|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 04 2012 18:26 Amnesty wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 17:49 Souma wrote:On November 04 2012 17:23 Amnesty wrote:
Just watched "Koch Brothers Exposed" and its pretty disturbing shit.
Search for it on youtube and watch the full version.
Basically, its big oil barons that make 13 million a day. And use that money to buy out politicians for their own agenda.
Killing unions, segregating public schools, voter suppression, killing EPA, and a bunch of other shit.
They really hate Obama and his green energy initiatives because it hurts there pocket book. Not to mention his blocking of the keystone pipeline, and fuel economy standards.
Here in Michigan, we have a proposal on the ballet for 25x25 (25% green energy by 2025). There is a sick amount of attack ads about it.
I always thought it was really strange how the republicans attacked Chevy Volts. I can't remember really any consumer product that was politicized like that, car or not. The Koch Brothers are what I imagine to be the culmination of every sleezy fat cat you've ever seen in movies. But apparently everything they're pushing for is going to help the average American in so many ways, so go figure. *shrug* You will retract that second sentence after you watch the documentary.
My sarcasm must have been absorbed by a black hole. :p
|
On November 04 2012 18:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 18:26 Amnesty wrote:On November 04 2012 17:49 Souma wrote:On November 04 2012 17:23 Amnesty wrote:
Just watched "Koch Brothers Exposed" and its pretty disturbing shit.
Search for it on youtube and watch the full version.
Basically, its big oil barons that make 13 million a day. And use that money to buy out politicians for their own agenda.
Killing unions, segregating public schools, voter suppression, killing EPA, and a bunch of other shit.
They really hate Obama and his green energy initiatives because it hurts there pocket book. Not to mention his blocking of the keystone pipeline, and fuel economy standards.
Here in Michigan, we have a proposal on the ballet for 25x25 (25% green energy by 2025). There is a sick amount of attack ads about it.
I always thought it was really strange how the republicans attacked Chevy Volts. I can't remember really any consumer product that was politicized like that, car or not. The Koch Brothers are what I imagine to be the culmination of every sleezy fat cat you've ever seen in movies. But apparently everything they're pushing for is going to help the average American in so many ways, so go figure. *shrug* You will retract that second sentence after you watch the documentary. My sarcasm must have been absorbed by a black hole. :p
lol i guess. Can't really blame me.. Too many people saying silly things lately and trying to show 'facts'. Like how Romney is actually a favorite.
It has full salvo'ed my sarcasm radar.
|
On November 04 2012 17:43 Mysticesper wrote:
Eh, we could dump Biden and let the senate vote in Obama as VP.
Actually 4 years in the copilot seat (if, by any stretch of the imagination, the VP occupies this) would be a fitting end to his Presidency. I would be shocked if he accepted that role if it was offered. Maybe Romney would have to stipulate 33 rounds of golf and Mrs. Obama as Special Envoy on Nutrition representing both the Dept. of Education and Dept. of Health and Human Services. The more I think about it, it might even end up being more preferable to me than Romney/Biden, a sort of penance for relishing the spotlight, and a reminder to Romney for all the things he was voted in to NOT be.
Battleground states still too narrow to call this close to the election, it'll be a nail biter. For the actual races, I hope they turn out being well beyond the hundreds or couple thousand that voter fraud might have a chance of upsetting. Both sides will claim it, I remember all the reports of weaselly stuff going on back on the close Bush/Gore one ... voters being bussed across state lines, how the dead vote was split. Same stuff remarked on this thread. You just want to know that any group who endeavored to sway a close race would never have a chance of making the numbers chance from the would-be victor. Oh well, enough wary musings.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On November 04 2012 17:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 17:23 Amnesty wrote:
Just watched "Koch Brothers Exposed" and its pretty disturbing shit.
Search for it on youtube and watch the full version.
Basically, its big oil barons that make 13 million a day. And use that money to buy out politicians for their own agenda.
Killing unions, segregating public schools, voter suppression, killing EPA, and a bunch of other shit.
They really hate Obama and his green energy initiatives because it hurts there pocket book. Not to mention his blocking of the keystone pipeline, and fuel economy standards.
Here in Michigan, we have a proposal on the ballet for 25x25 (25% green energy by 2025). There is a sick amount of attack ads about it.
I always thought it was really strange how the republicans attacked Chevy Volts. I can't remember really any consumer product that was politicized like that, car or not. The Koch Brothers are what I imagine to be the culmination of every sleezy fat cat you've ever seen in movies. But apparently everything they're pushing for is going to help the average American in so many ways, so go figure. *shrug*
I'd be interested to know what these ways are. Bless those kindly Koch brothers eh?
|
On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro.
From the Article:
"The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve."
I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney?
|
On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney?
This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency?
|
On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency?
In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election.
|
Let's all just hope the strategy of blocking any progress while acting like petulant little children and lying about everything while having no actual substance to your own plan doesn't actually work on Nov 6.
|
On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election.
Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism.
|
On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism.
who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters
and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now.
the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change?
|
You guys really need to look to reforming your system IMO, its ridiculous that one party can block the other making progress, only to use that against them come election time.
I cant believe that anyone takes Romney seriously, its obvious that hes out of his depth
|
On November 04 2012 23:43 CursedRich wrote:
You guys really need to look to reforming your system IMO, its ridiculous that one party can block the other making progress, only to use that against them come election time.
I cant believe that anyone takes Romney seriously, its obvious that hes out of his depth
Yup let's reform our system so that one party has all the power so that they can make "progress" even though Americans are the one's who voted for a Republican majority in the house. Brilliant idea. Thank you.
|
Northern Ireland26078 Posts
On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change?
The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the u.s. system is clearly dysfunctional.
|
Preventing a bunch of bad policies that 1/2 the Country is against demonstrates a "clearly disfunctional" system ?
|
I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but i have to ask.
What's the status on Ron Paul?
I understand that he quit campaigning, but didn't drop out of the race.
But that was back in May.
I've never heard anything about him since, and there are almost no mentions of him in this thread.
So, what's up?
|
When candidates lose, they "suspend" their campaign. I think it has to do with the status of their campaign money and contributions. Bottom line, he's out of the race, and not running as an Independant.
|
On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are.
IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY.
I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much...
|
On November 05 2012 00:13 GhostLink wrote:
I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but i have to ask.
What's the status on Ron Paul?
I understand that he quit campaigning, but didn't drop out of the race.
But that was back in May.
I've never heard anything about him since, and there are almost no mentions of him in this thread.
So, what's up?
He lost the RNC convention vote.
Romney (MA): 2,061 (90.16%)
Paul (TX): 190 (8.31%)
Santorum (PA): 9 (0.39%)
|
Can't wait for Wednesday so this thread and similar threads across the internet can be done with
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
