Topic: 2012: The Mayans Warned Us Of Stupid Elections (Read 88567 times)

Thad · « **Reply #580 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:37:18 AM »

Quote from: Thad on February 01, 2012, 07:29:06 AM

And Bush claimed he never said he doesn't think about Bin Laden anymore. It doesn't matter if what you say in a presidential debate is actually true or makes any kind of sense. Especially in a Republican primary, and ESPECIALLY especially if you're Newt Gingrich and have already managed to capture Family Values voters.

Put another way:

Quote from: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-odd-couple-romney-vs-gingrich-20120130?page=2

You could almost see the light go on in Newt's head. He alone understood that during the primary season, one doesn't worry about how some vacillating Ohio independent might perceive one's rhetoric next fall: One carves up the bloodiest bits of red meat and hurls them at the immediate audience, and one does so with joy and a gleam in the eye. "Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies: Kill them," Newt said. The debate, remember, took place in the Carolinas, not far from where Jackson's Trail of Tears genocide began, making Newt's remark almost comically offensive. But hey, the Cherokee vote is not a large one, for obvious reasons. The surviving, non-Indian audience cheered wildly.

I probably don't even have to say who wrote that.

Whole article is well worth a read as an insightful analysis of Romney and Gingrich's flaws. Falls a little too much into the infotainment trap of pretending Newt really has the momentum here, and was probably written before we got the polling data out of Florida.

Mongrel · « **Reply #581 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:39:41 AM »

Cheap laughs:

Thad · « **Reply #582 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:45:00 AM »

...seems to me that Trump's endorsement is really the exact thing Romney DOESN'T want. Or at least shouldn't.

EDIT: Speaking of the exact thing Romney doesn't want, this headline: Trump Backing Romney as Candidate Defends Remark on ‘Poor’

Mongrel · « **Reply #583 on:** February 02, 2012, 12:17:37 PM »

Meanwhile, Cain's support of Gingrich somehow managed to actually work in Newt's favour. Or was at least a net neutral.

Brentai · « **Reply #584 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:29:36 PM »

Roseanne Barr seeks Green Party nomination, vows to outlaw "bullshit".

So much for third parties being the answer.

I give up. If anyone needs me, I'll be on enough cocaine to kill a horse.

Thad · « **Reply #585 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:01:52 PM »

Hey, it's an improvement over Cynthia McKinney.

Mongrel · « **Reply #586 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:31:46 PM »

Why does every picture of her look like

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #587 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:56:12 PM »

jesus christ, she got old all of a sudden.

Pacobird · « **Reply #588 on:** February 03, 2012, 06:21:57 AM »

Quote from: Brentai on February 02, 2012, 07:29:36 PM

Roseanne Barr seeks Green Party nomination, vows to outlaw "bullshit".

So much for third parties being the answer.

I give up. If anyone needs me, I'll be on enough cocaine to kill a horse.

Opportunity for a new hilarious kafkaesque ballot debacle when 50,000 ironic hipsters from Hackensack vote for Bob Barr.

Caithness · « **Reply #589 on:** February 03, 2012, 08:21:26 AM »

Oh hey, Political Compass finally put up a chart for the 2012 US Presidential Election.

... oh dear.

[spoiler]Roseanne might get my vote by default.[/spoiler]

A² · « **Reply #590 on:** February 03, 2012, 11:44:28 AM »

Quote

Had a Bush or McCain presidency continued Guantanamo and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops.

Site loses all credibility if it had any.

Brentai · « **Reply #591 on:** February 03, 2012, 11:50:58 AM »

It does seem to be a bit sensationalist. Maybe a scorecard or something would better support all those dots being huddled in a corner than a bunch of ranting.

Thad · « **Reply #592 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:05:53 PM »

Yeah, I took the test and have a rough idea why the graph looks like that but I'd much rather see an answer key.

@Lyrai: I actually DO think that the Congressional Democrats would have loudly complained about Guantanamo and the NDAA if they had no power to do anything about them. Not that I'm praising them when I say that.

A² · « **Reply #593 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:30:42 PM »

I mean more the fact that the NDAA has been around since 19-fucking-63. It's the bill that gives the Military it's funding. It's not this new, horrific legislation that just sprung into existence this year that every goddamn person seems to think it is. The bad parts of the bill were amendments/riders/whatever the fucking term is, the same shit that gets attached onto other bills that have little to do with the main bill, at best.

Thad · « **Reply #594 on:** February 03, 2012, 01:04:37 PM »

Okay, I can see how "introduced the NDAA" is a poor turn of phrase, but I don't think that's really the point.

Brentai · « **Reply #595 on:** February 03, 2012, 01:12:47 PM »

The argument is that not giving the modern-day Democratic Party the power to do anything about these sort of things would lead to them shouting about how terrible it is that the people with the power to do anything about these sort of things aren't doing anything about these sort of things instead of them not doing anything about these sort of things themselves.

Um.

Let me try that again.

A shepherd loses his beloved sheepdog, and asks all the animals of the forest for a replacement. After much debating, two candidates are put forth: a fox and a wolf.

"Why do you want to be a sheepdog?" asks the shepherd.

"To eat all of the sheep," replies the wolf.

"That's terrible!" cries the shepherd.

"Why? Don't you want to eat all of the sheep too?" asks the wolf, "You can have the scraps when I'm done eating."

The shepherd, outraged, turns to the fox.

"Why do YOU want to be a sheepdog?" he asks the fox.

"To protect the sheep," answers the fox.

"The fox lies!" cries the wolf, "He only wants to eat all of the sheep, like me!"

"Maybe, maybe not," the fox says with a grin, "But the wolf will DEFINITELY eat all of your sheep."

"At least I'm honest about it," growls the wolf, "Do you think the fox will leave you any scraps?"

The story always ends a little bit differently.

Sometimes the shepherd chooses the wolf, and sometimes he gets scraps.

Sometimes the shepherd chooses the fox, and sometims he gets scraps.

Sometimes a crafty shepherd finds a way to trick the fox or the wolf into leaving a few of the sheep. Sometimes a VERY crafty shepherd tricks them into leaving most of the sheep.

And sometimes, just sometimes, the sheep gather together and kill the fox, the wolf, and sometimes the shepherd too. And that story has a whole mess of other endings.

Okay I'm pretty sure I've condensed the situation down into a short and to-the-point message which colors everything in perfect black and white now.

Büge · « **Reply #596 on:** February 03, 2012, 08:08:40 PM »

Yay! A story!

Mongrel · « **Reply #597 on:** February 03, 2012, 08:36:44 PM »

Take a look!

It's in a book!

Brentai's rain-bowww!

Büge · « **Reply #598 on:** February 04, 2012, 06:59:53 AM »

Anonymous uncovers Ron Paul's connections to Neo-Nazi party

Shinra · « **Reply #599 on:** February 04, 2012, 07:59:51 AM »

Ron Paul...?

A racist?!

No!

News:

Author Topic: 2012: The Mayans Warned Us Of Stupid Elections (Read 88567 times)