If only he'd talked about someone being raped...

By your logic, no one should ever have their name printed in the paper. That's why they make pronouns, amirite?

8/12/2011 8:02:22 PM

I don't know if I'll go quite as far as aaronburro, but it would have been in better taste to not specifically identify her, and I don't think it would have compromised the value of the journalism.

8/12/2011 10:07:32 PM

Quote :

"By your logic, no one should ever have their name printed in the paper. "

people who aren't a part of the story shouldn't have their name printed in the paper when it is irrelevant to the story, especially when they are a victim. The story was "Mitt says X. did it happen? well, yes. we found out." That's all that they needed to say.

8/12/2011 10:14:02 PM

What exactly was Ann Keenan a victim of?

8/12/2011 10:15:24 PM

a botched abortion? or are we now saying that no one is ashamed of seeking an abortion, too? Can we now print in the paper a list of every single woman who goes to an abortion clinic?

8/12/2011 10:17:50 PM

It's good to see you might have actually read the article (possibly).

Here's another article you should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

I'm really surprised at the compassion you have for someone who died as a direct result of an abortion. She did murder a child, right?

Mostly, though, I'm saddened by your complete lack of curiosity about a formative event in a Presidential candidate's life.

8/12/2011 10:27:15 PM

Quote :

"I'm really surprised at the compassion you have for someone who died as a direct result of an abortion. She did murder a child, right?"

You know, it's possible to disagree with a policy yet still not think you should drag people out into the public eye for it. I know, call me crazy.

Quote :

"Mostly, though, I'm saddened by your complete lack of curiosity about a formative event in a Presidential candidate's life."

How in the fuck do you get there? It's entirely possible to report on the event without revealing the name. Again, they could say "we checked on the facts, and they line up. oh, Mitt, you're still a scumbag". I'm STILL waiting for you to explain how revealing the person's name was necessary for the story. I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what that added to the story.

8/12/2011 11:51:59 PM

You yourself said:

Quote :

"people who aren't a part of the story shouldn't have their name printed in the paper when it is irrelevant to the story, especially when they are a victim."

Ann Keenan is clearly part of the story. Ann Keenan is clearly relevant to story; it wouldn't exist without her. Romney's one-time view on abortion may not have existed without Ann Keenan.

All your hand-wringing seems a little odd, given your own criteria. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

8/13/2011 7:49:44 AM

no, she's tangentially related to the story, and that's it. but hey, when someone decides that people who have abortions should have their name put in the paper, I'll expect you to be 100% behind that. keep being a douche

8/13/2011 2:48:25 PM

OK, I tried to defend your position earlier and stand by what I said, but now you're just being ridiculous.

8/13/2011 3:10:44 PM

I love that Bachmann is basically saying that she will do whatever her husband tells her.

You know, since people are voting for him and everything.

8/13/2011 3:28:47 PM

Part of me hopes that she wins the nod, and then gets annihilated in the general, getting about 4 electoral votes.

obviously she'll never win the nod...i just think that even if the GOP is better now than it has been for the last 10 years, it still needs to be destroyed some more in order to be saved.

8/13/2011 4:57:50 PM

Aahhhhahaha

Bachman wins the Iowa straw poll.

8/13/2011 6:42:41 PM

Quote :

"no, she's tangentially related to the story, and that's it. but hey, when someone decides that people who have abortions should have their name put in the paper, I'll expect you to be 100% behind that. keep being a douche"

lol

Keep fuckin' them strawmen, aaronburro.

8/13/2011 7:55:52 PM

Quote :

"obviously she'll never win the nod..."

No, but I wouldn't put Perry / Bachmann remotely out of the realm of possibilities.

8/13/2011 10:41:05 PM

haha, that would be epic.

8/13/2011 10:51:59 PM

that combo could win.

normal people would try to fight them with reason, but they would just charge ahead unabated.

8/13/2011 11:20:48 PM

Epic would be Biden resigning and Hillary sliding into the VP slot vs. Perry / Bachmann

8/14/2011 9:51:27 AM

Pawlenty dropped out, that leaves Romney and the other lesser known guy as the “reasonable” people still in the race. And Ron Paul.

At this point, if it were anyone, i’d prefer Ron Paul.

8/14/2011 9:52:56 AM

Paul doesn't have the charisma to draw attention and the media isn't saying anything about him even though he's the only consistent candidate. People will support nutjobs like Bachmann and Perry mainly because the media props them up with nonstop coverage. We don't really have free elections because no one can come along and be given a chance if they don't align completely with one of the two shit parties that really aren't all THAT different at the end of the day. The cards are stacked to keep the puppet show going and thats why I don't vote.

8/14/2011 12:17:40 PM

Paul could play the media's game. He's just not as good a politician as he is an ideologue.

Being a national politician means selling your soul, there's no other way to appeal to 300,000,000 people. Paul won't do this (it's also why he'd fail miserably as a president, he'd alienate our allies and be a terrible negotiator-- it'd be a fun ride though).

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2011 12:43:00 PM

if by allies you mean israel and by alienate you mean stop blindly propping them up then yea. He'd alienate our allies. If there was ever a real need for American intervention in a WW2 type scenario, I'm sure he'd go Texas at that point. We just need to stop wasting money being police.

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : secretary of state negotiates.]

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : thats our problem. motivational speakers don't make good presidents but we keep electing them]

[Edited on August 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM. Reason : once he threatened the fed that was his ass.]

8/14/2011 12:49:38 PM

I mean everyone... Paul want's to stop ALL foreign aid IIRC, which would not only be devastating for some countries, but is a HUGE part of our diplomacy.

Our military is the "stick" of our foreign policy, but our financial aid is the "carrot." The fact of the matter is that we have secured our global position in part by force, and we have checked the resentment through various ways. If we remove these checks, there's little that would stop the resentment from festering into a bigger problem.

Of course, congress would do everything they could to stop Paul from running amok, but it would be entertaining in a twisted way to watch, assuming Paul didn't come to his senses beforehand.

He also wants to shut down the IRS and kill all social programs. Congress wouldn't let either of these things happen. Without this, Paul has no real platform. At best, gov. wouldn't grow under him, but everything else would stagnate, which essentially means regression when you consider other countries would keep moving forward.

8/14/2011 12:54:27 PM

I understand what you are saying about domestic stagnancy. The problem is, we already have that and all the other republicans plan on gutting the government yet increasing military activity which isn't consistent. At least he is consistent in small government ideas.

8/14/2011 1:02:18 PM

We can't pay our bills here...why should we be paying other people's bills? Why should we be pouring money into various Middle East countries, all to "keep things under control"? Is it not arrogant that we think the whole world would go to shit if we weren't there to police it?

8/14/2011 1:29:55 PM

^ running a country isn't about paying bills, it's about the success of your country.

And we can pay our bills, we just choose not to.

It's not a matter of the world crumbling, it's about the latent resentment against American growing to outright hatred if we just take our ball and go home, like Paul-ites what to do.

8/14/2011 2:20:34 PM

It's hard to be successful (whatever metrics are used to determine that) if your budget is fucked up beyond repair, which it is.

Quote :

"It's not a matter of the world crumbling, it's about the latent resentment against American growing to outright hatred if we just take our ball and go home, like Paul-ites what to do."

So, they hate us because we're occupying their land. We're going to reduce hatred by staying there?

6 years ago the Democratic party was screaming for us to bring troops home immediately. Now...we have to continue these wars so it doesn't go back to the way it was? You've made the transition to neo-conservative very nicely; George W. would be very proud.

8/14/2011 4:23:13 PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html

8/15/2011 11:48:14 AM

^ahahahaha

to be convinced these people are "such fucking idiots" you guys sure as hell give them a lot more credit than theyre due.

its like these idiot fuckers that are convinced freemasons are going to take over the world and plot all these evil things behind close doors, etc.

fuck no they dont- every other meeting they have is just a goddamn potluck dinner. they arent protecting jesus' royal earthly bloodline...

...theyre stewing cabbage and buying mayonnaise at sams club.

8/15/2011 12:03:21 PM

They're fucking idiots because they are theocratic. You're a dumbass.

[Edited on August 15, 2011 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2011 12:16:07 PM

Quote :

"6 years ago the Democratic party was screaming for us to bring troops home immediately. Now...we have to continue these wars so it doesn't go back to the way it was? You've made the transition to neo-conservative very nicely; George W. would be very proud."

Uhhhh, 10 years ago liberals were screaming that occupying Iraq and Afghanistan probably wasn't the best idea in the world. Why? Because we knew that historical attempts at similar endeavors have led to the same situation that we find ourselves in today. That getting out of these quagmires becomes more and more complex the longer you stay, and that while "bring the troops home immediately" may have been possible 6 years ago, it very well may not be today. So don't blame us for predicting the future and having to deal with the ugly realities of fixing this mess.

8/15/2011 12:17:15 PM

Then McCain was right. We should stay there for the next 100 years, if we need to.

People are fucking dying, dude. 60 people were killed in Iraq today, and all so your Democratic President can save face? Grow a spine. Have the courage to say these bullshit wars need to come to an end. Don't roll over because your guy ended up being another neo-conservative.

There's a reason more active military support Ron Paul than any other candidate. Are you calling them cowards, or do you think that maybe they have a better idea of what's going on over there than you do?

8/15/2011 2:03:45 PM

At least Paul isn't anymore crazy than Bachmann or Perry.

8/15/2011 2:41:55 PM

What do you want me to say? Of course I'd rather we just pack up and leave entirely tomorrow. Do I know if that's a realistic proposition? No, and neither do you. When Obama took office there were over 100,000 boots on the ground in Iraq, and now it's under 50,000. He's increased troop levels in Afghanistan, but that was part of the surge that had already been set into motion by his predecessor. Since then, he's started withdrawing troops and announced that we'll be completely out by 2014.

Besides all that, the way both wars have been waged has changed dramatically since Obama took office. The mission isn't nation building or "spreading freedom" anymore. The emphasis is on special forces operations and flying killer robot strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership. That's exactly the way it started and should have ended in 2001 if GWB hadn't mucked it all up with Iraq et al. None of this is consistent with calling Obama a "neo-con", We've been at war for nearly a decade, so drawing conclusions about his intentions after only being at the reins for a fraction of that time is intellectually disingenuous.

8/15/2011 2:44:26 PM

lol This is hilarious! GOP primary activist nuts are going to ensure that President Obama wins re-election!

8/15/2011 4:54:05 PM

Agreed, you have to believe the White House was smiling when they learned a bat shit crazy woman who openly hates gays and advocates submitting to her husband who is himself a gay hating closet homosexual won a poll for POTUS. Wait, that's the saddest thing I've ever read. Fuck you Iowa.

8/15/2011 5:19:04 PM

Quote :

"Uhhhh, 10 years ago liberals were screaming that occupying Iraq and Afghanistan probably wasn't the best idea in the world."

so that's why they all pretty much voted to let Dubya do that stuff anyway, right? Ron Paul, however, most certainly WAS decrying these things, AND he voted against them. Make no mistake: the liberals were in on this, too, and they deserve as much shame and outrage as the neo-cons.

Quote :

"That getting out of these quagmires becomes more and more complex the longer you stay, and that while "bring the troops home immediately" may have been possible 6 years ago, it very well may not be today"

ahahahahahaha. I love this. Did you honestly just parrot this paragon of stupidity? Cognitive dissonance must be a bitch.

8/16/2011 4:51:05 PM

Fuck this asshole.

Rick Perry Raises Predator Drones As Possible Border Security Solution

Quote :

"My question to this administration, how many Americans have to die on that border before you really understand we need boots on the ground, a law enforcement presence, National Guard troops, predator drones flying in the air, that technology that those pieces of equipment have to give real-time information to law enforcement, to the local police chiefs?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/rick-perry-drones-border-security_n_928194.html

If Jesus were still around, I think this is what he would want - drones murdering people for smuggling drugs over imaginary, man-made borders.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 11:55:27 AM

Quote :

"the liberals were in on this, too,"

Uh a decent number dragged along because conservatives yelled treason in their faces for anything less, but most liberals outside of Washington were pretty fucking firmly against it

Quote :

" and they deserve as much shame and outrage as the neo-cons."

Lol right, nice fucking try. And I like the "neo con" part, as though any non-trivial number of regular conservatives weren't on board.

8/17/2011 12:13:42 PM

^^ sounds to me like he's just advocating UAV surveillance, which I thought we were already doing anyway.

Quote :

" There's a reason more active military support Ron Paul than any other candidate. Are you calling them cowards, or do you think that maybe they have a better idea of what's going on over there than you do?"

I can't say that Paul's foreign policy isn't a factor, but I have observed that the military exhibits a pretty wide libertarian streak. Also, Ron Paul appeals strongly to young voters across the board...and look at the military's demographics...

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM. Reason : I have no idea what the effect of his foreign policy stances are]

8/17/2011 12:27:33 PM

Somehow I think a woman who died of a botched abortion wouldn't mind here name being out there for the cause of making safe, legal abortions accessible to other women. I'm not sure she'd be excited to know anti-abortion conservatives were chastising people for using her name as part of a rather transparent ploy to make people shut up about her in general.

8/17/2011 12:29:45 PM

Quote :

"I can't say that Paul's foreign policy isn't a factor, but I have observed that the military exhibits a pretty wide libertarian streak. Also, Ron Paul appeals strongly to young voters across the board...and look at the military's demographics..."

It's hard to say how much of the support is a result of foreign policy or other factors, but I think it has to be up there. I mean, if active military are supporting Ron Paul, they know his position on foreign policy. He's very open about it, and he takes a hard line on the issue - bring the troops home immediately.

So, again, the question: if troops are supporting his foreign policy, are they cowards who want to abandon the fight, or do they truly believe that it's a lost cause? This is the question that Hannity and all the other chickenhawks need to answer.

8/17/2011 12:39:55 PM

Well, let's just look at me as an example:

I think that Ron Paul is a kook. I think that he is almost 100% ideologically driven, and doesn't strike any balance whatsoever between that and pragmatism. I would be fucking scared if he actually was the President. Additionally, if hypothetically he had a chance of winning the GOP nomination, and if hypothetically there was anyone else running that I liked at all, the fact that Paul would have no chance in the general election would be a factor.

On top of all that, I take particular issue with his foreign policy views. I think that we shouldn't have attempted and shouldn't continue to support nation building efforts in Afghanistan, and that we never should have invaded Iraq in 2003 at all. However, I don't think it's smart to just pack up and come home as quickly as we can get everything loaded on trucks, planes, and ships. I also don't think it's smart to completely give up our pursuit of Al Qaeda and similar fuckheads via special forces, air strikes, drone strikes, covert action, or even small conventional forces (say, a Marine MEU or MEB or something) if it became necessary (though I think that's unlikely if we're playing whack-a-mole with them and never letting them build up to that sort of strength). Finally, I think that foreign aid can be useful as a diplomatic tool. In short, I'm nothing like the interventionists prevalent in the GOP (and to an extent in the Dem party), but I'm not an extreme isolationist like Paul. I think that's dumb.

All of that aside, I have a sympathetic and overall favorable view of Paul, because he is the only candidate getting any significant attention who has generally the same sort of libertarian way of thinking that I do, even if his is more extreme and less tempered and balanced by practical concerns. I know that there is zero chance that he'll actually be elected and cause us to actually face the fallout of some of what he wants, so I can sit back and appreciate him shaping the debate, bringing his viewpoint to the stage, and at least nudging us in a libertarian direction here and there.

In that sense, I'm a Paul supporter. I will probably vote for him in the primary just to make a statement, assuming Gary Johnson isn't on the ballot (or I might write Johnson in instead). That doesn't mean that I don't have a lot of MAJOR issues with his stances--it just means that there is no one else for a libertarian to get behind, so I have some degree of support for him just to make a statement.

8/17/2011 3:32:45 PM

Quote :

"Uh a decent number dragged along because conservatives yelled treason in their faces for anything less, but most liberals outside of Washington were pretty fucking firmly against it"

so, now being spineless and unwilling to stand up for your own beliefs is something to be cheered? really?

Quote :

"Somehow I think a woman who died of a botched abortion wouldn't mind here name being out there for the cause of making safe, legal abortions accessible to other women. "

Oh look, you can now divine what a dead woman would want. Ascribing that she would want her privacy respected makes sense. Now saying she would support your cause? way to go! Call this dirty fucking yellow-journalism what it is.

Quote :

"the fact that Paul would have no chance in the general election would be a factor."

despite polls saying exactly the opposite?

Quote :

"but I'm not an extreme isolationist like Paul."

What's isolationist about saying we should mind our own fucking business and quit bombing every country we can find?

8/17/2011 5:48:10 PM

Quote :

"However, I don't think it's smart to just pack up and come home as quickly as we can get everything loaded on trucks, planes, and ships. I also don't think it's smart to completely give up our pursuit of Al Qaeda and similar fuckheads via special forces, air strikes, drone strikes, covert action, or even small conventional forces (say, a Marine MEU or MEB or something) if it became necessary (though I think that's unlikely if we're playing whack-a-mole with them and never letting them build up to that sort of strength). Finally, I think that foreign aid can be useful as a diplomatic tool. In short, I'm nothing like the interventionists prevalent in the GOP (and to an extent in the Dem party), but I'm not an extreme isolationist like Paul."

8/17/2011 7:00:28 PM

Quote :

"What's isolationist about saying we should mind our own fucking business and quit bombing every country we can find?"

it's the third time I've asked, but maybe I can put it differently: what, to you, would not be isolationist?


as for foreign aid, it is a complete fallacy to think that it is in any way a good thing. More often than not, the aid goes directly into the pockets of the regime in power. It helps the people there in absolutely no way. Treating countries with respect and dignity, no matter their stature, is a much better way to engender trust and good will. Foreign aid just buys begrudging "cooperation"... until the money train stops. Imagine, for instance, that we hadn't been bribing Pakistan for the past however many years. Imagine, instead, that we had treated them nicely and not brow-beat them with our military might. Don't you think they would have been more cooperative recently? I certainly think they would have. ANd then, we wouldn't have the issue of "if we stop paying them, will they continue to help out against Al Qaeda" to worry about. It would be "yeah, they'll help us, because they see that we are good people" as opposed to "we are cutting them off, so they say 'fuck us'". Foreign aid is a double-edged sword and it really doesn't do us any good and it more than likely makes other people far worse off.

8/17/2011 8:03:32 PM

4 All da Rick Perry Haterz:

http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

In case you haven't run across this one yet, it's making the blogosphere rounds. It's extremely long, took me a while to get through, but worthwhile if you're interested in some of the issues surrounding Perry.

Team Perry!

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM. Reason : asdfas]

8/17/2011 8:17:05 PM

^^It's a complete fallacy to to think Doctors Without Borders is in any way a good thing? I'm not even sure why I'm addressing you. I think I'm a masochist.

Quote :

"4 All da Rick Perry Haterz:"

That list is fucking retarded. The Bilderberg Group? Honestly? Rick Perry sucks because he prays instead of doing shit to fix his state.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 8:24:07 PM

Who would you vote for out of the current choices Stu? We might actually agree on something.

8/17/2011 8:33:29 PM

Gary Johnson if voting for him didn't mean it would just help get Bachmann or Romney elected.

8/17/2011 8:36:03 PM