^i guess it's working

Newt has me 100% convinced now that atheists plan to take over the country and establish islamic law and burn all the american history books

I expect him to look pretty much like 'open borders' and 'pro amnesty' for all immigrants tonight. This guy can pretty much say anything at this point. Why only moon base? Why not give a speech on a florida based space elevator at this point if you'll say anything to get votes??

1/26/2012 3:02:20 PM

Quote :

"Newt has me 100% convinced now that atheists plan to take over the country and establish islamic law and burn all the american history books"

As an atheist, I can confirm that this is and has always been the plan.

1/26/2012 3:24:17 PM

Seriously, how is this guy the new "frontrunner"? Is the U.S. really that fucked?

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 3:28 PM. Reason : Fuck it, double post]

1/26/2012 3:27:22 PM

Well, duh. You can't just go from Christianity to Sharia Law. That would be too obvious.

You have to use secularism and atheism as a gateway religion. Everyone knows that.

1/26/2012 3:27:28 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, how is this guy the new "frontrunner"? Is the U.S. really that fucked?"

Deep down, the American far-right is drawn to fascism because it is easier to view foreigners, outsiders, brown people, and liberal academics as the source for their economic despair instead of admitting that their elected leaders have been working against their own best interests all these years.

1/26/2012 3:30:02 PM

newt is pretty much owning the debates with perfect buzzwords and one liners with these toolbags.
i'm getting my bags packed just in case.



just as a calming measure though, intrade has romney at 80%

1/26/2012 4:04:20 PM

I mean, he handled the first question at the last debate like a truly professional scumbag. I liked the Daily Show bit on it. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/indecision-2012---the-gingrich-who-stole-south-carolina

1/26/2012 4:20:29 PM

Government can do nothing right ....... except build a colony on the moon.

1/26/2012 4:26:09 PM

Newt is not a small government conservative or a libertarian. The government can do a lot right in his view, as long as he's the one in charge.

1/26/2012 4:31:23 PM

I think you can make the argument that the last "small government" Republican was Dwight Eisenhower.

That's the last Republican president to preside over a balanced budget. A president who warned us of a growing industrial-military complex.

Just look at the 1956 Republican Platform if you want to see how wildly far-right wing the Republican Party has become (and, how the Democratic Party is not too far behind):

Quote :

"Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative.""

Quote :

"We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people."

Quote :

"Nearly four years ago when the people of this Nation entrusted their Government to President Eisenhower and the Republican Party, we were locked in a costly and stalemated war. Now we have an honorable peace, which has stopped the bitter toll in casualties and resources, ended depressing wartime restraints, curbed the runaway inflation and unleashed the boundless energy of our people to forge forward on the road to progress."

Quote :

"In four years we have achieved the highest economic level with the most widely shared benefits that the world has ever seen. We of the Republican Party have fostered this prosperity and are dedicated to its expansion and to the preservation of the climate in which it has thrived."

Quote :

"We firmly believe in the right of peoples everywhere to determine their form of government, their leaders, their destiny, in peace. Where needed, in order to promote peace and freedom throughout the world, we shall within the prudent limits of our resources, assist friendly countries in their determined efforts to strengthen their economies."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838#axzz1kbQtY9Wn


Socially liberal? Expanding Social Services? Healthcare? Social housing? Unemployment benefits? Shared prosperity? Non-intervention? Protecting foreign nations right to self-determination? Peace? No wonder why people liked Ike.


Republicans, WTF?


[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2012 4:45:49 PM

Is this old?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html

1/26/2012 6:02:08 PM

Santorum doesn't quite get it.
Ramble, ramble

1/26/2012 8:11:49 PM

Great. Now Newt and Romney are gonna bicker over their ads.

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 8:25 PM. Reason : -]

1/26/2012 8:23:07 PM

gingrich is being kept a bit off balance.

romney looking like he should have months ago.

santorum being an evil keebler elf.

poor ron paul not talkin much

1/26/2012 8:45:21 PM

Yeah, Romney is on tonight.
I'm tired of Santorum invoking Ronald Reagan.
"If its good enough for Ronald Reagan its good enough for me"
Think for yourself!

1/26/2012 8:48:55 PM

I don't know why Gingrich even brought up the moon- We can't freaking afford it.

1/26/2012 8:55:54 PM

Santorum looks like a log cabin republican and slightly retarded

1/26/2012 9:10:45 PM

Quote :

"santorum being an evil keebler elf."

Lol yea I see it

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 9:12 PM. Reason : Haha Romney was like calm the fuck down yo!]

1/26/2012 9:11:30 PM

santorum is really nailing romney on this healthcare thing

1/26/2012 9:14:13 PM

this question about a hispanic in a cabinet level position would have been a great one for rick perry.



"uhhhh, yo quiero taco bell? *cue bush laugh*"

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM. Reason : -]

1/26/2012 9:17:03 PM

Too many hangups on ethnicity/race.
Qualifications are what matters.

1/26/2012 9:27:35 PM

Damn that Palestinian guy was nervous

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2012 9:38:14 PM

"its the Palestinians who don't want a two state solution"

this guy is crazy.

1/26/2012 9:41:28 PM

^^i thought he seemed confident and comfortable being in the minority

[Edited on January 26, 2012 at 11:00 PM. Reason : ^who was speaking at that particular moment?]

1/26/2012 10:59:37 PM

^ newt, but romney's sentiment was about the same.

What do you expect though? Their "real" opinion i assume are more nuanced, but they're in florida, surrounded by a bunch of religious conservatives, they're going to suck as much Israel cock as they can.

1/26/2012 11:22:08 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, some of the policy initiatives headed by Scott Walker are worthy of his own credibility thread. The dude is using the pretext of a budget crisis to enact voter suppression, bust up unions, and rip away social safety nets. It's pretty sick. The people of Wisconsin gathered up TWICE the number of signatures needed to head-up a recall. I'm sure he'll try to squash that too because of the budget crisis."

Not to toot my own horn, but.....

Quote :

"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is raking in millions of dollars to fund his campaign against a recall effort to remove him from office. Out-of-state donors have poured money into his campaign coffers, making up more than 60 percent of the $4.5 million Walker raised in five weeks. And that includes the $1 million he received from four out-of-state donors alone, who donated $250,000 each — all thanks to a loophole in state law:"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/25/411375/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-raises-millions-thanks-to-a-loophole-allowing-unlimited-donations/?mobile=nc


4 FUCKING PEOPLE! 4 FUCKING PEOPLE who don't even live in Wisconsin are going to be all it takes to squash a recall election where 1 MILLION signatures were gathered to remove him.

You see, we don't live in a democracy, so this is all allowed. Christ, this is going to be a turbulent year.

1/27/2012 1:58:57 AM

Quote :

"Their "real" opinion i assume are more nuanced,"

Man, that's the problem. I know that a good number of these fuckers are actually pretty smart, but they're tough to identify because they're lying through their teeth to make sure they appear sufficiently blunt, simple, and stupid. If they don't, they don't get elected.

You get to choose from the following:

1. True idiot
2. massively dishonest, patronizing, and with no real indication of WHAT the hell he intends to do in office
3. No chance of election due to lack of #1 or 2.

1/27/2012 2:47:32 AM

Quote :

"If facilities issuing required IDs are being shutdown due to budget constraints, it's OK if voters just happen to be disenfranchised as a result."

not at all. there are stilln facilities where voters can go to get their IDs in this case. Accepting reality that we don't have the money to fund a ton of DMVs is castly different than trying to close DMVs simply for the purpose of making it harder for people to vote.

Quote :

"I still want to know if you'd also support abolishing absentee voting."

Let me turn your complaint around on you... How many instances of absentee voting fraud have we found? But, more directly, I can see there is a potential problem in the absentee voting process and would welcome suggestions as to how to remedy those.

Quote :

"Students are more likely to be transient. Does that mean they should have no vote at all?"

No vote at all anywhere? Of course not. They can vote in their home districts.

Quote :

"Translation: "They don't vote like how I want them to vote so they shouldn't vote.""

Which is on par with "they vote how I like them to vote and can counteract the others in the area who don't vote how I like them to vote."

1/27/2012 9:32:51 AM

Quote :

" id be more worried about some unknown romney timebomb exploding in our faces compared to newt."

I'm more worried that newt will just be newt and explode on his own. language of the ghettos? kids being janitors? the biggest problem newt has is newt. he's a very effective debater, but that's because he throws bombs left and right and able to avoid the issues in the process. We need a leader with good, intelligent ideas, not a good debater.

Quote :

"I mean, he handled the first question at the last debate like a truly professional scumbag."

Exactly. He was "appalled" that someone would have the audacity to ask the same questions of him in a presidential debate that he asked about a sitting President from the floor of Congress.

1/27/2012 9:41:30 AM

Quote :

"Damn that Palestinian guy was nervous"

every palestinian i've ever met is such a nice person. those great people are 100% hijacked by hamas faggot leaders. if they'd just shut down their rocket firing, they'd put israel square in the 'douchebag' corner and palestine would be recognized. i hope they do that.



[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ,]

1/27/2012 9:44:44 AM

Quote :

" Let me turn your complaint around on you... How many instances of absentee voting fraud have we found?"

This one has state-by-state pages:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Absentee_ballot_vote_fraud

Quote :

" But, more directly, I can see there is a potential problem in the absentee voting process and would welcome suggestions as to how to remedy those."

Potential problem? Jesus Christ, if an illegal immigrant can walk to a polling station and vote with no ID, why don't you think an illegal immigrant could fill out an absentee ballot? Or 10 for that matter? It's a lot easier to mail in 5 dozen fraudulent absentee ballots than to walk into a polling station and vote 5 dozen times. Try to fucking think a little bit instead of just focusing on making yourself feel like you're winning the argument.

Quote :

"Which is on par with "they vote how I like them to vote and can counteract the others in the area who don't vote how I like them to vote.""

??? I never said anything like that. Here's the thing you don't see to get: Nobody here is advocating students get two votes, or students get to vote anywhere they please, or any special privileges for students. All I'm advocating is students get to vote in the place they live, just like everybody else. Again, you show no fucking consistency at all, or else you'd propose some kind of measure that would deal with transient non-students as well. What a weird coincidence, all of these positions of yours seem to only carry far enough to disenfranchise typically Democratic voters, and stop just short of affecting anybody else.

[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 9:49 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2012 9:45:19 AM

Quote :

"I'm more worried that newt will just be newt and explode on his own."

see the thing with newt is the sheer amount of WTF coming out of him daily. it's not like he has 2 or 3 horrible qualities... he has 40 to 50 of them. He's overloading us like some flu-shot, and we are almost numb to them now and don't even know it when we see another huge blunder.

Obama wouldn't have to even say a word at a debate with Newt. Obama would just show up, look at Newt silently for about 5 seconds then nod a few times and walk away. /election

1/27/2012 9:48:27 AM

where did I say there was no problem? I think I even admitted as such. why are you getting so bent out of shape with me agreeing with you and asking for solutions?

1/27/2012 9:49:06 AM

Let me lay out why you're frustrating, aaronburro

1. You say illegals voting at the polls is a serious problem, but dismiss all statistics on the issue as being inherently unreliable. So basically you rely totally on your theoretical construction of how easy it is to abuse on-location polling without ID check.

2. When it comes to absentee ballots, which are way more abusable than non-ID voting on-location in theory, you regard it only a "potential problem", and suddenly start asking for such statistics (No doubt so that, later on, you can dismiss them as inherently unreliable if they don't say what you want). Do you not see the double standard here?

3. All of you reasoning always lines up against Democratic voters, and the holes in your consistency always lie exactly where a Republican voter might be affected. It leads one to believe you don't actually care about voter legitimacy or the principle of the matter; you just want Democrats to lose elections and you don't care how that happens as long as it happens, even if it means applying double standards to voting laws.

4. Number 3 wouldn't be so irritating if you just fucking admitted it, instead of pretending you're being at all even-handed or principled about this. You're a partisan attack dog, and never do anything to indicate otherwise.

Solutions? Ban absentee ballots except for very extenuating circumstances (like a troop deployment). If a poor black person can get to the DMV and scrounge up $25 bucks for an ID, my racist grandpa can get a ride from the nursing home to the polling station. Hell, he's going to be spending less time on this Earth than the average student.

Honestly, I don't care. I think both absentee ballots and non-ID check are fucking fine. Voter fraud just is not that big of an issue in the US, despite alarmism by Republicans who simply have a hard time believing it when they don't win an election.


[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2012 9:54:48 AM

pwnt

aaronburro stay home

1/27/2012 10:07:38 AM

Quote :

"You say illegals voting at the polls is a serious problem"

1) illegal aliens? I said no such thing.
2) serious problem? also, no such thing.

you need to stop putting words in my mouth, dude. what I did say is that it is absurd that we even allow the situation where someone votes and we don't have a clue who they are. How many times we get screwed on that is irrelevant. It's just dumb to even allow it, in the same way it's dumb to leave the door open to the metaphorical barn, no matter how many animals actually escape.

Quote :

"When it comes to absentee ballots, which are way more abusable than non-ID voting on-location in theory, you regard it only a "potential problem", "

which isn't to say that it's not a problem. it's just one I haven't looked at. i don't doubt it's easy to fake it. in essence, I am agreeing with you. and you are going apeshit over it.

Quote :

"and suddenly start asking for such statistics "

and if you don't understand why I asked for such statistics, then you are a fool.

Quote :

"All of you reasoning always lines up against Democratic voters, and the holes in your consistency always lie exactly where a Republican voter might be affected. It leads one to believe you don't actually care about voter legitimacy or the principle of the matter; you just want Democrats to lose elections and you don't care how that happens as long as it happens, even if it means applying double standards to voting laws."

hardly. you have consistently pegged positions to me that I don't even begin to support or espouse. Once you build that man of straw, it's damned easy to beat the hell out of him, isn't it?

1/27/2012 10:37:45 AM

2/2/2012 11:54:23 AM

politico totally screwed this one up

2/2/2012 11:57:40 AM

AP had it wrong too.

2/2/2012 11:58:54 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/02/trump-plans-to-endorse-romney-sources-say/#ixzz1lFCTKYKP

Quote :

"n the poll, 27 percent said his endorsement would make them less likely to support a candidate. Only 10 percent said Trump's support would make them more likely to vote for a candidate. For most people, the endorsement would make no difference."

Why Mitt?

2/2/2012 12:36:48 PM

gallup is predicting an obama landslide loss at 323 to 215 electoral votes.

i think thats actually a pretty conservative estimate and stand by my commitment to get out of TSB is obama wins.

of course if he doesnt most of you are gonna have purdy mouths.

you guys keep nitpicking the crazyass republican candidates. i agree, theyre mostly shit, but you keep avoiding the real issue-

obama is worse and the republican could be a ham sandwich, doesnt matter. you refuse to accept the overwhelmingly negative public sentiment. i think you rely too much on very specific media sources to test the water and only pay attention when it happens to agree with you.

im a professor at a small and mostly minority college and take every opportunity i can to talk to my students and colleagues about this matter. while my friends and i agree hes mostly just an inept leader that has managed to bungle everything hes touched, the young black and hispanic voters actually view him as a straight up traitor.

you think its the racist white trash that wants him forcibly removed from office? think again-

they hated him from day one of course, but they never put any faith in him to begin with.

[Edited on February 2, 2012 at 2:46 PM. Reason : -]

2/2/2012 2:43:19 PM

Quote :

"gallup is predicting an obama landslide loss at 323 to 215 electoral votes."

totally untrue- which makes me not read the rest

[Edited on February 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM. Reason : i will refrain from cursing]

2/2/2012 4:03:30 PM

Here is an interesting tool I found the other day that compares the republican candidates and Obama. I aligned with Paul, then Gingrich.

http://psudo.us/sho/GOP.html

2/2/2012 4:04:58 PM

^i'm doing mine now. but real quick. is bolton like "john bolton"? they put him a 5 on the gay marriage one. totally surprising. i thought he was hard right everything, but i guess just on foreign policy

2/2/2012 4:08:11 PM

that chart isn't entirely accurate.

2/2/2012 4:15:22 PM

realistically, there are too many blanks and some of the issues aren't as easily explained as a 0-5 rating of support.

2/2/2012 4:17:45 PM

I matched the president and then Ron Paul. That's what I get for being socially liberal and fiscally moderate yet a giant tree-hugger.

2/2/2012 4:19:52 PM

haha. obama, romney, guiliani, santorum, paul. can't believe out of all the names, most of the people closest to me are still in the race. i'd say that list is pretty close to being right as far as my views

[Edited on February 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ^sounds like this was pretty accurate for you too]

2/2/2012 4:22:03 PM

^^lol, i'm in the same boat, but some of the paul stances were misrepresented, if not flat out wrong

[Edited on February 2, 2012 at 4:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2012 4:22:23 PM

A lot of those positions assignments, at least for Ron Paul, are completely wrong. His plan preserves Social Security for seniors. Ron Paul isn't against earmarks, he supports them as something that Congress should be doing. Amnesty is totally off. Ron Paul is not opposed to stem cell research. End trade with China? Are you god damn kidding me? Free trade is evil? Oppose Libyan revolution?

Whoever made this thing did not do their research.

2/2/2012 4:30:52 PM