidential life after 1912 was a menace but I suppose it's possible to think he would have made a decent president in 1920 (when he was all but guaranteed the nomination again).
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 01:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
a shame Billy Blythe didn't keep eating bbq
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 01:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
If things had turned out differently, would liked to have seen Kennedy in '68 and Nixon in '76 mixing it up from the wings (being so voraciously political, can't imagine that either could have kept away). Especially if Nixon still would have been the nominee in '68, which seems highly unlikely if Kennedy had lived to serve two terms.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 01:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well I'm sold:
http://jezebel.com/5906640/ann-romney-awkwardly-describes-mitt-as-wild--crazy-man-just-waiting-to-come-out
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 16:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
Shame I can't vote in an American election because what I really like to do is vote crazy people into powerful positions.
― Thoughts? You must have loads. (a hoy hoy), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 16:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
brian beutler on why everything is so stupid: it's close
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/obama-romney-moms-sluts-dogs-women-voters.php
quite a url
― goole, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 16:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
standard right-wing response to Obama campaign's use of "forward" as a campaign slogan:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 16:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
x-post-- great closing bit there:
“[C]ynical minds might wonder if there is a strategic outsourcing of the below-the-belt attacks to surrogates not officially affiliated with the campaign,” wrote National Review’s Jim Geraghty. “Of course, if the Democrats want to make this race about which candidate is closer to a polygamist ancestor … we can play that game.”
Note his use of "we" and obvious message in the last sentence, after first referring to the campaigns in the beginning.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 16:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Obama campaign uses letter "O," long popular with fascists
― cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Neil Young’s social media channels (some dude), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
In fact, in Ann's eyes, not only is Mitt "like another son" to her
This is creepy.
― Respectfully, Tyrese Gibson (Nicole), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Dressing room following the interview:
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Conservatives fucktards make it clear that openly gay staff member on Romney campaign is unacceptable, even if his job is as a foreign policy advisor:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-richard-grenell-hounded-from-romney-campaign-by-anti-gay-conservatives/2012/05/01/gIQAccGcuT_blog.html
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
He resigned, as a result.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
You know, I kinda secretly hope this makes John Bolton go ballistic, as Grenell was one of his proteges. I'd love to see said fucktards try and paint HIM as a liberal commie whatever.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
That said, the fact that Grenell was indeed said protege says whatever you need to know about him on top of the asshole tweets and etc.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
when bad things happen to bad people
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
just makes reveals the assholery of everyone involved so kinda a net win imho
makes
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 19:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know there's hypocrisy on all sides here, but I thought Sullivan's thing on the Bin Laden ad this morning was very good--and really tough on McCain.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/the-bin-laden-freakout.html?tw_p=twt
I have mixed feelings on the ad. I think it's situation where you'll get grief from some directions for running it, and would have gotten grief from other directions if you hadn't run it, or run something similar.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
I understand its political impulses and the Dems no doubt feel gratified that they can be as neanderthal as the GOP.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 20:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Internecine battle over Grenell.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I suppose Haley Barbour forgot to include the no-homo caveat.
o_0
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
Exit, Pursued by Elephant
lol I had to remind myself that this post wasn't about Haley Barbour.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 21:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
This f'n guy:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/120427
― Advanced Uncle Meat recovery system (Dan Peterson), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
not only is that a terrible bigot, but he can't even figure out how to link to articles correctly.
lol at his html:
ABC's has a feature piece today with this title: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>"</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Mitt</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Romney</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>'</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>s</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Appointment</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>of</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Gay</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Aide</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Richard</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Grenell</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Signals</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>New</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>Attitude</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>.</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romney-appt-of-gay-aide-signals-new-attitude/";>"</a> New attitude about what, pray tell?<br><br>
it comes out looking like this:
ABC's has a feature piece today with this title: "Mitt Romney's Appointment of Gay Aide Richard Grenell Signals New Attitude." New attitude about what, pray tell?
all of his links are like that, and it's apparently his fault, because none of the other pieces (of shit) on http://www.renewamerica.com seem to have the same problem.
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh fuck, i did not mean to make the text extend way to the right like that. can a mod just delete that post, since no one cares about bryan fischer's horrifically stupid HTML in the first place?
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
"The homosexual agenda represents the single-greatest threat to religious liberty and freedom of association in America today."
the inversion of rhetoric here never fails to amaze me
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can vaguely understand the religious liberty part but only if it, itself, negates the freedom of association part
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's just classic "what about my freedom to oppress people" nonsense
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 1 May 2012 22:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
read this bit today, seemed relevant
...Others, due to fear, “become perceived threats.” And if they’re not threatening enough on their own, then we’ll just have to make them seem more threatening — pretend that they’re Satanic baby-killing monsters intent on destroying American families and outlawing religion.
That’s what evangelical tribalism looks like in practice. It’s driven by fear of the Other. Not because those others are different from us, but because we’re frighteningly indistinguishable from them. Thus the need for totemic tribal symbols and “stances.” And thus the need to confront everyone, everywhere and demand that they declare which side they’re on.
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also, a certain ilx alum's take on Romney's aide quitting
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Huh, I never knew that Pareene himself was here - who was he?
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
Motorcycle heroBebebebebebebe he's lookin so cuteSneakin round round round in a blue jumpsuit
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Nah, that's bullshit.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 13:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
a_p/ghost rider
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 13:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh hey remember this guy:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/02/perry-says-god-forgives-people-for-oops-moments/
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
but not for sodomy!
― the endless white snow has never felt more textile (loves laboured breathing), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Including the "Oops" guy from To Catch A Predator?
― nickn, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
pedophilia has the possibility of creating life
― goole, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm beginning to think Yahweh isn't even remotely omnipotent
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I <3 Shep
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 21:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, he's ok for an Ole Miss guy.
― pplains, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 21:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
Courtesy of Mark Shields...
Newt Gingrich: "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?"
Bob Dole: "Because it saves them time."
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 21:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Good to see Tom Millar getting work.
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
A lot of fun for a little while.
http://bcove.me/8ge1a398
― clemenza, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 22:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
I lasted about 90 seconds! A new record!
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh wow that thing is amazing & great. RIP your ludicrous campaign you hellbound asshole
― cosi fan whitford (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 23:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
The really good news is that I'll be getting 21 hours of my life back, as I had already penciled in seven three-hour Lincoln/Douglas-style debates on the calendar for September and October.
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 May 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
I want a DVD that's just hours of clips of Shep Smith take-downs, asides and moments of humorous/righteous bewilderment.
― I will transmit this information to (Viceroy), Thursday, 3 May 2012 07:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
The NYT mag this weekend addresses Obama and Wall Street's relationship. I can't even...wau:
One of the guests raised his hand; he knew how to solve the problem. The president had won plaudits for his speech on race during the last campaign, the guest noted. It was a soaring address that acknowledged white resentment and urged national unity. What if Obama gave a similarly healing speech about class and inequality? What if he urged an end to attacks on the rich? Around the table, some people shook their heads in disbelief.
“Most people in the financial world,” a top Obama donor later told me, “do not understand how most of America feels about them.” But they think they understand how the president’s inner circle feels about them. “This administration has a more contemptuous view of big money and of Wall Street than any administration in 40 years,” the donor said. “And it shows.”
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
big money and of Wall Street 'Cause you're speculators not real new wealth creators or 'cause your wealth is used to game the system and corrupt the government. What part of that do you fail to udnerstand?
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's an anecdote for the ages.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
"This administration has a more contemptuous view of big money and of Wall Street than any administration in 40 years,” the donor said. “And it shows.”
even wealthy Wall Streeters get butthurt ...
― Nu Metal is the best music there is, the rest is pussy shit. (Eisbaer), Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
also, when i see Jon Corzine, Henry Paulson and other Wall Street crooks being frogmarched into federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison then i'll believe that Change We Can Believe In truly is "contemptuous ... of big money."
― Nu Metal is the best music there is, the rest is pussy shit. (Eisbaer), Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
First comment: 40 years ago, big money had not amassed the overwhelming mountain of privileges that it has now. Big money and finance in general have made out like bandits under every administration in the past 40 years. So, if the main points of comparison in terms of 'contempt' are presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, then basically we're talking about a level of 'contempt' evinced by still kissing both ass cheeks, but wiping one's mouth afterwards.
Second comment: Gosh! Perhaps Wall Street and "big money" have done something recently that might reasonably increase one's contempt for them - but, what could that be?
― Aimless, Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
and yet, the entire election depends on getting money from these assholes
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Thursday, 3 May 2012 22:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
the economy relies on these assholes too
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 3 May 2012 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Thursday, 3 May 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I love how Poppy looks more hammered than the rest.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 May 2012 23:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
the speech suggested by the Wall Street satrap is akin to a suggestion by a Confederate officer to Lincoln to make a speech indicating that the President urged an end to the swiftness with which Southerners freed their slaves.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 May 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
Isn't that Gergen in the background? Reminding everyone to imbibe in moderation?
― clemenza, Thursday, 3 May 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 May 2012 23:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
and Cronkite
Loooool.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 4 May 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
i guess that Obama could be seen as more contemptuous of Wall Street than every President from Nixon up to him b/c (a) he occasionally says "mean" things about them; (b) he had the unmitigated audacity to enact some relatively mild reforms and now they have to pay their high-priced lobbyists even more money to completely emasculate even these mild reforms; (c) he talks about wanting them to pay more taxes (lol); and (d) back in 2008, a few of them thought that he was "one of them" (e.g., he went to Harvard).
― Nu Metal is the best music there is, the rest is pussy shit. (Eisbaer), Friday, 4 May 2012 00:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
damn the lords of the universe are such pussies. i mean, give your money to whomever you want, but for god's sake stop with the whole self-pitying thing
and while i agree with u eisbaer, i think that we can no longer use the word 'audacity' for at least a generation
― mookieproof, Friday, 4 May 2012 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Well it makes sense when you consider Goldman Sachs used to be Obama's #1 contributor and now they're Romney's. I guess we'll be hearing alot this year about class warfare and such.
Still, I see "And it shows" and I think of the trillions of dollars we've given big business over the past 4 years and....ugh
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 4 May 2012 01:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
“This administration has a more contemptuous view of big money and of Wall Street than any administration in 40 years”
A lot of good it's done us, eh?
Sometimes my only comfort is hoping that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama secretly hate themselves.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 May 2012 04:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean, they have to, right?
― crüt, Friday, 4 May 2012 04:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
can't imagine being president and not developing some severe issues
― raw feel vegan (silby), Friday, 4 May 2012 04:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
p. sure those issues do not involve self-hatred
― mookieproof, Friday, 4 May 2012 04:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Clinton used to drown his sorrows by eating lots of cheeseburgers and greasy pizza till his arteries got clogged. Obama probably has probably had killer nicotine fits nowadays.
― Nu Metal is the best music there is, the rest is pussy shit. (Eisbaer), Friday, 4 May 2012 04:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
to be president these days and not go insane i suspect you basically have to have a serious personality flaw that just happens to shield you from the full implications of the shit you've done -- totally spaced-out and clueless (reagan), an egomaniac (clinton), ignorant and incurious (bush). god only knows what obama's deal is.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 4 May 2012 05:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
You don't have to be nuts to be President...but it helps!
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 4 May 2012 05:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
But Ann Romney wore a $990 t-shirt on tv the other morning
CBS
CHANTILLY, Va. — The fashion house that makes the nearly $1,000 blouse worn by Ann Romney on morning television earlier this week tells ABC News that they had nothing to do with the wardrobe choice, remarking that they’d prefer to stay out of politics.
“We had nothing to do with it,” a rep for designer Reed Krakoff said. “She must have bought it from Saks or Bergdorf’s, we definitely didn’t send it to her.”
“It’s 100 percent a Reed Krakoff shirt, but we 100 percent didn’t send it to her,” the rep added. ”We don’t get involved politically.”
The shirt, an item in the label’s 2012 Spring/Summer collection, retails for $990, and for those shopping, is called the “The Reed Audubon Silk Shirt.”
The price of the shirt was first reported by the style blog Stylite.com.
Mrs. Romney does not have a stylist, according to an aide with the Romney campaign, and is likely to have purchased the shirt on her own.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ann%20Romney%20900%20shirt
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 May 2012 14:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/05/ann-romney-wears-shirt-122264.html#.T6Fy_BFMcDc.twitter
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 May 2012 14:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Blousegate. Love the url "Ann Romney Wears Shirt."
― Advanced Uncle Meat recovery system (Dan Peterson), Friday, 4 May 2012 14:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha thank you, Ann Romney, for giving us a respite from your endless sprees of public nudity
― I'M THAT POSTA, AAAAAAAAAH (DJP), Friday, 4 May 2012 14:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
So you're saying the Mormon nudist camp rumor starts here.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 May 2012 14:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
I originally typed that as 'Mormom,' which is both completely obvious and strangely fitting.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 4 May 2012 14:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
so, "julia"
― goole, Friday, 4 May 2012 16:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
smh @ america
― goole, Friday, 4 May 2012 16:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
half of what I say is meaningless.
― pplains, Friday, 4 May 2012 16:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
nro was railing against julia's "drab, soviet-style existence" and also had a whole post about how the campaign would cause problems in obama's base because hipsters would be forced to mock julia
― their private gesture for bison (difficult listening hour), Friday, 4 May 2012 16:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/03/Obama-Campaign-Women-Are-Helpless
conservative ranting about Julia here is so over the top
― curmudgeon, Friday, 4 May 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
that is an...unfortunate URL.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 May 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Under the Obama administration, self-respect and personal responsibility are unnecessary when the federal government saps resources from the private sector to clean up your messes. Julia can be a professional student and study web design for a frillion years so she can build flash-heavy websites.
― their private gesture for bison (difficult listening hour), Friday, 4 May 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Annnd Obama is still president.
these ppl are so stupid
― Mordy, Friday, 4 May 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.freep.com/article/20120504/NEWS15/120504045/Mitt-Romney-Richard-Grenell-campaign
well that lasted about as long as i expected
― O_o-O_0-o_O (jjjusten), Saturday, 5 May 2012 00:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Prez spoke at my son's high school yesterday. Did his spiel about the Republicans wanting to let federal loan interest rates double
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0504/Student-loans-Do-Republicans-really-think-program-is-socialist
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 5 May 2012 15:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Biden on Meet the Press = yes, we're worried.
― clemenza, Sunday, 6 May 2012 13:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
about the adequacy of "Osama's dead and Chrysler isn't"?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 6 May 2012 16:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^ actually, that makes a damned effective bumper sticker for a MOR candidate
― Aimless, Sunday, 6 May 2012 17:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
unless maybe if you don't work for Chrysler
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 6 May 2012 17:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
appparently JoeJoe spouted that in the last 2 weeks
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 6 May 2012 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Joe's good at one-liners
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 6 May 2012 18:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
Every time Joe opens his mouth I hear wookie noises.
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 7 May 2012 14:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
*Biden smashes wrench into access panel on Amtrak engine.*
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 7 May 2012 14:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/06/young-voters-are-abandoning-obama-but-not-running-to-romney.html
Young voters gonna stay home
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 May 2012 14:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
which seems encouraging, but
Surprisingly, little support is expressed by 18- to 24-year-olds for the Occupy Wall Street protests, at 19 percent. (A plurality of 42 percent are unsure.)
where would they find out about it, right? HBO?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 14:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
Of course jobs is #1, but smh at the rest:
The top-10 issues ranked in importance for this cohort were creating jobs, reducing the deficit, lowering the tax burden for all, becoming energy-independent, ensuring affordable access to health care, creating a world-class education system, addressing Social Security, preventing the spread of terrorism, protecting individual liberties from government, and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Combating the impacts of climate change fell near the bottom of the list.
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 7 May 2012 14:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
college kids aping their parents shocka
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 May 2012 15:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Through facebook, right? Isn't this supposed to be the web.20 generation with their twitter revolutions and magic youtube text aps? Friedman and Bobo said so.
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 7 May 2012 15:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
the legacy of the democratic party's failure to articulate a clear political philosophy of any kind for decades
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Monday, 7 May 2012 15:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^^this
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 7 May 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's hard to do when you don't believe in anything.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
It is very hip, even on the Youth Left, to mock OWS.
Young millennials today are dramatically less politically engaged and less enthusiastic. Just 64 percent are registered to vote, compared to 73 percent four years ago. The number who say they are definitely voting in the presidential election has dropped significantly from 64 percent to 47 percent. And a majority of those registered or unregistered say that either their vote would not matter or they are unsure.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
^And far easier than actually doing anything.
i don't know what to make of such a rapid fall in registration within a 4 year period. are ppl born in 1994 dramatically less involved than ppl born in 1990?
― Mordy, Monday, 7 May 2012 17:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
it appears so!
― goole, Monday, 7 May 2012 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
I assume some of the '08 kiddie corps let their registration lapse when Gizmo turned into Spike.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
iPhone service cuts off when you go to a polling place.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
four years of severe recession and political deadlock will do a number on people turning 18 during that time
xp yeah and that -- which i would expect you to be 'encouraged' by, morbs?
― goole, Monday, 7 May 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Mordy, Monday, May 7, 2012 12:34 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
seniors suck, freshmen rule
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
which i would expect you to be 'encouraged' by, morbs?
yeah I thought Morbz didn't want ANYBODY to vote
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
They've been hearing about youth unemployment/not holding a job for 4 more years
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't want em to recognize the Obamney choice as a sham
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154502/Obama-Romney-Race-Competitive-2012-Swing-States.aspx
tied says Gallup
boring says Taibbi
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/is-this-the-most-boring-election-ever-20120507
― curmudgeon, Monday, 7 May 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
i DO want em that is
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
i didn't read that taibbi piece yet but i was thinking something similar yesterday. this thread has been relatively quiet, esp compared to last two elections.
― Mordy, Monday, 7 May 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
it is a boring election, but it's only May. though I was in France recently & a friend asked about Mitt Romney & how the USA could consider electing such a fascist religious nutjob, & I found myself defending Romney as being just a bit more fascist than Sarko, & really only a very mild Mormon & thus not very nutso, & really he was a lot more mild & "centrist" than the GOP could have settled upon...I convinced my friend & found myself rather startled that I didn't care much anymore about who wins this election, except for the aid & comfort a Romney victory will give racists.
― Euler, Monday, 7 May 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
totally gonna be a boring election. will be a replay of Clinton v. Dole sans Perot, more or less.
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
be careful what you wish for
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
that was an observation, not a wish
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
k, don't tempt a totally gonna crash again economy, then
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
The irony being that our socialist Keynesian overlords, Messrs Bush and Obama have left us with an economy far less dire than the austerity budgets have left those in Spain, Greece, France and Britain.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Monday, 7 May 2012 19:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think a few of us were aware very early on how boring (a vulnerable) Obama vs. (any kind of) Romney would be, so, Yippie-style, we tried to levitate Rick Perry or Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich into the lead. It just didn't take.
― clemenza, Monday, 7 May 2012 21:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
The National Review is nostalgic for the excitement of '08 too.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299147/dohrn-connection-robert-verbruggen
― clemenza, Tuesday, 8 May 2012 00:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm pretty apathetic to all of this, but then something like this comes along: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/07/479229/house-gop-military-cut-programs-poor/
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 00:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Santorum has endorsed Romney. With that kind of clout...
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 03:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Monday, May 7, 2012 7:31 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 14:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
As CAP’s Melissa Boteach, Lawrence Korb and Max Hoffman noted in a report last month, with the cuts they are calling for, House Republicans will be protecting “largely useless” weapons systems, preserving funding for unnecessary programs like the V-22 Osprey, and adding two nuclear submarines to the U.S. military’s already “overwhelming preponderance of sea power.”
At the same time, the GOP plan would, for example, cut food stamps for 2 million people and reduce the same benefits for 44 million others. Nearly 300,000 school children would lose free school meals and hundreds of thousands could lose their Medicaid or CHIP coverage.
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
sort of like Bill Clinton's abolition of this cost (or would've) him your '96 re-election vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children
There are no useless weapons systems! They create JOBS.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 14:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was thinking about welfare reform when I posted that quote. Mostly because I waiting for you to post it.
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 14:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
As far as I can tell, there are Democrats and Republicans over here, and there are the mysterious entities (aliens? ghost pirates?) on the other side who maintain, and occasionally improve the welfare state.
I have no idea who these mysterious entities that create and protect the policy I like that somehow exists. And I have no idea how the ratio of Democrats to Republicans might affect this.
All I know is that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable. This is proven by NAFTA.
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 15:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
PS I voted for Clinton in '92, but not in '96
I think i was trying to send a clear message to someone
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 15:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
you did it just because you knew that eventually ilxor would exist and you could tell us about it and we could applaud you for your principled stand
― raw feel vegan (silby), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 15:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha. no, I did it just because I knew that eventually Dr. Morbious would exist and be smug on political and movie threads and I wanted him to be wrong again
― a la bouquet marmoset (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, have I been wrong? Haven't noticed, need more coffee.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
...and I guess I know what I'd do in San Francisco this Saturday night.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-state.php?ID=506
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like Rose Aguilar
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
I finally read that Sunday Times Mag piece on the '08 Wall St Obama donors who think he hasn't kissed their ass enough. Start this country over please.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 May 2012 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
It also illustrates the quadrennial presidential auction as vividly as anything else I've read.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 9 May 2012 16:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know why I keep being surprised by how thin-skinned and obvious these guys are.
― He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 9 May 2012 16:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.baywindows.com/romney-ill-be-better-than-ted-for-gay-rights-53688
Have you guys talked about this article? This guy's position seems to have evolved.
― polyphonic, Thursday, 10 May 2012 16:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, gawker or buzzfeed or whomever was talking about this and, as I pointed out yesterday, at least Obama, for whatever reasons, evolved in the right direction.
― Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Thursday, 10 May 2012 16:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney has a lot of work ahead. I don't see how he lines up with, much less defeats, Obama in November. Anything's possible, but Romney doesn't strike me as a come-from-behind maverick. Then again, that's my personal opinion. I'll leave it to the states to decide.
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2012/05/got-to-let-it-show.html
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
snap crackle or pop?
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
So Romney was a dick in high school
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol Dennis Perrin never gets old.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
he does, but much more naturally than the obsession w/ Romney trivia vs war crimes does.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 17:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
as naturally as your obsession with posting in the wrong threads
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
I know I introduced you to Greenwald only a couple years ago but still
I don't think you did.
Nothing wrong with this thread, ain't nothin goin on but an election, whether you're a marriage-obsessed idiot gay or President Machiavelli himself.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I posted some Bambait in the other thread.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Romney's base will like that story of him grabbing his high school classmate and forcibly cutting his hair
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
they could (but won't) point out that no one cares about Bam's bullying.
http://jahanzebjz.tumblr.com/post/2753963879/victims-of-us-drone-attacks-in-pakistan-drone
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
the release of the romney bullying story was deliberately timed to follow obama's gay marriage announcement, y/n? i mean, it had to be, right?
― zubaz fupa (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 10 May 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
the obsession w/ Romney trivia vs war crimes
probably should be Romney trvia (+ likely war crimes) vs war crimes tbh
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 19:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
fine, they're the same, except for nasty schoolboy pranks + dog roofing.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 19:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, because those are the only differences
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean, i get that you don't like things Obama has done, and I know that it really really irks you that perceive a lot of 'liberals' as being full-throated in their support and love for the man, so you have to compensate by overstating your case, but we're all pretty reasonable here. you don't have to do that with us. it's okay. you can tone it down.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
trivial pursuit hate crimes edition
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
ok, just let me know when the overstatement comes in.
I admit the dead bombed kids may not have been gay.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's really weird how we let this Obama character murder all these children. Very unpresidential.
― polyphonic, Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
If the dead bombed kids had been gay they were probably gonna be beheaded anyway.
Morbs, I'm not sure anybody is arguing for the atrocious acts of Obama and the military here, but you basically saying that there is only one issue (WAR CRIMES) and since Romney and Obama are the both the same it doesn't matter is really, really, stupid. I mean, America is a shitty, shitty country, no matter who is running it. That's got a lot to do with the people, of course, but whatever. But somehow saying that the guy who doesn't even believe in civil unions or planned parenthood or infrastructure investment or non-voucher medicare is "the exact same" as Obama is ridiculous. As shitty as Obama is, he's not Romney, who would not only NOT address any of your issues with the current policies, he would make a lot more much worse.
So yes, you are overcompensating by treating us all like we don't know. But maybe you really are impressed with Dennis Perrin's tedious, condescending, and rather obvious writing. If so, welcome to the fucking rest of us.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
in afghanistan?
http://publicintelligence.net/afghanistan-human-terrain-team-pashtun-homosexuality-report/
― goole, Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
i was being really flippant with that remark tbf
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 10 May 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's okay. you can tone it down.
i really don't think he can.
― It was you. Miming to Tenacious D. (stevie), Thursday, 10 May 2012 21:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
you basically saying that there is only one issue
I have more, and never seriously meant they were THE SAME. They do both fall under the minimum level of humanity required to get my vote, is all.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 10 May 2012 21:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
welcome to America dude.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
greatest country on earth iirc
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Looks like Obama's nice but pointless declaration has now become an issue in this election: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/05/10/481772/romney-adviser-gillespie-constitutional-marriage-ba/
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Thursday, 10 May 2012 23:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
We've had the lesser of two evils system since 1776! (xp)
― nickn, Thursday, 10 May 2012 23:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Actually for a while there were the articles of confederation so nobody got to be president
― raw feel vegan (silby), Friday, 11 May 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha
― The Reverend, Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
she is awesome. also, i think carney's 'o look i am pulling back the curtain on your media trickery' schtick here only really connects with the dumber and more gullible corners of the voting public.
"i'm trying to go meta-meta on you" - oh please
― It was you. Miming to Tenacious D. (stevie), Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
he may be a jackass, but there's nothing more awful about american broadcast news (and election-cycle political coverage in particular) than its completely tunnel-visioned focus on only a small handful of "major stories" each day, many of them completely asinine and in fact invented by the brain-dead news cycle's desperate hunger for the next big thing. i understand her frustration, she's just trying to do her job, and he's arrogantly fucking with the program. but that interview plays mostly like the hostility of the news cycle as an entity to any suggestion that there might be something wrong with its monomania, hostility to the idea that there might be other questions to ask, other stories to tell.
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Saturday, 12 May 2012 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
If news persons are always wondering "is there a better question I could be asking?" they would never ask any questions. When the cameras are rolling you have to ask one question at a time. Usually these questions are what people are thinking about currently.
― nickn, Saturday, 12 May 2012 23:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
how would anyone in the MSM know what ppl are thinking about?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 13 May 2012 00:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
A story hits the news*, people think about it.
* yeah, yeah. Should it not have been reported?
― nickn, Sunday, 13 May 2012 01:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
i kind of think that "i understand the question, but rather than answer it directly, i'd instead like to talk about the way certain stories and questions are privileged over others by the media and how that limits the discourse" is a perfectly acceptable response to an interview question.
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Sunday, 13 May 2012 01:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
He seemed to be acting as if this was a "gothcha" surprise attack when she indicated that that was what he had been invited on the show to discuss. And she wasn't going to let him pretend for all the viewers that this was another MSM blindside attack.
― nickn, Sunday, 13 May 2012 01:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Sunday, May 13, 2012 1:41 AM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
haha no it isn't
― Matt Armstrong, Sunday, 13 May 2012 02:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's perfectly annoying and insufferable tho
Maybe if it was a contributor questioning the point of the story (as was done on other programs on MSNBC that day, or at least Alex Wagner), as opposed to some Romney supporter unsure about how to respond to the negative press by shouting about how he's going to PUT THE MEDIA ON TRIAL!
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Sunday, 13 May 2012 03:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
wrt to this particular point, i don't care what side of the political fence he's on, or whether or not he imagines he's pulling some tiresome "gotcha". i didn't see anything so terribly impertinent in his response, myself, but he clearly intended to challenge the interviewer. i figure it was her call, and i don't object to her decision to snub him. he asked for it.
that said, i wish more interviewees, when asked about dumb shit like this - even if they've previously agreed to be asked about it - would take the "you know, let's talk about something else" route.
― 10. “Pour Some Sugar On Me” – Tom Cruise (contenderizer), Sunday, 13 May 2012 07:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
― nickn, Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:46 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
OTM
― It was you. Miming to Tenacious D. (stevie), Sunday, 13 May 2012 09:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights
As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property
― the acquisition and practice of music is unfavourable to the health of (abanana), Sunday, 13 May 2012 12:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's funny, but it's also true
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Sunday, 13 May 2012 14:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
in fact, one could say it's kind of lol but mostly sad
would totally vote for candidate who would work to expand my opportunities to hunt and shoot my family
― It was you. Miming to Tenacious D. (stevie), Sunday, 13 May 2012 15:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mitt Romney now holds a three point national lead over President Obama according to the newest NYT/CBS News poll. The poll found that 46 percent of registered voters say they would choose Romney while just 43 percent say they would back Obama. This represents a small drop in support for Obama compared to last month when the same poll found the race perfectly tied at 46 percent each.
http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/05/15/romney-holds-small-national-lead-in-nytcbs-poll/
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/a-30000-foot-view-on-the-presidential-race/
― goole, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
I shake my head in amazement and wonder how Silver can write paragraph after paragraph full of stats and equivocations, week after week.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
don't worry, Roseanne's gonna save the day!
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
he's a numbers machine, Alfred!
― goole, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
If only you would let her, Shakes.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 16:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, Shakey - stop stopping Roseanna from becoming president!
― It was you. Miming to Tenacious D. (stevie), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 16:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think it's major-party stans who expect the prez to SAVE them, because HE IS THEIR ROCK STAR
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 17:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Speaking of rock stars:
Barr moved several people in Saturday's audience when she teared up talking about her modest roots.
There is little mention that Barr, who spends most of her time on a $1.7 million, 46-acre macadamia nut farm in Hawaii, is among the wealthiest of Americans. She's done little in-person "barnstorming" outside of a near-constant stream of Twitter postings. She told The Chronicle that airplane travel makes her sick.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
She's the FDR of the Green Party
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 19:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not as much fun as that Slate thing where all the Republican candidates ran an actual horserace, but pretty neat nonetheless. I'm sure "the model" is fairly reliable; inputting the numbers is a guessing game:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-election-predictor/
― clemenza, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry to be so cynical about Barr's candidacy guys
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 May 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
GOP Superpac's plan for expensive nasty ad attacks on Obama:
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”
The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120517
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
that ad!
― max, Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
― max, Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
The ad plan proposal says this:
“Our plan is to do exactly what John McCain would not let us do: Show the world how Barack Obama’s opinions of America and the world were formed,” the proposal says. “And why the influence of that misguided mentor and our president’s formative years among left-wing intellectuals has brought our country to its knees.”
But also this:
Lamenting that voters “still aren’t ready to hate this president,” the document concludes that the campaign should “explain how forces out of Obama’s control, that shaped the man, have made him completely the wrong choice as president in these days and times.”
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/17/us/politics/super-pac-storyboard.html?ref=politics
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 17 May 2012 13:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
Uhhh...
― Advanced Uncle Meat recovery system (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
this surely isn't going to succeed.
― Sisig Steve (stevie), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
The insular right-wing bubble trying to foist their paranoia on everyone
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
That storyboard is totally... something.
Medium shot directly into a beautiful little home on a beautiful little street... BO enters from the left, rapidly pushing a gurney... he looks to us and gives us "that grin."
― Advanced Uncle Meat recovery system (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
Soccer mom, hopeless and lost, in utter despair.
― Advanced Uncle Meat recovery system (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
Surely the 2008 election would have gone the other way had anyone known about this rev wright fellow
― President Keyes, Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Should we have KNOWN?! Perhaps there is no more important question.
― Soccer mom, hopeless and lost, in utter despair (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
It would have been better if a snake came out of the egg
― Hauntingly Unemployed American (President Keyes), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/joe-ricketts-man-behind-new-super-pac-loves-corporate-welfare
He owns the Chicago Cubs and they need taxpayer dollars. He's probably glad Obama is a White Sox fan and not a Cubs fan.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
JoelHe should spend that $10M on a pitcher.The Tick and Marino Eccher like this.31 Minutes Ago from slate.com · Reply
LOL!
― Soccer mom, hopeless and lost, in utter despair (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
if anything keeps me on the side of Obama (his warts and all), it's the sheer utter repulsiveness of his loudest right-wing opponents.
― Boris Kutyurkokhov (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
xxp in related news, George W. Bush and Tea Party fan Curt Schilling is also out trolling for taxpayer $$$
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/7938433/curt-schilling-video-game-company-asks-rhode-island-more-help
Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling asked Rhode Island for additional help to save his video game company Wednesday, prompting state leaders to consider whether the firm is viable enough to justify further investment.Schilling, an ESPN baseball analyst, briefed Gov. Lincoln Chafee and the state's Economic Development Corp. board in a closed-door session.Following the meeting, Chafee would not say what Schilling is seeking from the state. The governor said the question before state economic development officials was, "How do we avoid throwing good money after bad?"Schilling declined to answer questions, saying only: "My priority right now is to get back to my team."Concerns about 38 Studios' financial health arose when it failed to make a scheduled $1.1 million payment to the Economic Development Corp. on May 1.The business was lured from Massachusetts in 2010 after Rhode Island offered a $75 million loan guarantee that state officials said would help bring hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenue.
Schilling, an ESPN baseball analyst, briefed Gov. Lincoln Chafee and the state's Economic Development Corp. board in a closed-door session.
Following the meeting, Chafee would not say what Schilling is seeking from the state. The governor said the question before state economic development officials was, "How do we avoid throwing good money after bad?"
Schilling declined to answer questions, saying only: "My priority right now is to get back to my team."
Concerns about 38 Studios' financial health arose when it failed to make a scheduled $1.1 million payment to the Economic Development Corp. on May 1.
The business was lured from Massachusetts in 2010 after Rhode Island offered a $75 million loan guarantee that state officials said would help bring hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenue.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
free markets for thee, government cheese for me!
― Boris Kutyurkokhov (Eisbaer), Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
"the face of a hauntingly unemployed american"
― goole, Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
Not quite evil sheep level trainwreck, but it promises to be a fun ad
― He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/here-is-a-line-of-gop-candidate-butt-plugs-.html
― goole, Friday, 18 May 2012 02:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
ow
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Friday, 18 May 2012 02:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
BO with Russian. EXISTING STOCK.
― a hauntingly unemployed american (difficult listening hour), Friday, 18 May 2012 07:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
BO walks the famed walk from the Oval Office to the residence, colonnades on the left. It is at first a cocky, self-assured walk. As he walks toward us, however, the cockiness lessens and he literally gets shorter and shorter, ending up just 2-3 feet tall as he walks past camera on the left.
― a hauntingly unemployed american (difficult listening hour), Friday, 18 May 2012 07:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
the left!
― a hauntingly unemployed american (difficult listening hour), Friday, 18 May 2012 07:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
So in addition to cliched rightwing PAC stuff we have Romney himself saying stuff that Democratic cheerleader blogs like Washington Monthly correctly point out is absurd(Romney is now pointing out that Clinton was a fiscally smart Dem and Obama isn't--but neglecting to mention that Clinton raised taxes on the rich). But does this stuff even make it into inside the beltway op-eds or network tv or website homepage headlines? Probably not, but neither does Greenwald and others' coverage of civil liberties.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_05/the_clinton_doctrine_revisited037423.php
― curmudgeon, Friday, 18 May 2012 15:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
x-post- Hannity on Fox and others disappointed in Romney not emphasizing Rev Wright stuff.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/18/hannity_wright_and_the_dreams_of_the_gop_base.html
― curmudgeon, Friday, 18 May 2012 15:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
i just got an email from sarah jessica parker!!!
― goole, Friday, 18 May 2012 16:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Are you selling oats?
― Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Friday, 18 May 2012 16:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh snap
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 18 May 2012 16:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
her face looks like a horse's.
― pplains, Friday, 18 May 2012 16:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
That might be considered sexist by some (although if you will make fun of her hubby's looks, that will make it even)
― curmudgeon, Friday, 18 May 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
her husband is a negligent killer.
― pplains, Friday, 18 May 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/obama-love-letter-truthers
Maybe the wrong thread as this issue is not likely to determine the election
― curmudgeon, Friday, 18 May 2012 19:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
v excited to party with SJP. bringing some schlitz and a bag of pretzels
― He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 18 May 2012 19:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
But in a certain sense, the entire Romney campaign is one big dog whistle aimed at appealing to persuadable voters on the single issue of the economy, while letting the restive “base” hear all sorts of other things involving cultural resentments and the desire to return to the good old days before the New Deal and the 60s began to ruin the Founders’ design and defy the Creator’s moral code.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_05/the_big_dog_whistle037436.php
dog whistle
― curmudgeon, Monday, 21 May 2012 14:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/romney-fenced-immigration
another reason this election is so frustrating
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 24 May 2012 18:50 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-budget-tax-policy-austerity-mitt-romney-barack-obama-cbo-spending-cuts.php?ref=fpa
more reasons to be disallusioned
― curmudgeon, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:51 (11 months ago) Permalink
What was the allusion?
― Love Max Ophüls of us all (Michael White), Friday, 25 May 2012 15:15 (11 months ago) Permalink
good point
― curmudgeon, Friday, 25 May 2012 15:28 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/barack-obama-2012-6/index1.html
Huge insider quoting article on the Obama campaign and how they will go negative but worry that they will have less money than the super pac and Wall Streeters supporting Romney
A prominent private-equity player in Gotham who supports Obama agrees with all of that but adds another insight. �Among rich Republicans, the view of Obama is that he’s the Devil,� this person says. �But on the Democratic side, certainly on Wall Street, there’s no visceral reaction against Romney. So if I give $10 million, I’m out the $10 million, and I’m gonna pay more in taxes if Obama wins. And I’m doing it against somebody who�I may not agree with his social views, but I don’t think he’s a bad person. And I’m not really into negative advertising, which is what a super-PAC would do � Then there’s the fact nobody on Wall Street thinks Obama gives a sh-- about them. They think his attitude is, �If I lose Wall Street, it’s not the end of the world.’ And they’re right.�
Whatever the causes, the consequences for Obama may prove dire. Burton reckons that, in the end, the cumulative spending on the Democratic side will be about $1 billion, compared with maybe $1.6 billion on the Republican side. And while the latter may be exaggerated for effect�other savvy Democrats put the GOP figure at more like $1.3 billion�there’s little doubt in either partisan camp that we are about to witness the improbable development of an incumbent president’s being financially overmatched.
It concerns me gravely,� Plouffe tells me. �From a political standpoint, I’m almost as worried about that as I am about the question of what the economy’s gonna do over the next three or four months.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:17 (11 months ago) Permalink
Come back to the Five and Dime, Newt:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/mitt-romney-abc-washington-post-poll-favorability-barack-obama.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
― clemenza, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:30 (11 months ago) Permalink
Jesus Christ. $2.3 billion.
― oh jeez. I can feel myself quicken. (Austerity Ponies), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:44 (11 months ago) Permalink
that's a lot of free speech
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:48 (11 months ago) Permalink
no Buffett Tax or Bush tax cut repeals regardless of who's in the Oval Office, methinks.
― Boris Kutyurkokhov (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:51 (11 months ago) Permalink
LOL Z S
― twittering spinster (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:53 (11 months ago) Permalink
this is more down to congress than anything else tho
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:54 (11 months ago) Permalink
Yep. But Congressional Dems will not likely be strong enough.
x-post-Throughout the primaries, Romney routinely drew low marks from voters. That was particularly true among women, as Republicans drew criticism for trying to curtail coverage for contraception. But the survey shows Romney has rebounded with women. Forty percent view him favorably, up from 27 percent a month ago.
Polls. I don't get you American people (in poll cited by tpm).
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
yeah ignore "likability" polls. I'm very likable but I suck.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
poll doesn't reflect anything more than Romney securing the nomination/GOP voters not having any other options
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 17:59 (11 months ago) Permalink
Someone should tell Plouffe that Shakey has guaranteed re-election, so no biggie
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 30 May 2012 18:41 (11 months ago) Permalink
For those of you stuck in a cave for the next several months, here is the precis:
Romney's message: Obama is Satan. I am a super hero from whose anus sunlight floods.
Obama's message: Romney is a hearltess, soulless baby-eater. I am the Way and the Light.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 18:56 (11 months ago) Permalink
In general, I agree that likeability won't move elections much--it's a threshold thing, and as long as you clear the "s/he'll do" bar, you're electable. But for a long time, Romney was falling well short of that bar. With so much economic data seemingly frozen in place in the iffy grey area, I assumed one of Obama's clear advantages in November would be that most voters like him, and most clearly don't like Romney. So I'm not suggesting this poll means that people are suddenly in love with Romney--really, who could love Romney except Mrs. Romney?--just that he's starting to clear the "he'll do" threshold. And I do think that matters in terms of Obama's chances. Whenever you'd write something like "this guy is so doomed," Shakey Mo, it was often after Romney had said something stupid. Just an opinion, but I think that between "that guy says some stupid thing" and "I have a visceral dislike for that guy," the latter is far more damaging.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 21:51 (11 months ago) Permalink
(That last post might be enough to get iatee back on here: following an opening "Eh," he can patiently explain how I'm completely wrong.)
― clemenza, Wednesday, 30 May 2012 21:54 (11 months ago) Permalink
(has anybody tried bumping the sburbs thread?)
― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Thursday, 31 May 2012 03:39 (11 months ago) Permalink
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Thursday, 31 May 2012 04:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
wait where did iatee go?
― thillrer (loves laboured breathing), Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:12 (11 months ago) Permalink
Out to the country, got a big farm. lots of fresh air.
― pplains, Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:13 (11 months ago) Permalink
oh, figures.
― thillrer (loves laboured breathing), Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:15 (11 months ago) Permalink
Lots of peaches, too.
― clemenza, Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:44 (11 months ago) Permalink
Bad news is he has to commute 40 miles each way to his job in the city.
― nickn, Thursday, 31 May 2012 17:03 (11 months ago) Permalink
He could no longer afford to live in his neighborhood.
― the conch is a well worn copy of the AD&D Fiends Folio (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 31 May 2012 19:15 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/26/1095014/-Bain-Capital-and-Mitt-Romney-s-Best-Kept-Secret-Clear-Channel-Radio
― The Reverend, Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:34 (11 months ago) Permalink
"Corporations are people"
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:56 (11 months ago) Permalink
Barack, we hardly knew ye.
― clemenza, Friday, 1 June 2012 15:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
Am I just not remembering, or were monthly jobs reports as big a deal 20 years ago? I followed Bush/Clinton pretty closely, and while I remember attention being paid to the general unemployment rate and GDP numbers, I don't recall such life-or-death anticipation of every jobs report.
― clemenza, Friday, 1 June 2012 15:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
well we're in a pretty big financial hole, more than twenty years ago
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 1 June 2012 15:13 (11 months ago) Permalink
Attempted augury of voters's November mood swings, five months in advance, so investors can buy the correct product in the presidential market?
― Aimless, Friday, 1 June 2012 15:15 (11 months ago) Permalink
Well timed.
― clemenza, Friday, 1 June 2012 23:43 (11 months ago) Permalink
Guessing I'm probably the worst-dressed person ever to receive an e-mail from Anna Wintour.
― clemenza, Sunday, 3 June 2012 15:23 (11 months ago) Permalink
obv you've never read The Zizek-Wintour Letters
― Mordy, Sunday, 3 June 2012 17:05 (11 months ago) Permalink
haha, Bubba Eruption over the weekend, saying Mitt's corporate record was "sterling." Now backtracking.
Bill Clinton, gliding through a privileged life, doing pretty much as he pleases, defended Mitt Romney's business past. Said that Romney was qualified to be president. This from a senior Obama supporter.
I laughed when I read that. I can't stand Clinton, but that made my day. I'd shake whatever hand he doesn't jerk off with.
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2012/06/ride-my-see-saw.html
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 01:47 (11 months ago) Permalink
why would that player use either of his own hands to jerk off with?
― pplains, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 02:59 (11 months ago) Permalink
Lookin' old and thin since he gave up barbecue, not pullin' what he usta
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 11:48 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/05/michael-tomasky-is-barack-obama-is-too-weak-to-win-in-november.html
frustration with the cool one
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 14:13 (11 months ago) Permalink
this is going around but it won't last long. original still up at Romney's site for now though & lol all day:
As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.
― decrepit but free (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 19:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
― WHEY AHR MAH DREGUNS? (DJP), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 19:59 (11 months ago) Permalink
Proud Amercian Mitt Romney Invites Voters to take a ‘Sneak-Peak’ at Pathological Spelling Problem
― Julie Derpy (Phil D.), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:00 (11 months ago) Permalink
access and opportunities for Americans to hunt and shoot their families.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:01 (11 months ago) Permalink
the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to hunt my property and family, fuck you liberals
― WHEY AHR MAH DREGUNS? (DJP), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:01 (11 months ago) Permalink
aaaahahahaha this is really getting me bad
― decrepit but free (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:04 (11 months ago) Permalink
curmudgeon, I think the idea that Obama would send up a long series of jobs/stimulation bills to die in Congress, so he could run against a do-nothing Congress probably got killed by the democrats in Congress. They would see that startegy in a very different light, when they went home and faced ads that said something like:
(solemn deep voice) In the past year alone, Joe Blow voted for spending bills that, if they had passed, would have cost fifty gazillion dollars and ballooned the deficit like a bullfrog on helium. This time, vote for our smiling man with a nice suit and haircut, not that drunken sailor who'll piss away your children's future.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
more traditional than birth control
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 20:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
oh shut up Bubba
― retro-shittified (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 23:35 (11 months ago) Permalink
he's returned to his Screaming Lobster of Hope days.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 5 June 2012 23:37 (11 months ago) Permalink
Mr. Johnson, it happened again: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/romney-campaign-misspelled-reagan.html
So far, the Romney campaign cannot spell "peek," "America" or "Reagan."
― Julie Derpy (Phil D.), Thursday, 7 June 2012 01:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
Clinton's comments on Romney: BS, despicable
The tax cut thing: totally overblown, mostly just pragmatic.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 7 June 2012 03:43 (11 months ago) Permalink
The Senate awakens to the consequences of drone warfare and the cynicism of the White House leaks: Bradley Manning gets prosecuted while Obama reads Augustine's Confessions.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 June 2012 14:23 (11 months ago) Permalink
The Senate is concerned about drones suddenly-- but only with regards to leaking news about them, not however in terms of due process and civil liberties and effectiveness of whack and kill a mole in terms of a sole strategy to deal with the multiple problems in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:36 (11 months ago) Permalink
the Senate only cares about O taking credit for them. they want everyone to know there's blood on their hands too y'know!
― retro-shittified (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:37 (11 months ago) Permalink
McCain's just jealous he doesn't get to personally target hapless muslims
― retro-shittified (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:38 (11 months ago) Permalink
It's shame-free, of course, but look not at intentions. McCain actually made a good point:
“The fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks perpetrated by a 22-year-old Army private in the Wikileaks matter and former CIA employees in other leaks cases but apparently sanction leaks made by senior administration officials for political purposes is simply unacceptable,” Sen. McCain said.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:41 (11 months ago) Permalink
i disagree, tbh. when it comes to clandestine operations sanctioned by the administration, it seems appropriate for the white house to decide what to reveal and when to reveal it.
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
...and it also seems appropriate to punish army privates for deliberately leaking sensitive information.
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:58 (11 months ago) Permalink
McCain's denounciation would be much more forceful if it came from someone with moral principles.
― Aimless, Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:58 (11 months ago) Permalink
'rizer lovin' the Imperial Presidency
this really is peripherally related to the thunderous bore of an election, or should be.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 7 June 2012 18:59 (11 months ago) Permalink
would be much more forceful if it came from someone with moral principles.
now same-sex marriage strangely comes to mind...
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:00 (11 months ago) Permalink
It would be even more forceful if intentions mattered.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:01 (11 months ago) Permalink
You mean you don't want to meet this generation's Fawn Hall? I can't wait.
― pplains, Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:02 (11 months ago) Permalink
It irritates me that Bradley Manning matters only as a pawn in the Dem-GOP scrimmage over principles both parties share, that's for sure.
― go down on you in a thyatrr (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:02 (11 months ago) Permalink
i just mean that i'm somewhat willing to grant the administration the license to reveal the general scope of clandestine operations (on a big picture, "here's more or less what we did" level, without naming names specifically endangering anyone). the executive's license to reveal is much less troubling to me than its license to conceal.
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
and the factor of "We can't say this exists in court, but psssst, we did THIS badass kill"?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:12 (11 months ago) Permalink
they reveal and conceal in different places, always.
sure, i'm not saying that this bit is transparency is a great thing. it's obviously little more than horn-tooting.
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Thursday, 7 June 2012 19:15 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://imgur.com/a/1X9Hp
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 7 June 2012 22:46 (11 months ago) Permalink
― crüt, Thursday, 7 June 2012 22:49 (11 months ago) Permalink
lol @ piss children
― johnathan lee riche$ (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 8 June 2012 00:20 (11 months ago) Permalink
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 8 June 2012 03:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
PissDude Malone
― Stinky Ray Vaughan (Eisbaer), Friday, 8 June 2012 03:50 (11 months ago) Permalink
has there been a grimmer moment in american politics in the last 30-odd years than right now, and if so when was it?
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 8 June 2012 04:03 (11 months ago) Permalink
the Jim Crow era was pretty grim (esp for African-Americans) and lasted more than 30 years. though the past 30 years has sucked pretty hard.
― Stinky Ray Vaughan (Eisbaer), Friday, 8 June 2012 04:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
my question was whether there has been a worse _moment_ in the past 30 years (since the early 80s).
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 8 June 2012 04:14 (11 months ago) Permalink
Man, 2004 seemed a lot worse. I will take Obama over Kerry and Romney over Bush Jr any day of the week.
― pplains, Friday, 8 June 2012 05:11 (11 months ago) Permalink
yeah
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Friday, 8 June 2012 05:56 (11 months ago) Permalink
i mean, i agree that that 2004 was worse, or at least seemed worse from where i stand. esp post-election. not sure abt the head to head comparisons, tbh.
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Friday, 8 June 2012 06:01 (11 months ago) Permalink
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn[ ==============================yp76
^ cat's thoughts
Bush being reelected was the worst. Everything went wrong in his first term and we reelected the fucker cuz he threw a baseball and shouted into a megaphone, yeehaw.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 8 June 2012 07:14 (11 months ago) Permalink
i'm not just speaking of presidential politics.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 8 June 2012 12:50 (11 months ago) Permalink
I will take Obama over Kerry and Romney over Bush Jr
When we won't take any of them, we might get somewhere.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:30 (11 months ago) Permalink
Here are a couple highlights for Americans:
2000: constitutional coup 2000: dot-com bubble bursts resulting in a decade of stagnant wages2001: terrorists fly planes into the world trade center2001-?: GWOT 2001-?: Afghanistan (America's longest war) badly mismanaged2002-2003: build-up to the invasion of Iraq 2003-?: invasion of Iraq - Iraq grossly mismanaged2005: Hurricane Katrina 2007: housing bubble butrsts and the world economy nearly collapses2009: nemployment rate briefly hits 10%
Things aren't looking great right now, but I can remember a few other low points.
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:33 (11 months ago) Permalink
And I should include:
2001-?: The rapid evolution of the unilateral, emperial presidency
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:35 (11 months ago) Permalink
Things look much better when you don't watch cable news or the Sunday talk shows, guys.
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:35 (11 months ago) Permalink
imperial
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:36 (11 months ago) Permalink
plus, always assume things get worse
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:37 (11 months ago) Permalink
because they do.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:38 (11 months ago) Permalink
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, June 8, 2012 9:35 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i don't watch TV.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:39 (11 months ago) Permalink
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, June 8, 2012 9:37 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
some things do, some things don't. we can't count on anything.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:41 (11 months ago) Permalink
guys, the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself
― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:43 (11 months ago) Permalink
well that and things always getting worse.
― pplains, Friday, 8 June 2012 14:44 (11 months ago) Permalink
Can't believe I forgot
2010-?: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill & ongoing environmental disaster
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:47 (11 months ago) Permalink
those are mostly familiar stuff getting incrementally worse. Prez facilitating star-chamber assassinations transparently is next-level shit.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:51 (11 months ago) Permalink
(w/ Page One sympathy from the New York Times)
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:52 (11 months ago) Permalink
What worries most is the increasing privatization of public services, a trend that both parties encourage. I just ended a long teleconference in which what I consider an essential university service will be turned over to a "partnership" with a corporate entity. The assumption, based on four years of shall we say discouraging news from Tallahassee, is that we can no longer count on state money to pay for basic services. At one point I said to my boss, "Great! It means that in fifteen years the Florida Chamber of Commerce will 'partner' with the department of mathematics and thus eliminate the need for the state to give'em money for adjunct salaries and dry erase markers?"
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:01 (11 months ago) Permalink
You need to go become one of those private sector job-creators and quit complaining
― curmudgeon, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:12 (11 months ago) Permalink
What worries most is the increasing privatization of public services, a trend that both parties encourage.
This is basically a baseline assumption these days. Very destructive and hard to turn around.
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:13 (11 months ago) Permalink
I need to buy ILE, fire the lot of you, and replace you with right-to-work drones.
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:19 (11 months ago) Permalink
tbf, our pension plans are seriously underfunded
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:26 (11 months ago) Permalink
2000: constitutional coup 2000: dot-com bubble bursts resulting in a decade of stagnant wages2001: terrorists fly planes into the world trade center2001-?: GWOT 2001-?: Afghanistan (America's longest war) badly mismanaged2002-2003: build-up to the invasion of Iraq 2003-?: invasion of Iraq - Iraq grossly mismanaged2005: Hurricane Katrina 2007: housing bubble butrsts and the world economy nearly collapses2009: nemployment rate briefly hits 10%2011: Dave Cool stops posting to ilx
I don't think we can really blame all this on the commander in chief
― decrepit but free (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:30 (11 months ago) Permalink
airplanes are falling out of the sky, a baby is born and another one dies.
― pplains, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:31 (11 months ago) Permalink
There will always be wars, disasters and things that come about with little or no warning, or method of aversion. I think what makes 2012 feel worse than, say, 2004, is that all this shit going on while the world teeters precariously on the brink of total economic collapse, which we all see happening (like climate change) and yet which the government (and, hell, most voters) seem to think can just be debated and argued into safe submission.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:33 (11 months ago) Permalink
The world has been ending since 2800 BC.
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:37 (11 months ago) Permalink
I just wonder what I would have thought in the 70s, watching gas shortages, inflation, 18% interest rates, major American cities going bankrupt, rivers on fire, etc. and whether there was any hope of improvement.
― pplains, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:38 (11 months ago) Permalink
as George Carlin said, "the world" vs "humanity" xp
I'll tell you what I thought in the late '70s: "Hey, we got rid of Nixon, and the government gave me a big grant for college."
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:41 (11 months ago) Permalink
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:46 (11 months ago) Permalink
The world has been ending since 2800 BC.― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, June 8, 2012 11:37 AM (13 minutes ago)
― Convert simple JEEZ to BDSMcode (Austerity Ponies), Friday, June 8, 2012 11:37 AM (13 minutes ago)
pretty otm afaict. the whole system relies upon selling us over and over again the belief that the world is about to end. not to be a dithering, equivocating blame-both-sides hack about it, but there's very little daylight between the left + the right when it comes to convincing constituents that the sky is falling (in the spheres of environment, religion, economics, politics, war, intellectualism, etc). i'd vote for a guy who said: "little that we do matters, and if we survive for another thousand years* no one will remember our names"
*itself a complicated question depending on a lot of factors we can see + can't see, and depending on a whole lot more than just who sits in the oval office for 8 years. tho i will admit that a psycho with nukes is def a big threat to humanity's survival and i have voted in the past based on who i think was less likely to spark a nuclear war.
― Mordy, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:55 (11 months ago) Permalink
Considering developments, you should consider who is less likely to aim drones at Americans without considerations of due process.
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 8 June 2012 15:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
the least important election of your lifetime: 1789-2012 american general election thread
― Mordy, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:58 (11 months ago) Permalink
assuming the US is publishing history books in even fifty years, the best you can hope for is a paragraph about drones in the giant glossy "New Warfare Technology" pullout (that teachers never get to bc it's too recent history and there's too much to cover re WW2)
― Mordy, Friday, 8 June 2012 15:59 (11 months ago) Permalink
don't really have the history or the logarithms to contribute to/this but i just wanna give a shout out to the ~interconnected & disconnected global context~ for our present moment. since last year it does feel p novelly vertiginous to look at Syria (& likewise) or Japan or Afghanistan and Pakistan or Russia, &c.
i am still on a downer since the geoengineering article in the nyer, too.
― blossom smulch (schlump), Friday, 8 June 2012 16:07 (11 months ago) Permalink
i wish i hadn't italicised novelly, i know things are always complicated & maybe just worse when you're paying attention
― blossom smulch (schlump), Friday, 8 June 2012 16:10 (11 months ago) Permalink
Eh, there are plenty more Americans.
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 8 June 2012 19:16 (11 months ago) Permalink
Prez facilitating star-chamber assassinations transparently is next-level shit.
The transparent part is the only thing next-level about the US Prez ordering hits.
― There are many tribes in the Juggalo nation (Viceroy), Friday, 8 June 2012 20:01 (11 months ago) Permalink
some grim hilarity in that the very belated senatorial "pushback" on all of this is not about arbitrary imprisonment and assassination but about exactly how and for whom those things are leaked. working the press is our prerogative!!
― goole, Friday, 8 June 2012 20:17 (11 months ago) Permalink
yes Viceroy, no one talked about Kennedy doing it til about 15 years later bcz it was thought an unseemly thing for the Leader of the Free World to be doing.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 20:25 (11 months ago) Permalink
diff b/w 2004 and 2012: in 2004, we had a Republican in the White House, and non-Republicans could project their hopes (correctly or not, lol or not lol) on the Democratic candidate. in 2012 we have a Democratic President who played on those hopes to get elected 4 years ago, hasn't lived up to those hopes and (to some) has overstayed his welcome -- and the Republican is even worse.
don't try to convince me otherwise, that's why 2012 seems even worse than 2004.
― Stinky Ray Vaughan (Eisbaer), Friday, 8 June 2012 21:18 (11 months ago) Permalink
^^^ agree with this.
tbh i think bush, cheney et al getting away with everything -- no impeachment, no post-2008 repercussions -- was the most demoralizing development of all.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 8 June 2012 21:26 (11 months ago) Permalink
eisbaer otm
― they loooovin the crut (The Reverend), Saturday, 9 June 2012 00:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
yeah, I'm with J.D., Obama's decision to "look forward" was extremely demoralizing. Also, a lot of people on Obama's team are shitbags like Geitner and that doesn't really help me feel warm feelings.
― There are many tribes in the Juggalo nation (Viceroy), Saturday, 9 June 2012 16:40 (11 months ago) Permalink
I'm not trying to be an apologist, honestly. But the sort of person who posts on a message board such as this is such a tiny sliver of the country at large. The idea that the first black president would begin his term (in the midst of an economic crisis, no less) by putting the previous administration on trial just seems chimerical to me.
― clemenza, Saturday, 9 June 2012 17:04 (11 months ago) Permalink
especially if he wants to commit many of the same crimes.
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 9 June 2012 17:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
All he needed to do was make the decision. Others would have done the actual work of investigation, writing briefs, filing motions and so forth. So, it was only a matter of having the will to do it. It would have spooled out for at least nine months without any further intervention on his part and mostly behind the scenes.
But put aside the constitutional issues of challenging the previous administration; he did not even give the green light for aggressively investigating and indicting the culprits in the financial industry who caused that same economic crisis. Again, it was only a matter of will, not his personal involvement after the initial decision was made.
― Aimless, Saturday, 9 June 2012 17:12 (11 months ago) Permalink
I've made this point before, but I guess it all comes down to the idea of "wants to." I you believe that, there's nothing I can say to prove otherwise. But I have always attributed Obama's actions/non-actions with regards to the military and Wall Street to his acute awareness that he is a Republican bogeyman cubed--black, a Democrat, and an Ivy League egghead. So he has tried, from the outset, to glide past and around those two areas with as few sudden movements as possible.
He will live with the consequences in terms of how his presidency is viewed 50 years from now. And, of course, he's ended up being that bogeyman anyway--Republicans heap all the caricatures onto him no matter what he does or doesn't do. Which justifiably maddens anyone who wishes he had acted other otherwise in the first place.
― clemenza, Saturday, 9 June 2012 17:24 (11 months ago) Permalink
I am guessing that one of the things that angers Morbs and aero is a suspicion of how much of a free pass history is going to hand the first Cosby president.
― Andrew Farrell, Saturday, 9 June 2012 23:33 (11 months ago) Permalink
what Bush/Cheney did was worse than what Reagan and Nixon did, but the precedent of Reagan and Nixon totally getting away with what they did is pretty strong. The Justice Department going after the Bush administration full bore for torture/spying/etc. would have been a huge political clusterfuck. Of course it would be the right thing to do, but I think in the scale of moral crimes committed by the Obama administration it's pretty minor.
― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, 9 June 2012 23:49 (11 months ago) Permalink
Andrew, I'm pretty close to the aero/morbs side of the spectrum, and I give waaaaaaayyyyy less of a fuck about how history will view things like extrajudicial killings than I do about the fact that the president is ordering extrajudicial killings.
I mean, I get that political discourse is by it's very nature geared towards the academic/horse race, but we are talking about actual people being actually killed, and that bothers me a lot more than how Obama may or may not be viewed in 2050.
― ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Sunday, 10 June 2012 00:08 (11 months ago) Permalink
The Justice Department going after the Bush administration full bore for torture/spying/etc. would have been a huge political clusterfuck. Of course it would be the right thing to do, but I think in the scale of moral crimes committed by the Obama administration it's pretty minor.
lol are you fucking kidding me
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 10 June 2012 03:08 (11 months ago) Permalink
by all available evidence Obama has continued if not perfected Bush-Cheney policies of shoot first ask questions later
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 10 June 2012 03:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
he Justice Department going after the Bush administration full bore for torture/spying/etc. would have been a huge political clusterfuck.
who cares? Worrying about the Political Consequences only concerns Cokie and the Sunday morning brunch crowd. To me it would have redeemed any administration to see Bush's crimes unveiled, hour after hour. I know Nothing Will Get Done, I guess, if you consider the metric by which DC does its work, but we have a long history and that's what The Long View is for. Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon was one of the grossest mistakes made for the sake of "bipartisanship"
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 10 June 2012 03:13 (11 months ago) Permalink
...by all available evidence Obama has continued if not perfected Bush-Cheney policies of shoot first ask questions later
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)
i think matt's point was that, relative to the obama admin's list of crimes, the fact that they didn't prosecute the bush admin is small potatoes.
― contenderizer, Sunday, 10 June 2012 03:24 (11 months ago) Permalink
Our job as liberals -- in the same way the so-called Tea Party operates -- isn't to worry about "clusterfucks." Our job is to push and push and push and push a Democratic administration into doing as much as we want as possible. "Political clusterfucks" are irrelevant to me -- that's Barack Obama's problem.
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 10 June 2012 03:24 (11 months ago)