people suck - remember that
― Brian Eno's Mother (Latham Green), Friday, 14 September 2012 14:19 (eleven years ago) link
Might poll the order in which the Republicans will warm to weed / gays / atheists / Latinos / women. And the point past which the return on votes lost / votes won switches (spoiler: before they get to atheists)
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, September 14, 2012 10:13 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is an interesting question, im going with gays weed women latinos atheists
― lag∞n, Friday, 14 September 2012 14:19 (eleven years ago) link
fair point
maybe atheists? maybe non-Christians/Jews
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 14 September 2012 14:20 (eleven years ago) link
cant believe no one just didnt take that sign from them, show some heart suburban chicago
― lag∞n, Friday, 14 September 2012 14:20 (eleven years ago) link
(except NO MUSLINS)
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 14 September 2012 14:21 (eleven years ago) link
Atheists vs. Christians is probably the biggest red herring in the deal. Pretty much none of the Republican policies are in line w anything Christ The Lord and Savior Who Liberals Hate espoused or practiced. Framing it this way is unhelpful for the left, as there have been plenty of Christian religious leaders coming out on helping the poor, doing something about health care, cutting back on defense, etc.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 14 September 2012 14:48 (eleven years ago) link
In order of how likely the Republican party is to try to embrace:
Gays (embrace in this case just means accept that you will not be able to stone them and stop trying to pass fucked up legislation)Latinos StonersWomen (if this means getting all pro-abortion then really this is never)Atheists (hahahahaha)
― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Friday, 14 September 2012 14:51 (eleven years ago) link
xpost The sign was huge and affixed to the side of the house! I don't think anyone could take it, but it clearly made for an easy target.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 14 September 2012 14:51 (eleven years ago) link
I can't believe it is September 2012 and this shit KEEPS HAPPENING
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an informal advisor to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said on Thursday he and his fellow members of a state board were considering removing President Barack Obama from the Kansas ballot this November.Kobach is part of the State Objections Board along with Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, all Republicans. The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that on Thursday the board agreed to consider whether to take Obama off the ballot because they said they lacked sufficient evidence about his birth certificate.“I don’t think it’s a frivolous objection,” Kobach said, according to the Capital-Journal. “I do think the factual record could be supplemented.”The board is looking at a complaint filed by Joe Montgomery, of Manhattan, Kan., who claimed the Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and so is ineligible to be president. The man appears to be part of a group of conspiracy theorists known as “birthers,” who deny Obama’s birth certificate is real.Late Thursday, Kobach told TPM in an email conversation that he made his “frivolous objection” comment at the end of the meeting and was responding to a specific question.“A ‘frivolous’ argument, in legal terms, is one that cannot reasonably be made under any circumstances,” Kobach wrote. “The objection passed that very low threshold, which is not saying much.”The board will send records requests to Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi for more documentation of Obama’s birth. They plan to meet again on Monday to discuss the matter. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett questioned Obama’s birth certificate earlier this year and also briefly considered removing him from the ballot.
Kobach is part of the State Objections Board along with Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, all Republicans. The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that on Thursday the board agreed to consider whether to take Obama off the ballot because they said they lacked sufficient evidence about his birth certificate.
“I don’t think it’s a frivolous objection,” Kobach said, according to the Capital-Journal. “I do think the factual record could be supplemented.”
The board is looking at a complaint filed by Joe Montgomery, of Manhattan, Kan., who claimed the Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and so is ineligible to be president. The man appears to be part of a group of conspiracy theorists known as “birthers,” who deny Obama’s birth certificate is real.
Late Thursday, Kobach told TPM in an email conversation that he made his “frivolous objection” comment at the end of the meeting and was responding to a specific question.
“A ‘frivolous’ argument, in legal terms, is one that cannot reasonably be made under any circumstances,” Kobach wrote. “The objection passed that very low threshold, which is not saying much.”
The board will send records requests to Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi for more documentation of Obama’s birth. They plan to meet again on Monday to discuss the matter. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett questioned Obama’s birth certificate earlier this year and also briefly considered removing him from the ballot.
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Friday, 14 September 2012 14:59 (eleven years ago) link
All they are is dust on the shoulder
― da croupier, Friday, 14 September 2012 15:04 (eleven years ago) link
Wasn't gonna win Kansas anyway
― Grimy Little Pimp (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:10 (eleven years ago) link
xp I'm enjoying that that the Obama campaign is treating them as such, just staring them down, daring them to actually put on the hayseed clownsuit on national TV. It's not like he's going to win Kansas anyway.
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 14 September 2012 15:11 (eleven years ago) link
Atheists vs. Christians is probably the biggest red herring in the deal. Pretty much none of the Republican policies are in line w anything Christ The Lord and Savior Who Liberals Hate espoused or practiced
First you wanna talk about Christians, then you wanna talk about Christ - pick a subject and stick to it!
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 14 September 2012 15:19 (eleven years ago) link
have we done this one? this is some LOL-ass buffoonery right here
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-adviser-under-president-romney-libya-attack-never-would-have-happened.php
Romney foreign policy adviser/ W. remnant Richard Williamson said that if Romney had been President, the attack in Libya would not have happened
He blamed the attack that killed Stevens on Obama’s handling of the region, arguing that the Muslim world would have held the hypothetical Romney administration of 2008-2012 in much greater esteem, which would have prevented violent protests over an anti-Muslim film like the one that led to Stevens’s death.
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:37 (eleven years ago) link
lolwhut
― DARING PRINCESS (DJP), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:41 (eleven years ago) link
I'm not voting Republican but the way people talk Mitt Romney is worse than Ronald Reagan!
He is. Judged in the context of the times, so is the other guy.
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:42 (eleven years ago) link
(xposts) Much like "the muslim world" held W. in such great esteem that 9/11 never happened. I see...
― The specifics are these, which is those principles I described (Dan Peterson), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:43 (eleven years ago) link
The logic is pretty baffling, in that one would believe Obama is a secret Muslim yet is not held in high enough esteem in the Muslim world?
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:44 (eleven years ago) link
He's too secret!
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 14 September 2012 15:45 (eleven years ago) link
*dying*
― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, 14 September 2012 15:47 (eleven years ago) link
He cannot go a day, literally a day, without something like this happening.
BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.
But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.
Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/romney-middle-income_n_1883819.html
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Friday, 14 September 2012 16:05 (eleven years ago) link
haha wow
― real men have been preparing manly dishes for centuries (elmo argonaut), Friday, 14 September 2012 16:20 (eleven years ago) link
lol just came here to post that
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 September 2012 16:54 (eleven years ago) link
how many douchechills can he
― Nhex, Friday, 14 September 2012 17:00 (eleven years ago) link
you are fucking kidding me
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:01 (eleven years ago) link
if a democrat nominee had said that the press wouldn't have enough nails for his coffin
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:02 (eleven years ago) link
And yet I have plenty of struggling relatives making well under that $50k figure that think Romney is their saviour.
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:03 (eleven years ago) link
he did (link taken from gawker story): "In a recent speech, President Barack Obama referred to the "middle class" 14 times, defining it as a family that makes up to $250,000 a year."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0718/What-does-it-mean-to-be-middle-class
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:03 (eleven years ago) link
but "up to" means a hell of a lot more than "$200k-$250k"
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:04 (eleven years ago) link
is more inclusive of, y'know, reality
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:05 (eleven years ago) link
i'm guessing that was a misphrasing on romney's part? number aside, it would be weird to define middle income with a range of just $50,000. but maybe i'm being overly charitable.
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:06 (eleven years ago) link
like what proportion of americans would fall under "middle income" if he was defining it literally as $200,000 to $250,000 in income?
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:08 (eleven years ago) link
good god
“I think the challenge that I’ll have in the debate is that the president tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren’t true,” Romney said. “I’ve looked at prior debates. And in that kind of case, it’s difficult to say, ‘Well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren’t quite accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about?”
― backed by regular small people (Hunt3r), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:10 (eleven years ago) link
i think its just a reflection of how completely out of touch he is with what most Americans actually earn. in his view, that probably seems like a reasonable estimate. the $250,000 has been a number kicked around a lot as kind of a middle-class upper limit this cycle, so i can see why he picked that as an upper limit. he probably can't even fathom how people making under $200k even live, so he just threw that one in.
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:10 (eleven years ago) link
yeah when youre dealing with numbers that small, whole orders of magnitude are indistinguishible. scale becomes a huge problem.
― backed by regular small people (Hunt3r), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:13 (eleven years ago) link
sorry guys, this is bullshit - the whole quote is “Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/mitt_romney_defines_middle_income_as_200_250000/
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:13 (eleven years ago) link
i.e. more or less the way Obama has been defining it
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:14 (eleven years ago) link
And less
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 14 September 2012 17:17 (eleven years ago) link
you guys are really masters of freaking out over one guy's BS vs another guy's high crimes.
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:19 (eleven years ago) link
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41MR6E2REZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
― free-range chicken pox (Matt P), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:22 (eleven years ago) link
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRB2h37tedkN_3Sz0ilydnf3OpPRo1_BY9AzuKHCksZKSajGyFY-8LJfbYTtA
high crimes
― Mordy, Friday, 14 September 2012 17:31 (eleven years ago) link
freaking out? it's more like pointing and laughing
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:37 (eleven years ago) link
Morbs-ese has no room for subtlety.
― the only problem, i find, is juggling my cock (Old Lunch), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:46 (eleven years ago) link
just because "freaking out" is the only reaction Morbs can handle...
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:48 (eleven years ago) link
man i forgot about High Crimes amidst all those other early 00s Ashley Judd thrillers.
― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:48 (eleven years ago) link
does a child killed by an american drone in pakistan care about how much money middle class people make?
― Mordy, Friday, 14 September 2012 17:50 (eleven years ago) link
If that ain't the question of the month...
― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:53 (eleven years ago) link
savage-mule Democrat 'humor'
― kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:56 (eleven years ago) link
"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.
"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.
― Matt Armstrong, Friday, 14 September 2012 17:57 (eleven years ago) link
The homeless guy outside my office will be thrilled when I tell him the $5.24 he's collected this week qualifies him as "middle class".
― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 14 September 2012 17:58 (eleven years ago) link